Australia A tour of South Africa and Zimbabwe

[Prince EWS]

If you really do rate Klinger then surely it's better for him to be in England captaining Gloucestershire as he is currently in case he ends up being needed than it would be for him to be in on this tour. Then there's the fact that he averaged 19 with the bat in the Shield last season.

 

[the big bambino]

Yeah I know but everyone had a rotten season it seems. I don't really rate Maxie (though I like him if that's not a contradiction) and wouldn't want to see him as an ashes understudy but would prefer him to Finch all things equal.

 

[Spikey]

Bailey and McDonald totally should be there though.

Although I guess with McDonald they might have decided doing the pre-season is more important (possibly the same with Silk..?)

 

[Spikey]

Maddinson seems to have some serious balls though as he appears to be taking on De Lange.

just playing his natural game......

 

[Dan]

just playing his natural game......

Last 10 balls faced:

1 . 6 1 1 6 4 4 2 W

 

[the big bambino]

Bad luck young bloke. It was thrilling watching your innings via cricinfo commentary though.

 

[NUFAN]

This would have been my A squad (Burns in, Ferguson out if Burns available).

1.Jordan Silk
2 Mark Cosgrove
3 Alex Doolan
4 Nic Maddinson
5 George Bailey (C)
6 Callum Ferguson
7 Tim Ludeman
8 Pat Cummins
9 Chadd Sayers
10 Josh Hazlewood
11 Fawad Ahmed

Reserves
Scott Henry
Peter Handscomb
Nathan Coulter-Nile
Ben Cutting

Maxwell and Henriques omitted since they have just played Tests very recently.

 

[social]

Maddinson to be criticized for not scoring a century

 

[91Jmay]

Bailey seems to never time a ball when he plays in the ODI's, is he a legitimate test prospect?

 

[Prince EWS]

Bailey and McDonald totally should be there though.

Although I guess with McDonald they might have decided doing the pre-season is more important (possibly the same with Silk..?)

Yeah Bailey not playing is the strange one but I don't really have as many issues with the selections on this tour as the rest of you seem to. Not all the spots in a A side have to be performance based - it's important that at least some of them are as it gives Shield cricket relevance and provides players with incentives and pathways, but we've seen that it's the case with Sayers getting picked. The results of A tours aren't important as such so it is an opportunity as a selection group to give some players who you think could translate their skills to international cricket but who haven't justified selection with their performances more chances to do that by developing, improving and getting some runs on the board. That's why Finch is playing, and although I certainly wouldn't have picked him, lack of Shield runs isn't really why; I don't even rate him in the formats he's meant to be good at.

 

[Dan]

Not all the spots in a A side have to be performance based [...] it is an opportunity as a selection group to give some players who you think could translate their skills to international cricket but who haven't justified selection with their performances more chances to do that by developing, improving and getting some runs on the board.

AWTA strongly. It's a development side, not a 2nd XI, though there obviously should be quite a bit of crossover between the two.

 

[social]

Sayers had a massive Shield season whilst Finch didn't and hasn't been a reliable bat in longer format for years - big difference

By picking Finch AND making him captain, the selectors are sending out a terrible message

 

[NUFAN]

Yeah Dan, but the basic requirement is that you have to be good enough to play for your state to get selected. Finch in the OD portion of the tour is perfectly fine. His selection is a pup11 style pick.

 

[Dan]

Yeah, Finch in FC cricket is a terrible selection. Only logic I can see behind it is they really, really rate him as a captain and want him doing that for some reason (ala Brearley, only tactically rubbish). Surely he wouldn't have played if Smith remained with the A side... I hope.

Apart from that though, I see no issues with who they've picked in the squad.

 

[NUFAN]

The Marsh boys are lucky. I get the feeling if their surname was Darsh they wouldn't be getting as many chances. Look at Mitch Marsh's record, he isn't capable of batting inside the top 6 at all. Both are short form players and MMarsh needs more performances to get gigs in this sort of Cricket.

 

[Burgey]

Bailey seems to never time a ball when he plays in the ODI's, is he a legitimate test prospect?

Not sure if serious.

 

[Dan]

Mitch Marsh is clearly there for development. He has the potential to be a very good player for Australia if he gets his head screwed on, so I take no issue with his selection.

 

[Spikey]

but that's my issue, he (imo) screwed up as soon as he was picked again by australia!

 

[91Jmay]

Not sure if serious.

He makes runs but never looks fluent, and is a 30 year old who averages 38. I'll ask again, is he actually a test prospect?

 

[social]

He makes runs but never looks fluent, and is a 30 year old who averages 38. I'll ask again, is he actually a test prospect?

Obviously not judging by his omission here

Having said that, his home ground is Bellerive so add another 5-10 runs onto his average