Australian Test Selection Thread 2017 - 2018

[Gnske]

Because?

Batting probably, that's where I'd agree with TJB.

 

[NUFAN]

Might be a god idea to get Carey in the odi team to get some exposure to internationals.

Nah not yet IMO. Needs a full Matador and BBL campaign first and I mean actually playing not sitting on the sidelines like this year.

I do realize his keeping is quality though and noticed Hartley gave him lots of praise which definitely counts for something.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It makes sense if you see my point was Nevill wasn't under performing. As stated above, 2 tests before Nevill had made 60*. The top six was malfunctioning and he was being made to come in and bat in situations that didn't suit him at all. And then he was dropped for a guy who is a lesser keeper and has a lower FC batting average.

It remains a fact that Nevill has a better career FC average than all of Callum Ferguson, Shaun Marsh, Mitch Marsh and Matthew Wade. I'm not suggesting for a moment that he is necessarily a better batsman than any of them, but he has proven over time an ability to make runs at FC level, and shouldn't have been dropped for lack of run output at the stage he was.

So you should keep a failing part because other parts are failing worse? Why is this logic being perpetuated?

No doubt Mitch Marsh shouldn't have been there. The perfect decision may have been to drop both. But that doesn't mean that the decision to drop Nevill and keep Marsh was worse than if they had just kept both. Absolute nonsense.

It's also plainly wrong to say that he wasn't underperforming; he clearly was not performing to the level they wanted from their keeper. Averaging low-20s was not good enough. His First-class record is almost irrelevant in this case, as I said earlier, he may have proved to be a player who struggles to take that step up. It's not unusual to have 2 players with similar domestic stats to have very different results in international cricket.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

His overall record wasn't good, I think he batted well at times though - honestly overall his performance with the bat was kinda like Wade in this most recent tour of India. Record doesn't look great, actual performance was a little better than that, seemed to be a touch unlucky with not getting a bat in some situations where he might have made easy runs and running out of partners when he was going well, etc. Plus, like I said, not scoring fast enough for a number 7. It's all fairly moot anyway as dropping him was justifiable. I wouldn't have done it, but it certainly makes sense, he didn't do enough with the chances he got. Most importantly I think if he'd been able to really fill his boots once and make a hundred he'd have been fine for some time. He just never managed to cash in when runs were easy, didn't set himself apart in any particular situation, like say doing well in Sri Lanka... just no strong reason to keep him in the side. And unless Wade gets injured I don't see him getting another go soon, aside from maybe just having a totally dominant Shield season.

 

[Tangles]

What's annoying is Wade did little to earn the recall and like a Watson/Marsh will have to do very little to keep it.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I was firmly against the Nevill dropping but I can see why people for it. The main problem I had with it is that Wade just didn't deserve the call up and is just not very good in general.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I was firmly against the Nevill dropping but I can see why people for it. The main problem I had with it is that Wade just didn't deserve the call up and is just not very good in general.

It's a difficult situation. You have a player who is under-performing and you're under pressure to drop them as a result, even if you genuinely don't think there are other better options.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I think Hartley would've probably been a better short-term option but I would've just stuck with Nevill through India.

 

[Red]

It's a difficult situation. You have a player who is under-performing and you're under pressure to drop them as a result, even if you genuinely don't think there are other better options.

Thad what's illogical though. You don't drop someone and replace them with someone worse.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Thad what's illogical though. You don't drop someone and replace them with someone worse.

Of course it's illogical, yet it happens in life all the time. That's exactly the point I'm making, and why it's a tough situation.

 

[Red]

Of course it's illogical, yet it happens in life all the time. That's exactly the point I'm making, and why it's a tough situation.

I get your point and I'm not really arguing with you.

It's just stupid though. I mean, everyone acknowledged that Nev was a superior keeper to Wade.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I get your point and I'm not really arguing with you.

It's just stupid though. I mean, everyone acknowledged that Nev was a superior keeper to Wade.

Yeah I don't think the selection was made based on keeping ability, which is potentially an issue in itself

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Select the Test team on meme potential only.

 

[Tangles]

Yeah I don't think the selection was made based on keeping ability, which is potentially an issue in itself

Keeping isn't a factor. They have shown by the selection of Wade and the constant comments that he's better than he was and better than the minimal level required. Which is an insult to those who have previously held the role who could keep. Gilly was a top keeper batting aside.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Keeping isn't a factor. They have shown by the selection of Wade and the constant comments that he's better than he was and better than the minimal level required. Which is an insult to those who have previously held the role who could keep. Gilly was a top keeper batting aside.

Keeping has been on the slide at the top level for a long time, Gilchrist included, however he was better than most going around the international scene currently.
On the whole though, it's such a benefit being able to rely on your keeper for a few gutsy runs. The goal for a long time was to find someone the likes of Knott, now the goal is Gilly. I think if you choose to go one way or the other you'll end up at about the same point with extra dismissals the better keepers will get your team.

 

[jimmy101]

To be honest, even Ian Healy, indirectly, had a hand in generating a shift in mentality with the selectors. For the first time in a while the team had a 'keeper who was genuinely the best in the country and he could average in the high 20's with the bat. Heals was exceptional when it came to batting with the tail and produced numerous match-winning knocks throughout his career. A few years later Gilly came along and placed even more emphasis on the role of a linchpin No.7. If Gilly wasn't around post-Heals, the gloves would have been probably passed down to Wade Seccombe, a 'keeper, not a 'keeper-batsman. But Seccombe probably would have been dropped much in the same vein as Nevill.

The game has changed.

 

[Compton]

I don't necessarily have a problem with batting being a big factor in the selection.

I have a problem that Matthew Wade done **** all to deserve his selection.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Neville deserved to be dropped, Wade didn't deserve the position either though. Most keepers around the country can hold the bat well enough currently and Neville is not clearly ahead as the best gloveman.

 

[Tangles]

Dropping Nev for a different shield keeper would have been one thing. But they went back to a guy they dropped previously because he was ****. It was a backwards move. Now with Hartley gone if the young guys are not ready we are stuck with him.

 

[Red]

Still reckon that if they'd persisted with Nevill he'd have had similar output with the bat to Healy. Average 30ish, gutsy tons when needed.

I mean, the guy could've benefited from being able to be the support to the top order a few times, let's be honest.