• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Road to the 2017-18 Ashes in Australia

adub

adub

International Captain
Spark said:
I do find the "soaking up balls" argument a little weak at Shield level tbh.
Click to expand...
Would never claim it to be decisive, but it's part of the consideration surely?

The thing with Renshaw from day 1 was he could look like poop playing and missing, but still survive. He'd just keep going not getting flustered until the runs came to him.

For once we picked a genuine Test prospect with no consideration of how he was lighting up the Big Bash. That was a good thing. But you've gotta give a really good prospect like that time. If you're not prepared to do that then don't pick him in the first place.

Mitchell ****ing Marsh took 19 tests to get dropped ffs. But they've punted a guy who has shown real Test quality after just 10.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
stephen said:
Thoroughly agree. Bancroft could have played 6 or 7. Renshaw should have been persisted with. Really disagree that the number 6 spot should even have been considered open. Maxi did enough to hold it for a couple of tests at least.

This kind of behavior is fine if you have Bevan and Love abs Di Venuto and Law all floating around the setup hammering 1k runs per season but we're picking Marsh on less that 250 runs. Might as well pick Doolan.
Click to expand...
This is fair. Maxwell can consider himself very unlucky.

He's had 3 stints at Test cricket, and every single match he's played has been on the subcontinent. Hasn't even got to play a single Test at home or even outside Asia. Quite extraordinary.

adub said:
Would never claim it to be decisive, but it's part of the consideration surely?

The thing with Renshaw from day 1 was he could look like poop playing and missing, but still survive. He'd just keep going not getting flustered until the runs came to him.

For once we picked a genuine Test prospect with no consideration of how he was lighting up the Big Bash. That was a good thing. But you've gotta give a really good prospect like that time. If you're not prepared to do that then don't pick him in the first place.

Mitchell ****ing Marsh took 19 tests to get dropped ffs. But they've punted a guy who has shown real Test quality after just 10.
Click to expand...
Yeah but that was a bull**** theory that only held up if he was lucky enough to stay in when he kept playing and missing.

When his luck dries up and he knicks out for low scores instead of playing and missing 40 times an innings then it sort of doesn't really work out . . .
 
Last edited:
Furball

Furball

Evil Scotsman
How many of Renshaw's play and misses are him actually playing and missing and how many of them are Renshaw withdrawing his bat inside the line of the ball?

One of the things that impressed me about him was his lack of chasing balls outside off.
 
S.Kennedy

S.Kennedy

International Vice-Captain
I thought the idea of a Warner-Renshaw partnership was a recreating the classic opening partnership pattern of a guy going at a high strike and a stodge merchant.
 
Compton

Compton

International Debutant
He may as well open.

Probably the best chance he’ll have to complete an innings before getting injured.
 
Gob

Gob

International Coach
Giving Bancroft the gloves and batting him at six would have given amazing batting depths which will provide the opportunity to play a proper seam bowling alrounder like Henriques at 7 which i think is quite necessary with this injury prone attack but hey that makes sense so nope
 
Gob

Gob

International Coach
And if they wanted a specialist batsman at six (which im not advocating ftr)why not Joof who is in amazing form or KPat both of whom are much younger than Shaun? Again makes too much sense i guess for Trevor
 
Last edited:
O

oblongballs

U19 Debutant
Australia's batting looks just as weak as one would expect, with England's not much better, so it is the bowlers that must decide it. Australia, even with a couple of injuries have the better line up.

An Aus XI I'd pick:

1. Warner
2. Marsh (who else can open?)
3. Khawaja (I guess he could switch places with Marsh)
4. Handscomb
5. Smith c
6. Bancroft
7. Paine wk
8. Starc
9. Lyon
10. Bird
11. Hazlewood

That is possibly the weakest Aus side for a test against a major nation in 20 years.

England might not fare better with the following looking the most likely -

1. Cook
2. Stoneman
3. Ballance
4. Root c
5. Malan/Vince
6. Bairstow wk
7. Ali
8. Woakes
9. Broad
10. Overton
11. Anderson

Barring playing 2 spinners or Stokes making a come back.
 
Compton

Compton

International Debutant
oblongballs said:
Australia's batting looks just as weak as one would expect, with England's not much better, so it is the bowlers that must decide it. Australia, even with a couple of injuries have the better line up.

An Aus XI I'd pick:

1. Warner
2. Marsh (who else can open?)
3. Khawaja (I guess he could switch places with Marsh)
4. Handscomb
5. Smith c
6. Bancroft
7. Paine wk
8. Starc
9. Lyon
10. Bird
11. Hazlewood

That is possibly the weakest Aus side for a test against a major nation in 20 years.
Click to expand...
It’s also not the side they’ll play.

1. Warner
2. Bancroft
3. Khawaja
4. Smith (c)
5. Handscomb
6. Marsh
7. Paine
8. Starc
9. Cummins
10. Lyon
11. Hazlewood
 
Gob

Gob

International Coach
oblongballs said:
Australia's batting looks just as weak as one would expect, with England's not much better, so it is the bowlers that must decide it. Australia, even with a couple of injuries have the better line up.

An Aus XI I'd pick:

1. Warner
2. Marsh (who else can open?)
3. Khawaja (I guess he could switch places with Marsh)
4. Handscomb
5. Smith c
6. Bancroft
7. Paine wk
8. Starc
9. Lyon
10. Bird
11. Hazlewood

That is possibly the weakest Aus side for a test against a major nation in 20 years.
Click to expand...
Lel no. They have two of the best bats in the world, Khawaja is a beast at home and Petes Hands are also good at batting. Then there is the pace attack and a brilliant spinner. Also Bancroft is a specialist opener fresh from a big double and will open.

Its a worse side than what they could field thanks to the 3 wise morons but lets not kid ourselves there were far worse Aust teams and they are still comfortably better than England especially in Australia
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
oblongballs said:
That is possibly the weakest Aus side for a test against a major nation in 20 years.
Click to expand...
wow no, not even close. If anything it's one of the stronger sides they've had since 2008 IMO

2009-2011ish was the weakest easily. Doherty, Beer, Krejza getting games, Hilfenhaus leading the bowling attack. Hauritz the main spinner for a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top