Good year last year, was well aware of that, but he got injured and hasn't showed the same sort of form since his return.
Aha! I'm actually still on the fence on Stone - I'm not convinced I would have picked him myself but he seems to have a knack for taking his wickets quickly and I believe a lot of them are 'good' wickets i.e. bowled, lbw, caught behind.
You're thinking of losing while Im thinking of ways for Australia to win. You went in with 6 batsmen...7 if you include Haddin in 2013 and still lost 3-0. Aus as well as go for the jugular by exploiting England's weakness.
This is a very good post and proves some of my ideas regarding Burns wrong. As I previously mentioned, I'd rather go with Bancroft too...I like his abilities to see off the new ball and offers something different to Warner. My concern with Harris is more his mental make up where I noticed him throwing away his wickets during the India series than his technique. I don't mind his technique, its his ability to focus for long innings after his initial graft that is the concern. With Burns, the 100 vs SL was on a road in Hobart vs Medium pacers...agreed there. Either way, this will be an interesting conundrum. Who would you slot in at 3 if Uzi isnt fit?
Yea Harris scored some tough runs against Bumrah and Co. Cannot be discounted. The value of runs isn't in its sheer numbers. You are dumbing it down. Circumstances, conditions and bowlers faced have to be taken into account. Your arguments would be massacred in baseball where advanced metrics are used.
AHH YES! do you think his mental make up has improved and was reflected in that innings....or was it just him surviving that earlier period?
The gist of the argument I'm thinking of is reflected in that innings, where Harris cut the ball straight to point. The fact is Burns may be technically weak but he can go on and get a big innings. Harris can be relied on to throw it away (by being loose outside off) practically every single time.
agreed
Harris definitely has his issues, but he's shown in the Shield that he can really buckle down and bat for long periods. His immense 250* last season was against a much better attack than Burns' 180 against SL. Neither are perfect options but Harris has a higher ceiling and more likely to do well in the Ashes IMO.
I know you're not associating the two together necessarily, but having a higher ceiling and being more likely to perform well in the ashes are two seperate things. I wouldn't select someone based on a higher ceiling but simply on their ability to tackle a bowling attack in those conditions. I'm sure selectors also look at consistent patterns or lack thereof in mindset. Anyways time will tell.
Yeah I'm aware of that I think Harris has both a higher ceiling, and is (slightly) more likely to do well in the Ashes. More than anything though I was just pointing out why looking at "Burns Average 40" and "Harris Average 30" is not a valid comparison.
Wait, is that confirmed? Was never confident that Wood would make it tbh, nor was he really close to being in the starting XI, but Archer out could be significant
I do not think it has been totally confirmed but Wood is supposedly out for 6 weeks so has no chance of playing the first test. Archer is less certain but seeing he went home to Barbados(?) and is not due back until right before the first test it seems like he will miss it as well. Still Anderson, Broad, Woakes and Stokes is a fine bowling attack.
Wood would be ready for the 4th Test.
correct