Australian test selection 2018/19

[aussie tragic]

Also Smarsh has 10 ducks and 10 fifties. Is there any other top 6 batsman that is even close to having more ducks than fifties...

 

[the big bambino]

Can forgive Syd Gregory considering the era.

 

[mr_mister]

Even perennial test choker Graeme Hick only scores 36.8% on this list. Marsh has to win this surely.


Also 11 ducks and 18 fifties. Marsh has to be winner for that category too.

 

[mr_mister]

Actually, Mark Ramprakash scored 12 ducks and 12 fifties. and only 2 tons compared to Marsh's 6, so you could say he was even worse.


Though his % of single digit scores is a fair bit lower, makes sense as he was the king of the 20 odd

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Darsh has gotten even worse this season. He's always been prone to a lot of single figure dismissals, but of bigger concern is that when he does get a start he hasn't gone on with it. That hasn't typically been a problem with him, now that it is perhaps it's finally time to draw a line in the sand and move on for good

 

[howardj]

Our best bat this series - Marcus Harris - was selected in the tried and true way, namely after putting together an impressive body of work over the past few Shield seasons.

Something in that, I reckon

Rather than picking guys like Head, Lambuschagne, MMarsh, Finch etc. and expecting them in Test cricket to exceed their otherwise modest FC averages.

 

[howardj]

Hard Hitting Henry

 

[the big bambino]

I get angry listening to people like Slater and reading people like Mark Waugh picking Marsh and then offering the limpest of justifications. Muh potential. Something something brilliant stroke play. Blah blah nervous starter. Even if you allow Marsh is inconsistent but brilliant, the fallacy is that type of player will improve the more chances they get. They don't. More often they just get worse and if anything become consistently bad. Marsh is 35 and is now just producing mediocrity interspersed with failure. Even if you aren't as harsh as some who considered him trash from the get go, you'd have to agree now that he is and its time he is ******ed outside in the company of two guys called Rocky and Mugsy. Hearing current coaches and selectors and former players pump his tyres is as maddening as being lied to your face by politicians. They know. You know. And they know you can't do anything about it.

Until the revolution.

Who's with me?

 

[the big bambino]

Our best bat this series - Marcus Harris - was selected in the tried and true way, namely after putting together an impressive body of work over the past few Shield seasons.

Something in that, I reckon

Rather than picking guys like Head, Lambuschagne, MMarsh, Finch etc. and expecting them in Test cricket to exceed their otherwise modest FC averages.

Trouble is S Marsh gets selected on the same basis. You need qualifiers and exclusions, such as Marsh's age and his track record of disappointing at international level, to blackball him as if his last name was Maxwell.

 

[Tangles]

35 yos don’t get better. This is known.

 

[Prince EWS]

Darsh has gotten even worse this season. He's always been prone to a lot of single figure dismissals, but of bigger concern is that when he does get a start he hasn't gone on with it. That hasn't typically been a problem with him, now that it is perhaps it's finally time to draw a line in the sand and move on for good

Yeah I was definitely of the opinion before this series that Australia didn't have the batting depth to leave out Shaun Marsh in a team already missing Smith and Warner -- not because of muh experience but just because I didn't think Australia actually had six better batsmen than him without those two. Averaging 35 by virtue of consecutive failures and the odd world class ton was worth it considering the competition IMO. But averaging 25 by virtue of consecutive failures and the odd 60 isn't.

I think Shaun Marsh of a couple of years ago would still be worth a place in this side, particularly for the next couple of Tests before Smith and Warner are back, but the current version isn't.

 

[howardj]

Trouble is S Marsh gets selected on the same basis. You need qualifiers and exclusions, such as Marsh's age and his track record of disappointing at international level, to blackball him as if his last name was Maxwell.

No, SMarsh gets picked because of his name

So does MMarsh

SMarsh does go back and perform at State level, however I don't think it would matter if he didn't

 

[the big bambino]

Tbf it was hard to argue against him if using the fc results are the gold standard. You couldve argued it’s time to move on but you would become almost like the anti Langer and behaving in the way you criticise in him.

 

[howardj]

Of course you need carve outs to the general rule of Shield performances - such as age, and a track record of failure at the higher level

However, as a general rule, good performance at Shield level is a good indicator

 

[howardj]

And it's why I didn't include SMarsh in my above list of names - because he does perform at Shield level

 

[howardj]

My Jolimont spies have confirmed to me that Australia's squad for the 1st Test against Sri Lanka at the Gabba on 24 January will be named this Wednesday 9 January

 

[aussie tragic]

Warne and Hussey also put out very similar XI's. Only differences is that Hussey had Head instead of Stoinis and Warne had Pattinson instead of Starc.

 

[howardj]

My Team for the Gabba against Sri Lanka

Harris
Burns
Usman
Wade
Head
Maxwell
Paine
Cummins
Tremain
Lyon
Hazlewood

12th Starc

 

[Red]

Our best bat this series - Marcus Harris - was selected in the tried and true way, namely after putting together an impressive body of work over the past few Shield seasons.

Something in that, I reckon

Rather than picking guys like Head, Lambuschagne, MMarsh, Finch etc. and expecting them in Test cricket to exceed their otherwise modest FC averages.

Problem with this is also that SMarsh dominated the Shield games he played this summer, almost 450 runs from 6 innings, average of 88.

SMarsh's selection at the start of the summer made perfect sense, and bizarrely it still does, largely because the cupboard is bare, although it also doesn't. Who can we expect to come into tests and do better than him? Perhaps Wade (although his test batting record hardly suggests it). Burns has played a few tests and averages about the same at that level as Marsh. Lehmann, Patterson, Pucovski? Who knows?

Darren Lehmann, Martin Love, Stuart Law, Brad Hodge et al must be turning in their proverbial graves that they didn't get the chance to play 40ish tests like Marsh has. yada yada

 

[Red]

Who's the best swing bowler in Australia?