1st Test, Edgbaston, Birmingham

[Spintolose]

Yes, the team you’ve selected is **** and unbalanced and playing people out of position.

You mean like Root at 3? ?

Also who is **** as compared to who you would pick? And why is it unbalanced?

 

[Burgey]

I approve of Pattinson being a lock.

Not because it's an absolutely, objectively good idea, but James Pattinson is just so much more fun. Plus, he had a pretty miserable time in England last time so it'd be nice to see him have a proper run at it.

Yeah he's had no luck in England, or at all really. And he's just ****ing box office. Can't wait.

 

[FBU]

With the news on Root and Pattinson maybe these sides will be picked.

England: 1. Burns 2. Roy 3. Root 4. Denly 5. Buttler 6. Stokes 7. Bairstow 8. Moeen 9. Woakes 10. Broad 11. Anderson. It is the least crap batting side England can field imo, though with Root a reluctant 3 you'd wonder if the top 4 can score enough runs and occupy enough time to give their lower order a chance to score runs. They could risk Archer but maybe not with a returning Anderson. Broad bowled well in the 2nd innings v Ireland so keeps a spot. Would like to find a place for Curran but he'd come in for either one of Denly, Moeen, Woakes or Broad and can't make a better argument for selecting him over any of them.

Australia: 1. Warner 2. Bancroft 3. Usman 4. Smith 5. Head 6. Wade 7. Paine 8. Pattinson 9. Cummins 10. Starc 11. Lyon. Starc is vulnerable now that Pattinson has barged his way back in but is lucky that Haze isn't bowling well, though Siddle might beat them both. No.6 could be a bits and pieces player like Marsh or Marnus, especially if the selectors are worried about Pattinson. In that case I'd have Marnus over Marsh. But you'd have to gamble on England not being able to keep our bowlers in the field for long so I'd go past both and pick Wade.

Mail
'England will leave until Wednesday the decision on whether to go with the proven Ashes pedigree of Broad or include Curran at his expense'.

That would be mad. Broad is our best Ashes bowler. If runs are needed leave out Burns and add Curran.

 

[howardj]

The weather forecast is actually quite good

Set fair, if you will

 

[aussie tragic]

Reading that Bancroft is firming as opener. His cheating must have effected me more than I thought as I really don't want to watch him play.

 

[howardj]

Langer's also firming at that prospect

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm firming at all the butthurt Aussie Burns fans

 

[howardj]

It's high farce, his non-selection

 

[stephen]

Reading that Bancroft is firming as opener. His cheating must have effected me more than I thought as I really don't want to watch him play.

Yeah I mostly don't want to see him play again because of the cheating.

Warner might have been the ring leader and Smith complicit, but Bancroft did the deed and then lied about it. That leaves a more sour taste in my mouth than the conspiracy itself. I'd rather see Harris get the spot (and he's not exactly been my favourite player).

There's just something about Bancroft's demeanour and the way he carries himself that rubs me the wrong way - a bit like Warner.

 

[stephen]

It's high farce, his non-selection

His and Patterson's. Neither deserved to be dropped from the squad at the very least.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Patterson's non-selection was way worse than Burns. Patterson should be in the XI.

 

[howardj]

Patterson's non-selection was way worse than Burns. Patterson should be in the XI.

What? No way

 

[GoodAreasShane]

I would definitely have rathered Patterson at 6 in this team over any of the actual options we have, his non selection probably the worst call in the squad.

Anyone but MMarsh I reckon. This seam bowling allrounder obsession is dumb, picking someone who clearly can't hack it with the bat just because they can chip in handy overs is just flawed logic imo

 

[TheJediBrah]

What? No way

Burns shouldn't really be ahead of Harris and Bancroft anyway. They're all about the same level. I'm not going to go over the details again, it's been done a few times here already over the last week, but suffice it to say that comparing their Test records is highly dubious.

I think Burns 180 in his last innings is what will confuse people as to why he wasn't selected. And it's a fair question to ask because dropping someone after making 180 in the last test will definitely raise eyebrows. But purely from a cricketing perspective, and selecting the best team for now and the future perspective, Patterson being left out was the bigger blow. He should become (and already is really) a better player than Burns ever will, or was.

 

[Burgey]

KPat really is one of the few genuinely proper future test prospects in the FC scene in Australia atm.

 

[aussie tragic]

This test is set to have the following Aussie incumbents missing (with their last performance)

Burns (180, 14)
Harris (11, 9)
Labuschagne (6, 4)
Patterson (114*, dnb)
Starc (5-54, 5-46)
Richardson (0-49, 1-29)

Other than WSC, has Australia ever changed 6 players between tests?
Has Australia ever dropped 2 centurions and a 10fer bowler from the same test?
Will Head (161, 59*) receive the same fate?

 

[Starfighter]

I'm surprised that they seem to be going for Haze over Starc considering the latter having some sort of form recently and the former not.

 

[aussie tragic]

^Word is that Siddle will be picked as 3rd seamer

 

[TheJediBrah]

Has Australia ever dropped 2 centurions and a 10fer bowler from the same test?

Incredible stat

^Word is that Siddle will be picked as 3rd seamer

Dropping Haze and Starc would be too funny, I hope it happens

 

[Burgey]

This test is set to have the following Aussie incumbents missing (with their last performance)

Burns (180, 14)
Harris (11, 9)
Labuschagne (6, 4)
Patterson (114*, dnb)
Starc (5-54, 5-46)
Richardson (0-49, 1-29)

Other than WSC, has Australia ever changed 6 players between tests?
Has Australia ever dropped 2 centurions and a 10fer bowler from the same test?
Will Head (161, 59*) receive the same fate?

Possibly mid-80s when the scumbag tours to SA were announced.