Australian Test Selection 2016/2017

[morgieb]

Can see where Dan's coming from, but AFAIC it's a massive liability to pick an all-rounder if one isn't good enough. Marsh is not good enough to bat Top 6 - heck probably not Top 7 - and it's hard to see someone else who can bat Top 6 and be a proper good 5th bowler. With a keeper at 7 who isn't really proven at Test level and a patchy Top 5 picking someone for to bat lower-middle order and give us 10 overs a game isn't worth it. Especially when Voges and Nevill aren't fast scorers. Yes you may get Adelaide 2012 like situations where the bowling unit gets overworked because someone broke down, but the risk of that happening has to be counteracted by the risk of major collapses because our engine room's not good enough.

If you desperately want a seam-up all-rounder, I'd pick Faulkner. Realistically though, I'd just go with 6 batsmen at this stage. Brisbane and Adelaide are D/N Tests (where barring injury you should get away with 4 bowlers) and Hobart tends to be more bowler-friendly IIRC. Melbourne and Sydney are slightly different, but especially the latter you could probably afford for the 5th bowler to be a spinner (so Maxwell comes into play if he does well at Shield level)

Anyway, for the next Test:

Warner
Burns
Khawaja
Smith
Voges
Smarsh
Nevill
Starc
Siddle
Lyon
Hazlewood

If Hobart proves to be a road, then Faulkner if fit can come in I guess. If he's not, then Mitch Marsh gets a reprive.

I'd give Voges and Khawaja the series to prove me wrong; they were both outstanding last summer, Voges is at least getting starts and Khawaja just got a ripper of a delivery, but if they continue to struggle then someone else should be given a go. Nevill also in danger but I can't really think of any better options at this stage - Wade's keeping is not of an acceptable standard, Whiteman's not ready, and everyone else is crap.

 

[Burgey]

Is whiteman not ready from batting or a keeping pov?

 

[morgieb]

Is whiteman not ready from batting or a keeping pov?

I feel like he's just not scoring enough runs. Haven't seen enough of his keeping, tbh.

 

[Burgey]

Maybe watson's right and we've got so PC these days we really are keeping the whiteman down.

 

[Spikey]

you were dying for someone to respond to that question so you could do that joke weren't you

 

[Spikey]

anyway mad dog picked a good time to ton up

 

[Burgey]

you were dying for someone to respond to that question so you could do that joke weren't you

Yep. I was

And Mad Dog another who should be in the frame long term.

 

[Gnske]

If we want a mid-30s averaging hack I'll take Head instead thanks.

 

[Midwinter]

If we want a mid-30s averaging hack I'll take Head instead thanks.

And he bowls a bit

 

[vcs]

We need to see Head bowilng to De Kock.

 

[social]

If Oz loses this test as seems certain, then changes need to be made as that will be 4 in a row that the batsmen have effectively thrown away.

IMO, just about the best "young" player in the country is Maxwell.

He has the technique and, most importantly, scores as many runs as anyone else.

Add in the fact that he is arguably the best fieldsman in the world and can also trundle a bit, I think we could do a lot worse than giving him a crack at 6

If we're going to plan for the future then Bancroft should also come under consideration - he looks to have a sound technique & temperament plus he scored runs in India for Australia A

I like MMarsh but he simply hasnt done enough whilst I am not sold on Khawaja or Voges at all

Sayers should also be in the frame but I fear his lack of pace will leave the selectors blind to his quality

 

[Salamuddin]

Pick Bancroft, Henriques and bUrns , drop Voges, Mitch Marsh and Shaun marsh

 

[morgieb]

Pick Bancroft, Henriques and bUrns , drop Voges, Mitch Marsh and Shaun marsh

So in Shaun Marsh's last 3 Tests he's scored 2 centuries and a 50, and you want him dropped? FMD. People have irrelevantly long memories.

AFAIC he's secured an extended run in the side.

 

[Salamuddin]

So in Shaun Marsh's last 3 Tests he's scored 2 centuries and a 50, and you want him dropped? FMD. People have irrelevantly long memories.

AFAIC he's secured an extended run in the side.

Shaun Marsh is a an average player - you can see that from the way he bats . He averages 40 over a short number of tests which looks respectable but I can guarantee that average will drop over this summer as he plays more - he is simply not that talented a player.
The reason Australia's batting is so fragile is because they are picking players with a lot of average to mediocre ability - smarsh, mmarsh, voges, neville. Dare I say perhaps even Khawaja. Not to mention that Warner is also a pretty ordinary player outside Australia's true and flat decks.
You pick mediocre guys who are inconsistent - obviously your batting lineup is gonna be as lightweight as Hillary Clinton's credibility.

Instead I would rather pick younger guys like Bancroft who clearly have have far more upside potential.

Oh and I while did suggest Henriques ; perhaps the obsession with playing an allrounder has to stop. It didn't work with Watto and its not working with mmarsh.

 

[Salamuddin]

On another note, perhaps its time for Cricket Australia to look beyond Lehmann as coach.

Lehmann talks a lot but his results have been only so-so - if Australia really want to improve as a team, think they need to move to someone like Tom Moody.

 

[NUFAN]

Every name that someone mentions for one of the top 6 spots I think "yeah he would make more than MMarsh" but perhaps surprisingly, I actually think that we are playing our 5 best batsman in our top 5.

 

[Dan]

This is insanely knee-jerk to an isolated event. These are the exact same players who made about fifty million runs last summer on the exact same decks. Nobody, Mitch Marsh aside, was undone by glaring technical flaws or utter shite-ness: Smith and Nevill can count themselves pretty unlucky, and Khawaja got one hell of a good ball from Rabada early on.

South Africa is a good bowling attack, and it basically ended up a perfect storm for them after they lost Steyn. They bowled really ****ing well, they had a bit of luck here and there, and they took their chances. An SOS to Cameron Bancroft or Glenn Maxwell wasn't changing that.

I can't think of a single batsman outside of the current squad who, on current evidence, is definitively better than the current top five -- or more importantly, more likely to score runs this series than the current top five. And I say this as a massive Khawaja hater. If, as the series progresses, this is still an issue -- Khawaja being knocked over for single digits, Voges only making 20s -- then you start looking at change. Not after a single innings.

 

[vcs]

I agree.. Australia's batting at home has been pretty rock-solid. In a weird way, they were probably too good.. last summer I barely remember Mitch Marsh coming in in a situation where his runs actually mattered. Either it was a 4/500 type situation, or right in the middle of a lollapse, which he's probably not good enough a batsman to stop.

 

[Salamuddin]

This is insanely knee-jerk to an isolated event. These are the exact same players who made about fifty million runs last summer on the exact same decks. Nobody, Mitch Marsh aside, was undone by glaring technical flaws or utter shite-ness: Smith and Nevill can count themselves pretty unlucky, and Khawaja got one hell of a good ball from Rabada early on.

South Africa is a good bowling attack, and it basically ended up a perfect storm for them after they lost Steyn. They bowled really ****ing well, they had a bit of luck here and there, and they took their chances. An SOS to Cameron Bancroft or Glenn Maxwell wasn't changing that.

I can't think of a single batsman outside of the current squad who, on current evidence, is definitively better than the current top five -- or more importantly, more likely to score runs this series than the current top five. And I say this as a massive Khawaja hater. If, as the series progresses, this is still an issue -- Khawaja being knocked over for single digits, Voges only making 20s -- then you start looking at change. Not after a single innings.

This is the same batting lineup that covered itself in glory in Sri Lanka so its hardly one innings.


You've got a number 7 that averages 20 in test cricket and a number 6 that averages 24.
You've got a number 5 who averages sub 30 against anyone other than West Indies or NZ.

Khawaja similarly to Voges has done very little other than cash in against the Windies or NZ.
You don't have to be Oppenheimer or dare i say Lord Cribbage of Baulkham Hills or Burgey of Wentworthville to realize that makes for an extremely flaky batting lineup

Pakistan haven't won a test in Australia since 1995 but I reckon they'd fancy their chances if presented with that bating lineup.

 

[morgieb]

This is the same batting lineup that covered itself in glory in Sri Lanka so its hardly one innings.


You've got a number 7 that averages 20 in test cricket and a number 6 that averages 24.
You've got a number 5 who averages sub 30 against anyone other than West Indies or NZ.

Khawaja similarly to Voges has done very little other than cash in against the Windies or NZ.
You don't have to be Oppenheimer or dare i say Lord Cribbage or Baulkham Hills to realize that makes for an extremely flaky batting lineup

Pakistan haven't won a test in Australia since 1995 but I reckon they'd fancy their chances if presented with that bating lineup.

Except Sri Lanka are different conditions to these....if they're continuing to struggle then think about other options, but apart from Marsh and maybe Smith (who I could at least see what he was trying to do, had it paid off South Africa's bowling combinations would've been harder to manage sans Steyn) none were really technically exposed or played offensive shots. It was just really good bowling.

Although the bowling of India, New Zealand or the West Indies does lead to question marks. Had they done the same thing against say England Friday's collapse could be written off as a one-off, but the lack of quality of those attacks and the fact that they have struggled away from home leads to question marks. But regardless of the circumstances surely consistently scoring 4/500 has to count for something?