Road to the 2019 Ashes

[flibbertyjibber]

It's like they set up certain batsman to fail. What did Patterson do wrong to get dropped?

Wear socks?

 

[aussie tragic]

Wear socks?

Omg, Patterson wasn't the one wearing socks in the photo was he...rookie mistake

 

[TheJediBrah]

I would have Harris and Burns about on par, Harris was quite good against a decent Indian attack in a series where we were largely getting smashed but then failed to take advantage against a more modest Sri Lankan team. Burns did make that real nice 180 but not much either side of that, domestically Harris was much better.

Bancroft a level below imo, his problems with the inswinger last Ashes don't fill me with any faith

This is a very fair analysis. But Bancroft is a judgement call that I support at this stage. He's made plenty of hard runs at the level down to suggest that he could tough it out in the Ashes if conditions are what we expect. Ironically in his short Test series so far Bancroft seems to have failed when batting conditions have been good more than not.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Omg, Patterson wasn't the one wearing socks in the photo was he...rookie mistake

I have no idea but it would be a hell of a conspiracy theory if he was.

 

[TheJediBrah]

But muh flat pitches. And nothing about the fact Harris could be presented with a pitch made from a literal billiard table and still cut straight to point.

lol you can whinge about it all you want, doesn't make it any less true.

I ran the numbers just for fun. Australia's team batting average in Tests where Burns has played is 43.19, including a whopping 13 declarations in 16 matches. So that doesn't even take into account the average being brought down by declaration batting in those games, which was significant.

Team batting average for Harris' tests was 32.57, with only 2 declarations.

Pretty much what I expected. Burns' run in the team was blessed with conditions and opponents.

This is why looking at their career averages and thinking "hurr durr Burns 40 Harris 30 Burns is clearly better" is so ignorant

 

[morgieb]

I must be the only person that is indifferent towards the whole Harris/Burns debate. Apart from the Test that Burns scored the ton in (which granted is very difficult to ignore) Harris did a lot better last season. Burns is more likely to get the big scores, but at the same time he'll likely be owned by the English bowling. At least Harris I can see getting starts.

Think both should be ahead of Bancroft though, and certainly when you have Mitch ****ing Marsh getting a 20th recall despite doing very little recently with the bat (and with Marnus already in the squad)....

 

[aussie tragic]

lol you can whinge about it all you want, doesn't make it any less true.

I ran the numbers just for fun. Australia's team batting average in Tests where Burns has played is 43.19, including a whopping 13 declarations in 16 matches. So that doesn't even take into account the average being brought down by declaration batting in those games, which was significant.

Team batting average for Harris' tests was 32.57, with only 2 declarations.

Pretty much what I expected. Burns' run in the team was blessed with conditions and opponents.

This is why looking at their career averages and thinking "hurr durr Burns 40 Harris 30 Burns is clearly better" is so ignorant

Well duh! Smith and Warner wern't playing in Harris Tests to improve the average

 

[Spark]

lol you can whinge about it all you want, doesn't make it any less true.

I ran the numbers just for fun. Australia's team batting average in Tests where Burns has played is 43.19, including a whopping 13 declarations in 16 matches. So that doesn't even take into account the average being brought down by declaration batting in those games, which was significant.

Team batting average for Harris' tests was 32.57, with only 2 declarations.

Pretty much what I expected. Burns' run in the team was blessed with conditions and opponents.

This is why looking at their career averages and thinking "hurr durr Burns 40 Harris 30 Burns is clearly better" is so ignorant

IIRC in his first stint, Burns mostly made runs in that one summer where literally everyone made runs in ludicrous quantities, in those two series against NZ and the one against WI (the ones where Voges and Marsh especially filled their boots). Most people basically tossed those results aside when it came to actually challenging conditions, though, because everyone could see that the bloke was flat-out not technically equipped to deal with even mild amounst of outswing or seam. I don't see that much evidence that he's improved in that regard, tbh.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Well duh! Smith and Warner wern't playing in Harris Tests to improve the average

haha I was wondering if anyone would point that out

I also would have accepted "if Australia declared so many times in Burns' Tests then that means the tail didn't bat as much to bring the average down"

IIRC in his first stint, Burns mostly made runs in that one summer where literally everyone made runs in ludicrous quantities, in those two series against NZ and the one against WI (the ones where Voges and Marsh especially filled their boots). Most people basically tossed those results aside when it came to actually challenging conditions, though, because everyone could see that the bloke was flat-out not technically equipped to deal with even mild amounst of outswing or seam. I don't see that much evidence that he's improved in that regard, tbh.

voice of reason as usual. Outside of those road-Tests Burns averages under 20

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Bring on the crims.

 

[Spark]

haha I was wondering if anyone would point that out



voice of reason as usual. Outside of those road-Tests Burns averages under 20

Yeah I'm not a fan of "outside of..." analysis, but I am a fan of "the bloke keeps playing the forward defence to backward point somehow" analysis.

 

[stephen]

lol you can whinge about it all you want, doesn't make it any less true.

I ran the numbers just for fun. Australia's team batting average in Tests where Burns has played is 43.19, including a whopping 13 declarations in 16 matches. So that doesn't even take into account the average being brought down by declaration batting in those games, which was significant.

Team batting average for Harris' tests was 32.57, with only 2 declarations.

Pretty much what I expected. Burns' run in the team was blessed with conditions and opponents.

This is why looking at their career averages and thinking "hurr durr Burns 40 Harris 30 Burns is clearly better" is so ignorant

Did you remember to take out their scores when you did it? And adjust for the fact that Harris played when Smith and Warner were banned?

Even then, it's misleading, because Burns has been more successful, the team has been more successful. When an opener makes runs, it gives the middle order a better opportunity to make runs.

And the problem isn't even Burns himself. The problem is that the selectors have just publicly announced that the shield and tests don't matter, what matters is that you play county cricket and then maybe make a few runs on a juiced up greentop.

It's not so much dropping Burns - there are some arguments that could be made to do with his health and form or whatnot. The problem is who they *have* picked and who else they dropped.

Bird - not picked. Performed way better than Siddle in the last shield season. Better bowler than Neser. Has a better test record in far fewer opportunities on flatter pitches than Siddle.
Burns - dropped. 180 in his most recent shot in tests (rescued the side from 3-28). Averages over 40 in tests and the same in the shield while playing for Queensland who have better pitches for the quicks than southern states.
Patterson - dropped. 144 runs in his two tests. Averages over 40 in first class cricket. Sorted out the one issue holding him back (conversion). Scored 70 runs in his last first class outing (admittedly with two 30s) and scored a half century in the shield final.

Marsh - picked. Averages 25 with the bat in tests, 44 with the ball. Averaged 36 with the bat and 41 with the ball in the last shield season.
Labaschagne - picked. Averaged 24 with the bat and 57 with the ball in the last shield season. Averages 26 with the bat in tests. Makes Marsh's stats look good.
Bancroft - picked. Has done decently since his return. Should have had his cards marked after the sandpaper affair, at least while Warner is in the team. Was woeful against a toothless England on flat decks at home last time around. Langer favourite.
Neser - picked. James Hopes who is fractionally better with the ball and a lot worse with the bat. Easily behind the other fast bowlers. Hard to see where he could possibly fit into the team.

And this is before the XI has even been picked. Sure, ultimately we're talking about what will be ultimately two batting spots and hopefully no bowling spots, but the biggest problem with all this is the message that it sends to every player in the shield - how well you play doesn't matter, what matters is whether you're a Langer favourite or not.

 

[stephen]

IIRC in his first stint, Burns mostly made runs in that one summer where literally everyone made runs in ludicrous quantities, in those two series against NZ and the one against WI (the ones where Voges and Marsh especially filled their boots). Most people basically tossed those results aside when it came to actually challenging conditions, though, because everyone could see that the bloke was flat-out not technically equipped to deal with even mild amounst of outswing or seam. I don't see that much evidence that he's improved in that regard, tbh.

His hundred in New Zealand is worth noting because he top scored in both innings and Smith was the only other Australian to ton up.

He was dropped after the whole side had a terrible tour of Sri Lanka, recalled for the Hobart disaster (where he was given out lbw on an umpires call decision on a ball that seamed dramatically), dropped, recalled for one test in South Africa (where he top scored in the second innings), dropped, recalled for two tests last summer, made 180 and has subsequently been dropped again. It's been terrible treatment by the selectors.

But his dropping is not even the worst dropping of the tour. Patterson can rightfully feel livid at his treatment.

 

[Spark]

His hundred in New Zealand is worth noting because he top scored in both innings and Smith was the only other Australian to ton up.

He was dropped after the whole side had a terrible tour of Sri Lanka, recalled for the Hobart disaster (where he was given out lbw on an umpires call decision on a ball that seamed dramatically), dropped, recalled for one test in South Africa (where he top scored in the second innings), dropped, recalled for two tests last summer, made 180 and has subsequently been dropped again. It's been terrible treatment by the selectors.

But his dropping is not even the worst dropping of the tour. Patterson can rightfully feel livid at his treatment.

I remember that Test. Fully stand by my assessment that those were some of the easiest batting conditions in recent memory.

You're trying way too hard to paint him as a victim of some tragic conspiracy. The bloke just isn't that good.

 

[stephen]

Outside of those road-Tests Burns averages under 20

So what, 3 tests in Sri Lanka, a jetlagged test in South Africa and the Hobart massacre? Am I missing any?

 

[stephen]

I remember that Test. Fully stand by my assessment that those were some of the easiest batting conditions in recent memory.

You're trying way too hard to paint him as a victim of some tragic conspiracy. The bloke just isn't that good.

Oh yeah it was an exceptionally easy summer of cricket. But the people scoring the runs were Burns, Warner, Khawaja, Smith and Voges. One of those guys is retired, three are locked in and only one got discarded after Sri Lanka only to get picked and dropped numerous times since then. Funnily enough he hasn't been the hardest done by player in that period of time - Ferguson got even rougher treatment.

One final point of irony - the other batsman during that summer was Mitchell Marsh.

 

[Loose Cannon]

Neser is the weirdest pick. I just can't see where he fits into any team combination

Luckily, we'll get to see more of Wade's bowling than his, this series

 

[aussie tragic]

Okay the road to the ashes as been too much with the sacking of Burns and Pattersen so I'm now joining the Barmy Army.

First T-shirt is "Langer's a Wanker" (although he's not worthy of Aussie's famous cry) 2nd is "Bancroft, Harris and Marsh....Langer's Boys know how to suck"

 

[stephen]

Okay the road to the ashes as been too much with the sacking of Burns and Pattersen so I'm now joining the Barmy Army.

First T-shirt is "Langer's a Wanker" (although he's not worthy of Aussie's famous cry) 2nd is "Bancroft, Harris and Marsh....Langer's Boys know how to suck"

Even if we pick Harris and Marsh and they make nothing but ducks for five tests we still have more quality batsmen than England. Although I think Head's lack of footwork will be found out in England. Still, three batsmen is more than England's two.

Both sides will probably have pretty good bowling attacks - a mix of Starc, Pattinson, Cummins, Hazlewood and Lyon vs a combination of Woakes, Anderson, Broad, Archer, Curran, Leach and Ali.

 

[harsh.ag]

Just think they should make up their mind and pick one between MMarsh and Labu. Having both ahead of a specialist batsman like Patterson is kinda sad.