Pretty much what I would go for too, fitness permitting. Half a chance Jhye Richardson could find his way into the starting XI, but for now I would stick with the same attack that was so effective against England last timeExact winner gets all the glory.
Warner
Burns
Khawaja
Smith
Head
Patterson
Paine *+
Cummins
Starc
Lyon
Hazelwood
It basically picks itself doesn't it?Exact winner gets all the glory.
Warner
Burns
Khawaja
Smith
Head
Patterson
Paine *+
Cummins
Starc
Lyon
Hazelwood
Guess the contentious ones might be Smith and Warner returning, Warner in particular. Would have been more questions over Starc if he hadn't bagged some poles in that last test. Also could argue Hazelwood vs Richardson to some extent.It basically picks itself doesn't it?
Stahp plz.Head made some runs last test I think there's still some valid questions about his technique long term.
Yeah it’s a more obvious XI but it’s also a more obviously **** one in English conditions.So weird how England are favourites and we haven't a clue what their batting order is going to look like or who the third seamer is going to be, meanwhile Australia has a much more obvious XI yet most here would say they'll probably lose.
Burns and Pope are Australian players. But why you'd want to bat a leg spinner at number 3 is beyond me.I'd go with Red Hill as far as the convicts line up. As for the series winners I will go with.
Burns
Roy
Pope
Root
Buttler
Stokes
Bairstow
Moeen
Archer
Broad
Anderson
I haven't really noticed any articles really? Unless you're looking at stuff like The Roar which shouldn't count.Seeing more and more sanctimonious articles and comments about why Smith and Warner shouldn't be picked popping up over the interwebz. Just stfu.
Pretty sure there was an England v SA test with Alastair and Stephen Cook.Burns and Pope are Australian players. But why you'd want to bat a leg spinner at number 3 is beyond me.
All jokes aside, is this the first time that two opening batsmen from different sides share the same name?