Australian test selection 2019-2020

[aussie tragic]

How many had Ponting played?

Not sure but: Pucovski should have 18 FC games before 1st test. Harvey had played 11, S. Waugh 11, Langer 14 and Slater 16 before their test debuts.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

How many had Ponting played?

29. 2707 runs at 57.60. That's just the Shield, not sure how much other FC cricket he had played by then

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Not sure but: Pucovski should have 18 FC games before 1st test. Harvey had played 11, S. Waugh 11, Langer 14 and Slater 16 before their test debuts.

Waugh and Langer both were dropped at various stages, didn't truly establish themselves as Test regulars until later on though. Much later in Langer's case.

Can't really comment on Harvey as I don't know enough about his era

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not sure but: Pucovski should have 18 FC games before 1st test. Harvey had played 11, S. Waugh 11, Langer 14 and Slater 16 before their test debuts.

Be silly not to pick him then, really

 

[aussie tragic]

Can't really comment on Harvey as I don't know enough about his era

Harvey made 153 in his 2nd innings and scored 1033 runs @ 103.30 in his first 10 tests, with 6 hundreds and 2 fifties. This with only 11 FC games to his name.

Harvey was basically the first 'once in a generation batsman' after Bradman (so cool that they passed the batton in the 1948 invincibles series)

 

[mr_mister]

Waugh and Langer both were dropped at various stages, didn't truly establish themselves as Test regulars until later on though. Much later in Langer's case.

Can't really comment on Harvey as I don't know enough about his era

Langer became fully established in '01 and Waugh maybe '93? Waugh had a great '89 but got dropped in '90 and didn't get another ton til '93

Langer had a great 98-00, 7 tons in that time but got dropped before the '01 ashes of course. Then 4 tons in his next 5 tests upon recall for the rest of that year

Both 8 years after their debuts were these 'fully established' years

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Harvey made 153 in his 2nd innings and scored 1033 runs @ 103.30 in his first 10 tests, with 6 hundreds and 2 fifties. This with only 11 FC games to his name.

Harvey was basically the first 'once in a generation batsman' after Bradman (so cool that they passed the batton in the 1948 invincibles series)

That I did know. What I don't know is what sort of depth Australia had with batting in that era?

Either way not very relevant to Pucovski. Don't get me wrong, plenty of promise there, but people here (especially yourself) are really expecting far too much of him too soon

 

[aussie tragic]

That I did know. What I don't know is what sort of depth Australia had with batting in that era?

Well Harvey debuted with a top 5 of Barnes, Morris, Bradman, Hassett and Miller.

So Australia may currently have a slightly weaker top 6

 

[mr_mister]

Yeah, with Bill Brown the one missing out

We were spoilt for choice back then

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Well Harvey debuted with a top 5 of Barnes, Morris, Bradman, Hassett and Miller.

So Australia may currently have a slightly weaker top 6

I meant more in terms of domestic cricket really. That Australian side was absolutely brilliant, don't have to be an expert on that era to know that.

The massive difference in cricket from then to now still makes the comparison of Harvey and Pucovski irrelevant though

 

[TheJediBrah]

That I did know. What I don't know is what sort of depth Australia had with batting in that era?

Either way not very relevant to Pucovski. Don't get me wrong, plenty of promise there, but people here (especially yourself) are really expecting far too much of him too soon

What are they expecting that is too much? To bat at no.6 and average more than 25? Doesn't seem like a lot tbh

I meant more in terms of domestic cricket really. That Australian side was absolutely brilliant, don't have to be an expert on that era to know that.

The massive difference in cricket from then to now still makes the comparison of Harvey and Pucovski irrelevant though

Who actually compared them as players?

 

[GoodAreasShane]

What are they expecting that is too much? To bat at no.6 and average more than 25? Doesn't seem like a lot tbh

I am talking about comments like "next big thing" "once in a generation talent" and "future ATG". That sort of gushing hype is the absolute last thing he needs.

Patience, please

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I don't follow Australian selection that closely aside from the Ashes. But if you have Cummins, Starc and Hazlewood available and you pick them once in five Tests it's hard to fathom. I guess you can't argue with results.

 

[aussie tragic]

I am talking about comments like "next big thing" "once in a generation talent" and "future ATG". That sort of gushing hype is the absolute last thing he needs.

Patience, please

Do you think he's going to read CW and have a panic attack from the weight of expectation?

Ffs, it's fine to get excited about a huge talent...that's why people watch cricket and wishing someone is the next 'once in a generation player' adds to that excitement.

If he does well in first 4 shield games bring him in. If he averages 40 he would done much better than any number 6 Australia has had for awhile.

 

[Tangles]

Just saw that Marsh got a game with Harris and Wade retained. Langer and his WA or a good bloke policy.

 

[morgieb]

Just saw that Marsh got a game with Harris and Wade retained. Langer and his WA or a good bloke policy.

So...where does Wade fit into this?

 

[aussie tragic]

I thought leaving Burns and Patterson out of the Ashes squad was the worst selector stuff up for years...

...however picking Siddle with a fit Pattinson and Starc running drinks has to be one of the biggest blunders of Langers term as selector.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I thought leaving Burns and Patterson out of the Ashes squad was the worst selector stuff up for years...

...however picking Siddle with a fit Pattinson and Starc running drinks has to be one of the biggest blunders of Langers term as selector.

Ashes retained, he has got more right than wrong in fairness and the results speak for themselves. Wish our Aussie had such a success rate being so bad.

 

[stephen]

Ashes retained, he has got more right than wrong in fairness and the results speak for themselves. Wish our Aussie had such a success rate being so bad.

More right that wrong meaning picking Smith when he's available and shuffling the deckchairs around Cummins and Lyon, regardless of who deserved a spot and how good they were?

Labuschagne didn't play until Smith got injured. Warner's batting partner was woeful and they left the guy with a proven track record at home. They dropped a number 6 who had forced his way into the squad with consistent batting over a number of years for a guy who was in a bit of domestic form and left the proven guy at home. And then they did virtually the same thing with the number 5. They picked an attack two tests ago that rolled England for 67 And haven't picked the same attack again. They dropped a guy averaging 40 who has several gritty hundreds over the last few years but insist on keeping a guy who hasn't shown he is up to international standard as opener.

The list goes on and on. Australia have retained the Ashes despite selectorial blunder after selectorial blunder. The entire top 6 from the last home summer has been dropped at some point in this Ashes series. That's not consistency. It's not good selection and it's not long term thinking at all. It's compete rubbish.

 

[Red]

More right that wrong meaning picking Smith when he's available and shuffling the deckchairs around Cummins and Lyon, regardless of who deserved a spot and how good they were?

Labuschagne didn't play until Smith got injured. Warner's batting partner was woeful and they left the guy with a proven track record at home. They dropped a number 6 who had forced his way into the squad with consistent batting over a number of years for a guy who was in a bit of domestic form and left the proven guy at home. And then they did virtually the same thing with the number 5. They picked an attack two tests ago that rolled England for 67 And haven't picked the same attack again. They dropped a guy averaging 40 who has several gritty hundreds over the last few years but insist on keeping a guy who hasn't shown he is up to international standard as opener.

The list goes on and on. Australia have retained the Ashes despite selectorial blunder after selectorial blunder. The entire top 6 from the last home summer has been dropped at some point in this Ashes series. That's not consistency. It's not good selection and it's not long term thinking at all. It's compete rubbish.

Perhaps Smith's concussion was inadvertently fortuitous. Replaces Smith as the sub, scores 59, replaces Khawaja next test (who'd been poor) makes 3 consecutive 50s from then on.

Stabilised us a lot and at least gave Smith someone to bat with for a while.