Australian test selection 2018/19

[the big bambino]

And Harris getting picked.

 

[Spikey]

one can't argue with marcus harris' three mid 20 scores and a 50

 

[the big bambino]

Or be too churlish. Anyway I don't know what other guide you could use.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think Shield performances are (or should be, at least) extremely important, but I tend to view it in a bit more of a long-term way than merely Shield "form", especially for batsmen. Batting is really high variance so I don't think whoever has scored runs in the past month or however else people define form is really a great guide when compared to more medium-term analysis of the past two or three seasons. Even if you did pick someone with a hot hand and it worked for a Test or two, if he wasn't actually the best player available you'd end up saddled with an underperforming player down the line for a few Tests after the hot hand cooled down. The idea that spots being up for grabs meant practically anyone good enough to be selected in the Shield was a chance of nabbing a spot if they hit a couple of tons sells papers but it shouldn't actually be true, and I cringed whenever Doolan's name was mentioned for that reason.

Bowling is a bit different, especially if you're actually watching the bowling rather than just reading scorecards, but the nature of batting means I don't tend to put much more weight on what's happened in the past three games than I do on what happened last season, especially when it's at a lower level, at least if there's not some explanation for the change in fortunes to back up the raw numbers (eg. Player A is struggling because bowlers have zeroed on on Weakness Z, or Player B has improved because he's ironed out Weakness Y).

 

[Spikey]

i would hope selectors who have a mountain of stats over a long period of time, and loads of video footage at their disposal, as well as live experience watching these guys, would be able to just identify who they think the best option is without relying on a couple of matches which could be blue moons. (with that said, nick larkin has been robbed of a boxing day debut)

on the subject of Handscomb's technique, although his shield record isn't too impressive, I don't think really think Victoria's coaches should be expected to sit him down and tell him to change it. The results with them have been fine and it's a decision for Handscomb to make. We seem to not usually like it when coaches fiddle with players' techniques or methods but Handscomb has now crossed the line...? It's a decision for him to make

 

[Spikey]

never 4get steve smith was like 18 months without a ton when he got recalled to the test squad

(he had scored a bunch of 50's, and his previous conversion rate suggested this patch was an oddity as his career has now proven, but "shield form" he did not have)

 

[stephen]

For Steve Smith it was getting dropped from the one day raise for no reason that really kickstarted his purple patch. He went ballistic after that and scored non stop runs for the next 5 years until Warner and Bancroft's idiocy brought him down.

 

[Pup Clarke]

One thing where I think Australia missed a trick was not to replace Hussey with a like-for-like player in terms of experience. Bailey was the incumbent for the 13/14 Ashes, but from then onwards it would have been the ideal time to slot in Klinger and debut Ferguson

 

[Prince EWS]

One thing where I think Australia missed a trick was not to replace Hussey with a like-for-like player in terms of experience. Bailey was the incumbent for the 13/14 Ashes, but from then onwards it would have been the ideal time to slot in Klinger and debut Ferguson

Bailey's replacement was Marsh, and they did the Voges thing in 2015-2016. When Voges retired his replacement was very temporarily Maddinson but then quickly Marsh (again). So I think they've kind of tried to do exactly that when you consider the experience Bailey, Voges and Marsh possessed, it's just that Bailey was dire and Marsh has something close to the opposite of a stabilising experience effect on a side.

 

[TheJediBrah]

i would hope selectors who have a mountain of stats over a long period of time, and loads of video footage at their disposal, as well as live experience watching these guys, would be able to just identify who they think the best option is without relying on a couple of matches which could be blue moons. (with that said, nick larkin has been robbed of a boxing day debut)

on the subject of Handscomb's technique, although his shield record isn't too impressive, I don't think really think Victoria's coaches should be expected to sit him down and tell him to change it. The results with them have been fine and it's a decision for Handscomb to make. We seem to not usually like it when coaches fiddle with players' techniques or methods but Handscomb has now crossed the line...? It's a decision for him to make

Handscomb's technique is a bit of a meme. It's worked for him and would probably continue to work for him if he was in better touch. Fact of the matter is he's just underperformed, played some bad shots, possibly a bit out of form but because he's got a different technique then it must be the techniques fault . . .

 

[the big bambino]

I think Shield performances are (or should be, at least) extremely important, but I tend to view it in a bit more of a long-term way than merely Shield "form", especially for batsmen. Batting is really high variance so I don't think whoever has scored runs in the past month or however else people define form is really a great guide when compared to more medium-term analysis of the past two or three seasons. Even if you did pick someone with a hot hand and it worked for a Test or two, if he wasn't actually the best player available you'd end up saddled with an underperforming player down the line for a few Tests after the hot hand cooled down. The idea that spots being up for grabs meant practically anyone good enough to be selected in the Shield was a chance of nabbing a spot if they hit a couple of tons sells papers but it shouldn't actually be true, and I cringed whenever Doolan's name was mentioned for that reason.

Bowling is a bit different, especially if you're actually watching the bowling rather than just reading scorecards, but the nature of batting means I don't tend to put much more weight on what's happened in the past three games than I do on what happened last season, especially when it's at a lower level, at least if there's not some explanation for the change in fortunes to back up the raw numbers (eg. Player A is struggling because bowlers have zeroed on on Weakness Z, or Player B has improved because he's ironed out Weakness Y).

I'm not against picking guys on form displayed in different formats. The selectors obviously like Travis Head and he's played 42 ODIs. If he shows an ability to improve in that format against international sides then it should count towards test selection. The selectors probably like to introduce a promising player to international cricket via ODIs partly to assess his ability to play tests. I think Gilchrist went through that route to the test team from memory. But shield form is a traditional and still relevant guide. Even more so when its the only format being played when candidates for the test side are being assessed, and the team is unsettled when 3 actual or near certainties are serving bans.

Of the current side Cus Harris and Finch I think pass the medium term analysis you mention. Sometimes you don't have that luxury as when our batting imploded when SA last visited. From memory it was whomever scored runs in a shield round got a spot and Handscomb and Renshaw succeeded with runs, while Mad dog was picked on a hunch. Interestingly all 3 eventually failed with the hunch pick lasting the shortest. It'll be interesting to see how well Harris and Finch track, with their 2 seasons of runs, as opposed to Renshaw and Handscomb from the time they were picked. But if I was to rate formats for test selection it'd be ODIs and the Shield equally. Little or no emphasis on List A or T20s otherwise you'd go the full Warney and pick blokes like Darcy Short in the team.

 

[Ahmad Zahir]

I like Finch. I think he should become the captain of Australia team.

 

[stephen]

What will Australia's top 6 look like for the Ashes next year?

Warner
Harris
Khawaja
Smith
Finch
Head

Is my pick at this stage.

 

[aussie tragic]

My top 6 for the ashes

Renshaw
Harris
Khawaja
Smith
Head
Stoinis

I don't think Warner will slot back in and Renshaw will come good (averaged 51 in county cricket earlier this year), while Stoinis has to replace Mmarsh at some point. I don't rate Finch with a moving ball in England.

 

[Red]

I'd like to see (for the Ashes):

Harris
Khawaja
Smith
Burns
Patterson
Head
Paine +
Cummins
Starc
Lyon
Hazelwood

 

[Red]

(assuming Warner doesn't return, if he does he can replace either Harris or Patterson and the order can be shuffled appropriately)

 

[Burgey]

Jeez its a big call leaving Warner out when you look at the alternatives. I know there are other factors at play, but he’s the second batsman (and first opener) picked on ability. By a mile.

 

[aussie tragic]

Warner doesn't meet the new selection criteria of being a 'good bloke'

Being serious though, how hard will it be for Smith and Warner to just pick up where they left after a year without any top level cricket before the Ashes

 

[Tom Flint]

I think they will be fine unfortunately

 

[Gnske]

Handscomb's technique is a bit of a meme. It's worked for him and would probably continue to work for him if he was in better touch. Fact of the matter is he's just underperformed, played some bad shots, possibly a bit out of form but because he's got a different technique then it must be the techniques fault . . .

What if dare I say it, there is a link between these?

Going mad with the pox.