Road to the 2019 Ashes

[GoodAreasShane]

I would definitely take Burns over Bancroft myself, not that am entirely convinced by either in English conditions. Patterson missing out is dumb, and I don't see the need for 6 fast bowling options

 

[TheJediBrah]

Could've fooled me with Burns' four centuries all coming in victories, while they guy who averages 38 on the flattest pitch in the country can't even score one.

Been over this pretty thoroughly earlier in the thread. Burns' Test stats are pure bull****. Played 11 of his 16 games at home, predominately on absolute roads against second-class bowling attacks. He's managed to miss almost all of Australia's tough tours & series in his time and get selected for the easy ones. His one hundred that wasn't on a home road against a semi-minnow was in NZ in similar conditions against a side that was barely putting up a fight. You can't look at Burns' Test stats and make an apt comparison with the likes of Bancroft or Harris.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Glad Siddle and Marsh are picked, both are no good and both will play a few games too.

 

[aussie tragic]

Yep Harris slow 30's with no hundreds is much better...Burns must have a 'reduce score by 80% chip' in your brain. Harris scored 11 when Burns scored his 180 ffs

 

[morgieb]

Glad Siddle and Marsh are picked, both are no good and both will play a few games too.

If Marsh actually gets picked I'll scream. Siddle's probably only 5th in line, but in fairness one of the few countries where he could succeed is England (it's where he last bowled well at Test level and his county record has been very good recently).

 

[stephen]

hehe

I really do feel for Burns though. As much as it probably was the right choice cricket-wise, not picking him at all for the squad after 180 in his most recent Test innings is pretty ****ed up. He should rightfully feel very hard done by

He's been abhorently treated by selectors but the biggest problem I have with it is the mentality that it's only short term form that matters and past test match performance means nothing.

Burns showed more intestinal fortitude in his one test than Harris did in six.

But if it was just Burns I could understand it based on form. But dropping Patterson is even worse. There was no reason at all to drop him. Utterly atrocious decision making at the top. Pure favouritism and reeks of a cancerous culture in Cricket Australia.

What a joke.

 

[Starfighter]

Been over this pretty thoroughly earlier in the thread. Burns' Test stats are pure bull****. Played 11 of his 16 games at home, predominately on absolute roads against second-class bowling attacks. He's managed to miss almost all of Australia's tough tours & series in his time and get selected for the easy ones. His one hundred that wasn't on a home road against a semi-minnow was in NZ in similar conditions against a side that was barely putting up a fight. You can't look at Burns' Test stats and make an apt comparison with the likes of Bancroft or Harris.

Yet your 'I barely watch cricket' judgement is better. He isn't the answer to our batting problems, but stop pretending that other similarly bad (or worse) guys are somehow definitely better.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Glad Siddle and Marsh are picked, both are no good and both will play a few games too.

If Siddle is crap, then what does that say about the quality of the County system then?

 

[stephen]

Been over this pretty thoroughly earlier in the thread. Burns' Test stats are pure bull****. Played 11 of his 16 games at home, predominately on absolute roads against second-class bowling attacks. He's managed to miss almost all of Australia's tough tours & series in his time and get selected for the easy ones. His one hundred that wasn't on a home road against a semi-minnow was in NZ in similar conditions against a side that was barely putting up a fight. You can't look at Burns' Test stats and make an apt comparison with the likes of Bancroft or Harris.

But Bancroft and Harris have had an even easier run. Bancroft played at home against a toothless English side and scored no hundreds and only like two 50s. Harris played India and Sri Lanka at home and averaged in the 30s. Sure, India have Bumrah but Harris didn't succeed against Sri Lanka either. Worse still, Harris looked woeful against the short ball which is inexcusable for an opener.

 

[GotSpin]

Marsh getting picked and KP being dropped is awful

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yep Harris slow 30's with no hundreds is much better

Yes. The Indian attack last summer was excellent and Harris was pretty much our best player. I would rate a 30 average there higher than a 50 average in what Burns has played.

Yet your 'I barely watch cricket' judgement is better. He isn't the answer to our batting problems, but stop pretending that other similarly bad (or worse) guys are somehow definitely better.

I'll reiterate again what I've said a few times over the last few days. I don't think Harris or Bancroft are "definitely better". I'm not even sure they are better. The reason I'm being so harsh on Burns is in response to the plethora of ignorant pro-Burns sentiment that has been infesting the forum, which I can only assume has been initiated by a combination of Queenslanders getting behind a local boy and blokes looking purely at Test career stats and thinking it's decisive without any intelligent analysis of them.

I think Burns, Harris, Bancroft are all hard to separate at the moment. It's the "Burns is far superior" drivel that I'm countering more than anything.

But Bancroft and Harris have had an even easier run

That is unadulterated garbage

look at the Aus team scores when Harris/Bancroft played compared to when Burns did. Burns' run in the side perfectly coincided with some of the flattest pitches in Australian history, when 3/500 happened multiple times, and Don Voges occurred.

 

[Starfighter]

But if it was just Burns I could understand it based on form. But dropping Patterson is even worse. There was no reason at all to drop him. Utterly atrocious decision making at the top. Pure favouritism and reeks of a cancerous culture in Cricket Australia.

What a joke.

I almost feel like our selection has become a bit like Pakistan's in the later Lehmann and Langer eras. Patterson has a better first-class average than Head, Harris, Bancroft Marnus and Wade (despite a poor conversion rate) but it's clearly who you know that matters. I bet they would have picked Handscomb over him as well. That said, I don't expect more from that bunch of liars.

 

[aussie tragic]

If Burns, Harris and Bancroft are hard to separate, maybe the fact that Harris and Bancroft are Langer's boys might provide the answer. I don't recall either of them scoring 180 or 4 test centuries...

 

[GoodAreasShane]

I would have Harris and Burns about on par, Harris was quite good against a decent Indian attack in a series where we were largely getting smashed but then failed to take advantage against a more modest Sri Lankan team. Burns did make that real nice 180 but not much either side of that, domestically Harris was much better.

Bancroft a level below imo, his problems with the inswinger last Ashes don't fill me with any faith

 

[Starfighter]

If Burns, Harris and Bancroft are hard to separate, maybe the fact that Harris and Bancroft are Langer's boys might provide the answer. I don't recall either of them scoring 180 or 4 test centuries...

But muh flat pitches. And nothing about the fact Harris could be presented with a pitch made from a literal billiard table and still cut straight to point.

 

[trundler]

To not have Burns in the squad at all is a ****ing joke.

 

[aussie tragic]

^you do remember Burns was diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome right so any runs were a bonus?

 

[stephen]

Remember when Langer messed with Renshaw's career by talking him down after a couple of shield failures and talking up Bancroft. Then remember when he messed with his head again after dropping him because he missed a practice match due to concussion?

Langer plays favourites more than anyone I've seen. It's hideous and this current round of selections has his fingerprints all over it. Burns out for Bancroft but Harris remains. Marsh and Labaschagne in based on a bit of county form. It's a joke and he shouldn't be on the selection panel.

 

[morgieb]

The main advantage that Bancroft has over Harris and Burns is that he looks more solid, but against England at home (where they were toothless) he struggled. And his Shield performances were much worse than Harris's. Should be 4th in line and Burns can feel rightfully pissed off.

It's like they set up certain batsman to fail. What did Patterson do wrong to get dropped?

 

[stephen]

The main advantage that Bancroft has over Harris and Burns is that he looks more solid, but against England at home (where they were toothless) he struggled. And his Shield performances were much worse than Harris's. Should be 4th in line and Burns can feel rightfully pissed off.

It's like they set up certain batsman to fail. What did Patterson do wrong to get dropped?

He's not from Western Australia and he's not one of Langer's favourites. Automatically makes him drop worthy.