Australian Domestic Season 2019/20

[social]

Usman is done

 

[stephen]

Langer I don't think likes him so yeah, he's done.

 

[GotSpin]

To be fair his point should be raised right now - Not a good look though in current circumstances

 

[Burgey]

yeah harris should never have gone over in the first place... harris is an awful test batsman full stop and in england was always going to fail there on account of the swinging ball

And with his dropped couple of catches, one of which cost the third test, he actually had a quantifiable negative impact on the series. Fair effort.

 

[stephen]

This "can't be dropped after one test" thing really should be dropped as an idea. If you're not good enough, you're not good enough. Frankly Harris should have never been picked after the previous home summer. And Victorian cricket need to start producing some more testing wickets for their batsmen to bat on because there's no way Harris is of the same quality as some other opening batsmen around the country (Hughes, Burns and even Bancroft).

 

[morgieb]

In fairness to Harris he actually did pretty well in the home summer. Didn't kick on with any of his starts and missed out in the one Test where he could've dominated but it wasn't like he was completely dogshit in his Test pre-England.

Don't want to see him again for a while though.

 

[stephen]

In fairness to Harris he actually did pretty well in the home summer. Didn't kick on with any of his starts and missed out in the one Test where he could've dominated but it wasn't like he was completely dogshit in his Test pre-England.

Don't want to see him again for a while though.

He was infuriatingly bad against the short ball though. That's really not excusable in an Australian opener.

 

[Spikey]

This "can't be dropped after one test" thing really should be dropped as an idea. If you're not good enough, you're not good enough. Frankly Harris should have never been picked after the previous home summer. And Victorian cricket need to start producing some more testing wickets for their batsmen to bat on because there's no way Harris is of the same quality as some other opening batsmen around the country (Hughes, Burns and even Bancroft).

the flip side is you still hear some people some harshly Ferguson was treated, even though the selection never really made sense in the first place

 

[stephen]

the flip side is you still hear some people some harshly Ferguson was treated, even though the selection never really made sense in the first place

Yeah he was treated harshly and probably should have got more games if the selectors truly believed that he was in the top 6 batsmen in the country.

Selection should never be influenced by press conferences that involve Steve Smith.

Steve Smith press conferences have resulted in the dropping of:

Dave Warner
Joe Burns
Steve Smith
Cameron Bancroft
Callum Ferguson
Adam Voges
Peter Nevill

So far...

 

[Spikey]

On the surface it looks really bad but I'd be curious to know how essential all these positions are when you consider how bloated admin is in sporting organisations

the other thing is it kinds seems like they've picked a part of the organisation that CA would prefer funded, as opposed to Premier Cricket.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Jhye Richardson has had another operation in an attempt to rectify his ongoing shoulder issues.

Also I mentioned it elsewhere, but Henry Thornton is moving to Victoria, grade contract with St Kilda already signed from what I've heard

 

[Dan]

This "can't be dropped after one test" thing really should be dropped as an idea. If you're not good enough, you're not good enough. Frankly Harris should have never been picked after the previous home summer. And Victorian cricket need to start producing some more testing wickets for their batsmen to bat on because there's no way Harris is of the same quality as some other opening batsmen around the country (Hughes, Burns and even Bancroft).

Ehh, kinda disagree. Dropping a batsman after one Test is almost always dumb - unless they're a one-for-one replacement for an injury or something. The nature of batting being so high variance means that if failing in a single Test is enough to convince a selector that, actually they weren't cut out for Tests after all, they probably shouldn't have been picked in the first place.

the flip side is you still hear some people some harshly Ferguson was treated, even though the selection never really made sense in the first place

I mean, Ferguson either shouldn't have been picked in the first place or given at least the series imo. To me, the double-failure in that game shouldn't have been enough for the selectors to justifiably be in a position of saying "well last week we genuinely thought he was the best option, and now we genuinely think he isn't".

 

[Starfighter]

Jhye Richardson has had another operation in an attempt to rectify his ongoing shoulder issues.

Jeez, would be funny if that all that diving around the field in a meaningless match wrecked his career, wouldn't it?

 

[honestbharani]

Ehh, kinda disagree. Dropping a batsman after one Test is almost always dumb - unless they're a one-for-one replacement for an injury or something. The nature of batting being so high variance means that if failing in a single Test is enough to convince a selector that, actually they weren't cut out for Tests after all, they probably shouldn't have been picked in the first place.



I mean, Ferguson either shouldn't have been picked in the first place or given at least the series imo. To me, the double-failure in that game shouldn't have been enough for the selectors to justifiably be in a position of saying "well last week we genuinely thought he was the best option, and now we genuinely think he isn't".

Its not so much the dropping, per se... Coz the choice of the playing XI will involve mutiple factors but yes broadly, I do agree it will be silly to judge a batsman off just one test match. At least with a bowler, you get to see most of their tricks coz they do get a period of time to showcase their abilities.

 

[Prince EWS]

Ehh, kinda disagree. Dropping a batsman after one Test is almost always dumb - unless they're a one-for-one replacement for an injury or something. The nature of batting being so high variance means that if failing in a single Test is enough to convince a selector that, actually they weren't cut out for Tests after all, they probably shouldn't have been picked in the first place.

The only other scenarios I can think of in which I'd support a batsman being "dropped" after one Test would be:
1. Balance reasons - you decide to actually go with one less batsman to bolster the bowling/fielding/keeping/sledging/whatever
2. New selection panel - "why the **** did my predecessor pick this useless bastard?"
3. Horses for courses - you largely know you're going to drop him even before the match he plays, as he's only in due to pitch conditions

Failing those, it should really never ever happen. If you think a batsman is good enough then one Test shouldn't change your mind. Not thinking he's good enough in the first place is fine, which is a position we often come at it from as forumers, but be this the case the selectors wouldn't have picked the player in question. The dropping would suggest an actual fundamental change of opinion that shouldn't happen after one Test.

I mean, Ferguson either shouldn't have been picked in the first place or given at least the series imo. To me, the double-failure in that game shouldn't have been enough for the selectors to justifiably be in a position of saying "well last week we genuinely thought he was the best option, and now we genuinely think he isn't".

This is especially true given he got run out once IMO.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The Ferguson case isn't that simple. There were other factors, primarily the pressure on the side (and selectors) after such an embarrassing loss and poor batting performance, which prompted them to change as much of the batting order as they could justify (bringing in Renshaw, Handscomb, Maddinson and Wade I think?). He shouldn't have been dropped though, just like Smith shouldn't have been banned for a year. It was an overreaction to a perceived disaster.

 

[stephen]

Ferguson was terribly treated, I'll grant you that. Selection policy should not be decided by a Steve Smith press conference.

I genuinely believe he shouldn't have been picked in the first place but he should never have been dropped after that test.

But my point is that you should always pick the best side and if you've made a mistake it's better to correct that sooner rather than later. Ideally the selectors would be more proactive about making the best choice in the first place.

 

[Dan]

The Ferguson case isn't that simple. There were other factors, primarily the pressure on the side (and selectors) after such an embarrassing loss and poor batting performance, which prompted them to change as much of the batting order as they could justify (bringing in Renshaw, Handscomb, Maddinson and Wade I think?). He shouldn't have been dropped though, just like Smith shouldn't have been banned for a year. It was an overreaction to a perceived disaster.

Yeah, no disagreement from me there.

I think that the selectors overcorrecting was amazingly dumb. I don't understand how the selectors could genuinely say that, prior to Hobart, Ferguson clearly > Handscomb and Maddinson but after Hobart Maddinson and Handscomb clearly > Ferguson. Even if you're not sure and it was a 50/50 gamble on which got first crack, surely that lasts longer than a single Test.

Either they should have picked Handscomb/Maddinson over Ferguson in the first place, or they should have acknowledged that one hilariously inept failure from the incumbents doesn't suddenly make the not-incumbents better batsmen and given Ferguson another Test or two (and then re-assessed if he couldn't make any runs)

 

[Dan]

Ferguson was terribly treated, I'll grant you that. Selection policy should not be decided by a Steve Smith press conference.

I genuinely believe he shouldn't have been picked in the first place but he should never have been dropped after that test.

But my point is that you should always pick the best side and if you've made a mistake it's better to correct that sooner rather than later. Ideally the selectors would be more proactive about making the best choice in the first place.

Yeah, I think we broadly agree on this. Where we might be differing is that I don't think one Test is typically going to provide enough evidence that it was a mistake - particularly in a Test where the guy got run out by, iirc, a very good piece of fielding in the middle of a lol-lapse.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Yeah if they didn't back Ferg enough to give him a solid opportunity then he shouldn't have got the nod in the first place. To do a complete 180 and decide he can't cut it at Test level after Hobart just reeks of impulsiveness, I do not support the casual logic of change for the sake of change at all