• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

England v NZ & Aust 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
I agree in the sense that if a player is and has been in the team for a while and is still performing well, he should definitely stay in the team. However, I think that when we have a number of older players, some of whom are underperforming, it makes little sense to bring in a 35 year old who has never played test cricket before when there is a 20 something in Joe Burns who is performing almost as well, but potentially has a decade of test cricket ahead of him. With no Watson and no Haddin, the Voges selection is less egregious, but he isn't really adding anything to the squad that Burns couldn't have done. The top runscorer in shield cricket argument doesn't hold any water as in the past 5 years Mark Cosgrove has been the top shield runscorer twice and hasn't been considered for selection.


QH that goes against the policy that has driven Aussie cricket success over the past 20 years. You pick the best guy, regardless of age. The only exception to this rule that I can remember is Michael Clarke, who was elevated above Darren Lehmann, but scored 169 in his first test and never looked back. Maybe Simon Katich was an exception too, dropped a bit before his time to necessitate generational change (and that worked out poorly).

Burns didn't show enough in his tests against India. Voges ripped up the Shield, then was there when Rogers got injured. He scored a hundred under pressure on debut, justifying the selectors decision. This is what he adds that Burns doesn't have- a test tonne. That counts for plenty in my book.
.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
QH that goes against the policy that has driven Aussie cricket success over the past 20 years. You pick the best guy, regardless of age. The only exception to this rule that I can remember is Michael Clarke, who was elevated above Darren Lehmann, but scored 169 in his first test and never looked back. Maybe Simon Katich was an exception too, dropped a bit before his time to necessitate generational change (and that worked out poorly).

Burns didn't show enough in his tests against India. Voges ripped up the Shield, then was there when Rogers got injured. He scored a hundred under pressure on debut, justifying the selectors decision. This is what he adds that Burns doesn't have- a test tonne. That counts for plenty in my book.
.

Well, I'd question that conclusion - in fact you've already provided a couple of examples which weaken the argument.

All the best players in the past 2 decades have made the debuts in their mid-20s (or younger) Waugh, McGrath, Warne, Lee, Ponting, Clarke, Smith, Gilchrist - even M Hussey was only just 30 and he should have been picked a couple of years prior to his debut.

Australian cricket has always been based on renewal and I can't recall a test team as old as the one in the 1st test representing Australia.

If you look back at the past 2 decades the times when we have struggled is when the older players have been kept too long and failed. As mentioned previously Shield runs have never been the be all and end all - not since colour TV anyway, other wise Jamie Cox and Mark Cosgrove would have been selected for Australia.

Voges scored his centuries against a weak West Indian side away from home away from all the pressure, Burns was thrust into a high pressure home series and against India and showed enough to jusitfy selection for the West Indies/Ashes tour
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Surely Warner is under pressure. When was his last decent score before his 50 in Cardiff?

At the same time, the best replacement option is S Marsh who's never been as prolific, so perhaps he's pretty safe to bat back into form.
 

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
The shot he was out to was unnecessary. They had already taken 10 from the over if they had continued with that pace he would have been gone in a couple of overs.
 

The_Brown_Hornet

John Eales (66)
Great comeback by the boys last night. Now to push on and make 600 and play the Poms completely out of the game. I'm especially chuffed that Buck got a ton. All that hard work has paid off and he's cashed in at an important moment.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
If you look back at the past 2 decades the times when we have struggled is when the older players have been kept too long and failed. As mentioned previously Shield runs have never been the be all and end all - not since colour TV anyway, other wise Jamie Cox and Mark Cosgrove would have been selected for Australia.

Voges scored his centuries against a weak West Indian side away from home away from all the pressure, Burns was thrust into a high pressure home series and against India and showed enough to jusitfy selection for the West Indies/Ashes tour


Timing is everything though. There is a long list of blokes who scored buckets of Shield runs and never wore the baggy green (or only wore it a few times), and luck played a pretty big part in all of it. Cox, Siddons, Law, Maher, Bevan, etc. All were ready for promotion, but played in a time with very little injury or turnover in the test side.

Voges was just in the right place at the right time, as was Burns. Also Voges has a decent ODI pedigree as well, which counts for a bit.

You can put down Voges WI innings all you want, but none of our other recognised bats got past 25 so it wasn't exactly a cakewalk. Burns is a nice prospect but didn't take the chance as well as Voges did.

I'd be more on your side on this issue if Voges was keeping out a red hot young prospect, like Clarke or Phillip Hughes were. But the fact is none exists, so I think throwing a wiser experienced head like Voges in may pay off more than a 50/50 greenhorn who may struggle in an Ashes cauldron.
.
 

No4918

John Hipwell (52)
Surely Warner is under pressure. When was his last decent score before his 50 in Cardiff?

At the same time, the best replacement option is S Marsh who's never been as prolific, so perhaps he's pretty safe to bat back into form.


Under pressure to the extent his place in the team is in question? Not a chance, like you say Marsh is a bigger risk. He will know he is underperforming and putting pressure on himself as much as anyone at this stage. It was a stupid shot and he struggled early but was starting to come good. If only he had weathered the first over or two from Ali the way he had Broad and Anderson.

Great start. Rogers is looking really good and those in the UK press suggesting that Smith had been worked out have been shown to be kidding themselves. Hopefully a few more guys can come in and look to get some form. All the side needs to do is bat sensibly for the first 3 hours then increasethe scoring. Could be looking at a lead up around 600 and then throw England in with an hour to play.
 

light

Peter Fenwicke (45)
Burns was thrust into a high pressure home series and against India and showed enough to jusitfy selection for the West Indies/Ashes tour


Wait, high pressure home series. What?

He came into a dominant team that never looked like losing that series. He was also protected at 6. You could argue much the same for M.Marsh during the Indian series.

I'm a big fan of Burns but I'm with Baabaa - the time was right to select Voges. He makes our middle order look far less vulnerable than Burns would have at 5, especially considering Neville and Marsh are now in the mix.


1/337 is a fantastic day for us, well on top and just a question of how bigger lead we want. Pitch will definitely deteriorate and be very difficult to bat last on so I'd be looking at something between 550-600 then look to take the 20 wickets. Lyon's role is going to be vital, particularly day 4 and 5.
 

Lindommer

Steve Williams (59)
Staff member
As you all know here on G&GR I've been one of Watson's biggest critics and called for his services to be discarded some time ago. He's finally dropped and, voila! Runs galore. Should've taken my advice before Cardiff..... ;)
 

Aussie D

Dick Tooth (41)
It wasn't M Marsh who scored the runs though. Don't start crowing until Mitch has proven to be an improvement on what Watson was producing.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
I'd argue based on batting so far, if he doesn't perform very well he hasn't been an improvement, only because it certainly looks to be a batting wicket. Unfortunately we won't be able to tell because the way we are going, he won't bat in the first innings and a lot can happen to the pitch in a couple of days.
 

No4918

John Hipwell (52)
The only way we can tell is over the long term, not this test, not this series. Watson has had 10 years so let's see what their records look like when Marsh is 34.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
I'd be disappointed with anything under 600. We need to bat the out of this and then apply maximum pressure with the ball. Wickets will be hard to come by and we will need to take all our catches.

You couldn't really ask for much better than 1/337 at stumps on day 1. Well done to Rogers and Smith. Day two really set up for us to score quickly. Make them field for five and a half sessions and put them in for the last hour.
 

Pedrolicus

Dick Tooth (41)
Agree QH putting them in late means the ball should still be newish for the tricky morning session and also means that if we need a second new ball it will be available for the next morning session.

Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
He makes our middle order look far less vulnerable than Burns would have at 5, especially considering Neville and Marsh are now in the mix.

With Watson and Haddin gone, the balance of the team changes and thus the Voges selection isn't such an issue. He now becomes the experienced figure with a couple of young blokes either side as opposed to another old bloke, which is how Australian cricket has always work - a good blend of youth and experience.

A couple of good young blokes can change the whole approach of the team.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Aussies 3/424 at lunch. Rogers out for 173, the victim of some very good bowling. Michael Clarke never looked confortable at the crease, out for a scratchy 7.

Smith 168 and Voges 24 not out.

If these two can get the scoreboard moving, we can be close to 550 at tea. Bat for an hour after that and put them in with 600 on the board.:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top