*Official* Australia in Sri Lanka 2016

[GotSpin]

Sigh...

 

[Gnske]

I'm clearly missing something with this meme going on in the media that Handscomb should be playing in the sub-continent. Are they basing this off what he does against the works of famous spinners like Clive Rose, Fawad Ahmed and Cameron Boyce on the most flat of wickets or did he do something on an A tour that I completely forgot?

Because seriously just looking at that guy's technique makes me cringe thinking of him playing against Jadeja and Ashwin next year.

 

[morgieb]

I'm clearly missing something with this meme going on in the media that Handscomb should be playing in the sub-continent. Are they basing this off what he does against the works of famous spinners like Clive Rose, Fawad Ahmed and Cameron Boyce on the most flat of wickets or did he do something on an A tour that I completely forgot?

Because seriously just looking at that guy's technique makes me cringe thinking of him playing against Jadeja and Ashwin next year.

AFAIK it's hype from fellow cricketers about his ability against spin.

 

[Spikey]

don't think our players are good judges tbh

 

[Gnske]

AFAIK it's hype from fellow cricketers about his ability against spin.

I've read puff pieces intermittently ever since the 2014 UAE disaster about how innovative and like The People's Chump he is, that's always the gist of it.

 

[Black_Warrior]

We've been pretty atrocious in the last two trips to England and also the 2011-12 tour of Australia, worse than this I'd say.

But the late 2000's team was really resilient, they were definitely much better No. 1's. Right now, I think England are better than everyone else regardless of rankings (not perfect but clearly better).

Yeah I was thinking in particular the SA series 2013, Aus 2014 and NZ 2014. All 3 were series defeats but the batting put up some sort of resistance and fight.

 

[NUFAN]

Handscomb made an 80 odd in an A tour of India around a year ago and then he followed it up with two ducks. I read a quote from the man himself recently that said as soon he was talked up being good against spin, he got dismissed the next 5 times by spinners, so yeah, it is a bit of media/hype.

For the third Test I would go:

1. U Khawaja 2. D. Warner 3. S. Smith 4. S. Marsh 5. A Voges 6. M Henriques 7. P Nevill 8. M Starc 9. N Coulter-Nile 10. N Lyon 11. J Hazlewood

It is clearly a problem that I've got rid of the youngest/most inexperienced guys from the last game, but overall I feel more confident about this XI. NCN was picked over Bird because I think him bowling a heavy ball, with a bit more pace might be useful in SL conditions. I wouldn't have picked him in the squad, but since he is clearly in the selectors thoughts, why not give him an opportunity.

- Burns axing should not be a case of him now going to the back of the pack, I think he should be in the mix for the next Test after this one and not necessarily as an opener.
- Mitch Marsh has to bat at 3 or 4 for WA in the Shield and possibly on some A tours and we need to see him make a 200 odd ball century, not just go crazy and make 100 (104) against a tired attack coming in at 6.
- Holland could easily end up a 1 Test wonder.

 

[Shady Slim]

ncn is the epitome of mediocre

keep marsh in but bat him at 8

 

[NUFAN]

ncn is the epitome of mediocre

keep marsh in but bat him at 8

Mediocre: of only average quality.

I feel like that's an upgrade.

 

[Dan Jamson]

I don't think there's one strong batting lineup in world cricket at the moment. There's one or two very good players with a bit of dross around them in most teams. The lack of quality openers is certainly the most alarming.

 

[Top_Cat]

- Mitch Marsh has to bat at 3 or 4 for WA in the Shield and possibly on some A tours and we need to see him make a 200 odd ball century, not just go crazy and make 100 (104) against a tired attack coming in at 6.

David Hookes clearly articulated the flaw in this sort of thinking in his bio. The exact same criticism was levelled at him after being dropped from the Test squad the first time, initially being picked in form after an insane run of tons. He followed the advice of people who said he had to grind to a ton, even used the 100 run/200 ball metric like its some magical indicator of a Good Test Batsman as he ground his way to a ton off about that many balls. Felt terrible to him and, consequently, he was picked again but totally out of form and predictably failed again.

Tbh, although he's not amongst the best 6 right now, I was surprised at how well Marsh played in the time he was out there. Unlike say, Watson, didnt feel like a ball with his name on it was around the corner. He's in development but good signs based on the way he went about things.

 

[vcs]

I liked the way he played in the 2nd innings in the first Test, but got out at the wrong time.

 

[Flem274*]

can't blame the allrounder for not being a real batsman. that's the job of the five blokes above him.

 

[NUFAN]

David Hookes clearly articulated the flaw in this sort of thinking in his bio. The exact same criticism was levelled at him after being dropped from the Test squad the first time, initially being picked in form after an insane run of tons. He followed the advice of people who said he had to grind to a ton, even used the 100 run/200 ball metric like its some magical indicator of a Good Test Batsman as he ground his way to a ton off about that many balls. Felt terrible to him and, consequently, he was picked again but totally out of form and predictably failed again.

Tbh, although he's not amongst the best 6 right now, I was surprised at how well Marsh played in the time he was out there. Unlike say, Watson, didnt feel like a ball with his name on it was around the corner. He's in development but good signs based on the way he went about things.

So what do you suggest, ride it out? I agree that he often looks confident during his brief time at the crease but we can't (or shouldn't) continue picking someone at 6 who is without a Test 50 in the past 15 Tests. In fact, in his past 14, his highest score is a woeful 34.

What David Hookes said might be correct, but you could say for every Hookes there is a bat who has gone back to the Shield, made runs up the top of the order and got back into the Test team and performed.

If he plays in the next Test, I hope he does make over 34 for starters and reach 50 too.

 

[NUFAN]

can't blame the allrounder for not being a real batsman. that's the job of the five blokes above him.

The tactics are wrong then if we aren't expecting runs from number 6. Take a look at runs at 6 and 7 since the start of 2015. Marsh averages 15.92.

Coming in at 4/80 all the time isn't great, but if you look at Australian Cricket over say the last 25 years, we were always good at the rescue act, digging in and making a respectable score after a poor start. Not the case any more (realistically hasn't been the case since Huss retired).

 

[Spark]

David Hookes clearly articulated the flaw in this sort of thinking in his bio. The exact same criticism was levelled at him after being dropped from the Test squad the first time, initially being picked in form after an insane run of tons. He followed the advice of people who said he had to grind to a ton, even used the 100 run/200 ball metric like its some magical indicator of a Good Test Batsman as he ground his way to a ton off about that many balls. Felt terrible to him and, consequently, he was picked again but totally out of form and predictably failed again.

Tbh, although he's not amongst the best 6 right now, I was surprised at how well Marsh played in the time he was out there. Unlike say, Watson, didnt feel like a ball with his name on it was around the corner. He's in development but good signs based on the way he went about things.

He actually seems surprisingly okay in spinning conditions, if you put this together with how he batted in the UAE.

 

[91Jmay]

They've invested so much time in Marsh, I think it is worth giving him a home series. Pakistan should provide some competition so he will get to bat in more normal test match scenarios at home. His talent level is obvious, such a good bowler.

 

[Compton]

Marsh has one 50 in 17 test matches. If Australia want to pick him, that's fine; but they can't keep calling him an all-rounder.

He's a bowler that keeps coming in some sort of bastardised night watchman role at 6.

 

[aussie tragic]

Marsh has one 50 in 17 test matches. If Australia want to pick him, that's fine; but they can't keep calling him an all-rounder.

He's a bowler that keeps coming in some sort of bastardised night watchman role at 6.

Well he's definitely not a bowler either with only 27 wkts in 17 Tests...just ditch him as a failed experiment

 

[honestbharani]

I think he can be a really good bowling all rounder but for some reason Australia insist on him being a batting all rounder. #7 or 8 should be just fine for him, I reckon.