Australian Test Selection 2016/2017

[the big bambino]

While SA are beating us with one bowler and one batsman tied behind their backs then you have to wonder if one thing can actually make a difference to this Aussie team. Probably not but reviewing the 5 batsmen 5 bowler make up would be one of issues on the list.

It'd be helpful to review some historical standards when the combination did work. Illingworth's team did it in 70/71. Illy came in at 7 back then with a test average of 23, or little better than Nevill right now. Behind at 8 9 10 jack were some real bunnies. But his batting was strong and settled (Boycott and Edrich batted the whole summer not out) and our bowling was caught in a transitional season.

England's 2005 team is another successful example. The format of that side was used in preceding series against WI, NZ and SA which were all successful. Given the lead up that team had up to 2005 its really not surprising why they were able to win the ashes that year.

In the preceding series against NZ and SA Eng batted Strauss, Tresco, Vaughan, Thorpe and Butcher/Key. Flintoff was the AR and the keeper was Jones or someone much like him in batting ability. For the 05 Ashes KP and Bell came in for Thorpe and Butcher/Key. Which is an overall improvement despite Bell's poor 05 series.

Those sides had 4 out of 5 batsmen performing comparatively well or well enough. They had Flintoff at 6 and Jones performing about the same level as Nevill at no.7. So if you use that side as a guide you want 4/5 batsmen firing with one of 6 or 7 averaging in the mid 30s and the other batting no worse than 20.

With our current side I'd trust only Warner and Smith out of the top 5. That's 2 instead of 4 of the top 5 rated as reliable imo. Neither of Marsh or Nevill are producing runs like Flintoff. The opposition's bowling, even without Steyn is strong. I also think a 90 over day supports 4 bowlers in your team. I think its justifiable wanting to play 5 bowlers if the quota was about 100/day. I don't think we can support a 5th bowler and it seems we are playing one just to accommodate the fragility of our pacemen. We are playing the 5th man to cover for a weakness at the expense of the team's other urgent needs.

Now covering for a potential breakdown or to prevent one happening is still justifiable. But what to try and get more runs. Something has to give and for the next 3 tests atleast, it may have to be Lyon, regrettably. I think the Saffers have got on top of him and he might be ineffective given the upcoming day nighters and the possibility Hobart maybe lively. I'd bring in Maxwell at 6, play Marsh at 7, Nevill at 8 then Starc, Siddle and Haze. For the next 3 tests we should be able to get by with Maxwell, Smith, Voges and Warner as spin options. When we go to the subcon I'd bring Lyon or O'Keefe in for Siddle.

 

[Midwinter]

Just a reminder that Heazlewood is supposed to be the line and length 3rd seamer,

 

[mr_mister]

Didn't Darren say once his son reaches international consideration he'd step aside from the top job?

I suppose doesn't want to smear his son's name with cries of nepotism which is a nice gesture

but I wonder if people would be calling for his test inclusion this soon when he made that comment ha

 

[Midwinter]

Agar

10 wickets in the game.

Scored 15 and 35

It is inevitable.

 

[Nate]

 

[Dan]

Australia scored about 5 billion runs last summer because they were up against 2 rubbish bowling attacks.

Yeah, sure, I agree that this isn't an ATG team who can rack up 4/500 line-up no questions asked vs anyone in home conditions. But, inevitable Khawaja drop-off aside, who is outside of the team that's definitively better than the current top five? Same thing with Salamuddin's post -- it's all well and good to say these blokes are mediocre and average and we'd be better off picking better players who can also score consistent runs against good attacks/away from home, but who are those players and where have they been hiding? The guys in the team currently (again, Khawaja aside) have comfortably been the top-tier Shield performers in recent years.

I suppose there's questions to be asked about whether the Shield is adequately preparing batsmen for Test level, but at this stage I think we're picking the five best batsmen in the country (in terms of scoring runs in the short to medium term). Sure, the selectors could take a punt on Maddinson or Head, but that method of bringing people in on potential and giving them time to repay the faith is exactly what has happened to Mitch Marsh -- you back the winner and it takes 20 Tests for you to realise it's not working out and the potential isn't translating. Or you bring in the likes of Handscomb/Bancroft/Ferguson and realise, much like with the Joe Burns selection last year, that they're not magic bullet solutions -- they might be marginal improvements over the incumbents overseas, but they aren't solving all of the problems overnight. I don't think that, on balance, Bancroft/Handscomb/Ferguson would make more runs in Hobart than Marsh/Khawaja/Voges.

Nobody has put up consistently awesome Shield seasons to bang down the door. Lots of guys are sitting around the 800 @ 45 mark while the Test regulars (once more, Khawaja aside) are all averaging 60+ in their Shield games and in the seasons prior to their call-ups. And then whenever someone stacks up a good year, it's followed by a 600 @ 30 type season that sends them backwards.

 

[dermo]

I agree with most of what you've been saying here Dan, however at 37 you do have to ask questions of Voges. Sure he made a tonne of runs last summer off the back of a huge shield season the year before but he's not getting any younger and given his output for the majority of his career, you wonder if he's coming to the end of this run of form. I think given his age you can't look to far back to find reasons to keep picking him. I'd definitely give him the next test but if he was to fail again I wouldn't be opposed to them bringing someone else in, ideally Maddinson, Head or Handscomb.

 

[Dan]

Yeah and that's fine, at some point we have to move on from Voges and his record against decent opposition hasn't been anywhere near his career stats. But we shouldn't be knee-jerking into wholesale change for a home series after literally one home collapse.

I find your call for Head or Maddinson interesting. Head averages 33 in FC cricket and has never averaged above 40 across a completed Australian summer. Maddinson oscillates between 45-50 and 25-30 averages season to season. Sure, you don't know until you try 'em and talent ID is a thing, but given how much the selectors have been slammed for taking the Mitch Marsh risk, and given how everyone here is complaining about literally one bad innings, are inconsistent/unproven potential guns actually going to do any better than what we've got now?

 

[Tangles]

CA commentary had Rogers on yesterday and his take on MMarsh was that he doesn't have a defense and you need that as a batsman. And that it's something he should work on with WA in the shield. So the same as plenty here have been saying really. Thought the comment on a lack of a defense was interesting though. He does like to hit and rely on his eye, which is an issue early in an innings or with movement.

 

[the big bambino]

That's exactly right with M Marsh, you wonder how many straight ones he can keep out and with his defensive game pretty poor it's no wonder he can't churn out the runs needed from six.

 

[Spark]

I'm amazed someone hasn't just told him to go out there and whack it, like what England have done with Stokes. Clearly the best way for him to bat.

 

[the big bambino]

Yeah but stokes can mongrel it out too.

 

[Dan]

I think one of the technical issues is that, even when defending in Tests, he does it with such hard hands and doesn't have much of a leave. Lots of his dismissals have been caught behind the wicket off quick bowlers -- either from balls that he shouldn't have played at, or should have played at with hard hands. I think it goes a long way to explaining why he's been, relatively speaking, much better in turning conditions (runs in the UAE, not awful in SL) -- the quicks aren't going to threaten the outside edge as much, and he has a pretty good plan vs spin (i.e. hit straight). Also why his ODI record is really good -- thick edges go for one to third man, not a catch.

It doesn't seem as much as an issue when he gets set -- his 30s and 40s seem to be more likely to end in brain fades, slogging with the tail, or being beaten by the bowler -- but when he's new to the crease and the ball is bouncing and carrying, he's always liable to guide one to the slips/gully because he has no concept of soft hands.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Now covering for a potential breakdown or to prevent one happening is still justifiable. But what to try and get more runs. Something has to give and for the next 3 tests atleast, it may have to be Lyon, regrettably. I think the Saffers have got on top of him and he might be ineffective given the upcoming day nighters and the possibility Hobart maybe lively. I'd bring in Maxwell at 6, play Marsh at 7, Nevill at 8 then Starc, Siddle and Haze. For the next 3 tests we should be able to get by with Maxwell, Smith, Voges and Warner as spin options. When we go to the subcon I'd bring Lyon or O'Keefe in for Siddle.

I would love to see this so much. I've been wanting this for years tbh. And if Faulkner gets among the wickets in the shield he can replace Siddle when he's finished up.

Lyon has been a liability for long enough

 

[Spikey]

If Lehmann still believes in having to pick an all-rounder so your attack can take 20 wickets, then I don't see why Marsh being dropped anytime soon. I do wonder if removing Marsh would have a positive impact on Lyon though

 

[the big bambino]

I think one of the technical issues is that, even when defending in Tests, he does it with such hard hands and doesn't have much of a leave. Lots of his dismissals have been caught behind the wicket off quick bowlers -- either from balls that he shouldn't have played at, or should have played at with hard hands. I think it goes a long way to explaining why he's been, relatively speaking, much better in turning conditions (runs in the UAE, not awful in SL) -- the quicks aren't going to threaten the outside edge as much, and he has a pretty good plan vs spin (i.e. hit straight). Also why his ODI record is really good -- thick edges go for one to third man, not a catch.

It doesn't seem as much as an issue when he gets set -- his 30s and 40s seem to be more likely to end in brain fades, slogging with the tail, or being beaten by the bowler -- but when he's new to the crease and the ball is bouncing and carrying, he's always liable to guide one to the slips/gully because he has no concept of soft hands.

Good summary. Makes me think there might be some hope for him yet.

 

[aussie tragic]

Burns and Ferguson called up for Hobart...Smarsh out with broken finger...Mmarsh may be out for being crap at #6

Australia call up Burns and Ferguson for Hobart Test; injured Shaun Marsh out | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Dan]

Good summary. Makes me think there might be some hope for him yet.

Yeah, for sure. This Test has sold me that he needs a spell out of the side unless he does something utterly ridiculous in Hobart though. Biggest problem is finding an adequate replacement in Adelaide.

 

[Dan]

I'd definitely like to see Callum Ferguson have a run in the side. He's gone from misfiring talent to very consistent Shield bat over the past few years (50+ in FC cricket since the start of 2013/14), and his ODI career shows that the stage doesn't overawe him and points that he can step up. Hopefully his body holds out and he gets a pretty decent crack at Test cricket -- deserves it.

 

[the big bambino]

Very happy that Callum made it. Good reward for some solid seasons and he's showing a willingness to bat high in the order at state level.

It looks like I'm death riding S Marsh but that injury is just his career isn't it? Atleast it gets Burns back into the team.

So my side for Hobart:

Warner
Burns
Khawaja
Smith
Voges
Ferguson
Marsh
Nevill
Starc
Haze
Siddle

Lyon out bcos I'm believing Hobart will favour seam and I reckon the Saffers have him boxed. Means I'm looking for extra overs from Siddle and rely on Voges, Warner and Smith for spin. Plus Burns can bowl a few Bavumas. Its not without misgivings going in without Lyon but I'm looking to bolster the pace attack and strengthen the batting and leaving him seemed the lesser evil.