Haze and Lyon need to be part of the squad. Im not against Pattinson being a part of the XI but not at the expense of either of those 2. Go in with one batter less.Yes it is my opinion, I think going in without Pattinson is really silly if he’s available. Whomever misses out is unlucky and no I would not pick someone on their batting if they’re a bowler, it is simply a bonus. Playing all 4 would be pretty crazy, perhaps that’s the correct thing to do. If you rely on your tail all the time then you have serious problems but if it is your strength and you win games because of it then there’s no problem. Cummins with the bat was a huge reason Aus did well last time.
I don't think Khawaja is going to be right for the first test. It's a bit of an issue for me to have four of your top five lefties in circumstances where it's line ball between your choices, yet at the same time I'd have Patterson over Labuschagne any old day, in which case it's five of six.I'd be tempted to play Burns over Harris, and if Khawaja doesn't make the first test then I suppose Paterson or Wade (if selected) comes in for him. I wonder if they would bat at three or TPC would move up. Interesting choice.My Aus XI for the first test would be:
Harris
Warner
Khawaja
Smith
Head
Labuschagne
Paine(c)(wk)
Pattinson
Cummins
Starc
Lyon
Funnily enough I think Harris will do reasonably in England, even if on raw stats you'd pick Burns. I think Harris will play late off the back foot nicely and hence play the moving ball well. I'm more worried for Head with the seam movement although I'm always reminded of his gutsy innings against Abbas in the UAE and I hope he proves me wrong. Labuschagne gets picked ahead of Patterson simply because of his huge form in England this season.
Only if you want to lose 4-0Haze and Lyon need to be part of the squad. Im not against Pattinson being a part of the XI but not at the expense of either of those 2. Go in with one batter less.
It's just absurd, isn't it?Yep, Burns made 133 to go with his 180 in his last test innings, but hey, why not put Harris who played 6 tests for HS of 79 and average of 32 in ahead of him
Not really if you're a deeper thinkerIt's just absurd, isn't it?
Harris has done it consistently in the Shield. Burns has done it a couple of times on nice decks against weak attacks (and with a lot of dropped chances). Going to take a bit more for me to convince me that Burns has really shown that he can succeed as an opener in Tests, long term. If we are getting a nice batting surface like Lord's 2015, I would back Burns. Otherwise I'd pick Bancroft, or if we really need to Harris. Drawback of Harris is that he's somewhat similar to Warner, even just both being lefthanders gives the opposition bowlers an easier time being consistent.You can't have watched Harris and thought he's a more convincing test player than Burns. It isn't possible. Has different but just as obvious technical issues, and also lacks the wherewithal to go on and make a big score once he's in, which is at least something Burns has shown he can do.
Harris out!
You literally said "don't look at stats" then turn around and rely on stats to yap up Harris. The kid is so mentally soft he makes Khawaja look like Allan Border ffs. There is nothing going on between the kid's ears, in a cricketing sense.Burns' test average of 40 is misleading, he's had a very easy run. Played 11 of his 16 matches at home on what have almost exclusively been roads. And 8 of those against NZ/WI/SL whose attacks left a lot to be desired. Even Burns' only overseas hundred was against a lacklustre NZ. This was all during the time period where Aus was making 3/500 declared every second innings, and Don Voges had his run.
You can't look at Burns' Test stats and think it's a good relative indicator to how he will perform in Tests in general, or compare it to Harris & Bancroft
not really yapping up Harris, just yapping down Burns. I've seen multiple people saying something along the lines of "Surely Burns should be the obvious choice, look at his average, hundred in his last game etc." which is pure ignorance regarding the circumstances of his runs.You literally said "don't look at stats" then turn around and rely on stats to yap up Harris. The kid is so mentally soft he makes Khawaja look like Allan Border ffs. There is nothing going on between the kid's ears, in a cricketing sense.
Also not sure what you mean by thisYou literally said "don't look at stats" then turn around and rely on stats to yap up Harris.
Pretty sure they did it last winter although that was more condition-related.The main thing I'm seeing here is someone suggesting an English XI without Broad.
I know he hasn't been bowling well but it does anyone think there's actually a genuine chance that he won't be picked, considering how hard cricket boards find it dropping long standing players?
Picked solely on the fact he has pace. Would imagine Archer replaces him for ashes fitness permitting.Stone?
Yeah lets pick a bloke who is going at 4s domestically, what could possibly go wrong
Of course he'll be picked, they don't have the balls to tell him he's been poor for 2 years. He gets in 'cause his name is Broad, not because he's been bowling well. I'm sure he'll make me eat it but as we stand now, there are better options.The main thing I'm seeing here is someone suggesting an English XI without Broad.
I know he hasn't been bowling well but it does anyone think there's actually a genuine chance that he won't be picked, considering how hard cricket boards find it dropping long standing players?
Yeah thought so, Stone is pretty rapid. From what I have seen he doesn't look test class, not very accurate and doesn't really swing it much, but I haven't seen enough to be confident on my opinionPicked solely on the fact he has pace. Would imagine Archer replaces him for ashes fitness permitting.