Discussion in 'Cricket' started by RugbyReg, Feb 4, 2019.
HOW many chances do those Marsh boys get? Fer Chrissake perform, Mitch!
Patterson in place of Marsh would be a big improvement I think.
Yes, there are two selections I don't get. Firstly, why pick 6 quicks? It's unlikely we will ever play more than three in England, so five gives us ample cover for injury/loss of form. I know Nesser was good in the trial, however we simply don't need 6 pace bowlers, another batsman or a back-up spinner would surely make far more sense.
Secondly, how long is it going to take the selectors to realise Mitchell Marsh is not a test cricketer. Has there ever been a man given more chances? Burns and Patterson are both a mile ahead of him as batsmen, and yet the selectors unhealthy obsession with all-rounders mean they miss out for Marsh. WTF???
Apart from that, good squad
Patterson ave 114 - dropped
Burns ave 40 4 test hundreds & a recent 100 on tour after being out for months - dropped
Marsh batting ave 25 ; bowling 43 - in
Trev, can I have toke?
Hornet might not like me saying it but the West Australian boys do look to have been taken care of. I’m concerned Marnus may be overlooked on the basis of Marsh’s fiver-fer.
Totally with you on that. I'm just about the least parochial bloke you'll find when it comes to test side selection (rugby or cricket). I don't think Mitch is test standard and agree that Marnus may miss out and that would be an injustice.
Well, while we’ve been in test rugby mode the first test has really crept up on us and is this Thursday. Interesting article here about how playing with the Duke in Shield has prepared us better than usual:
By all accounts, England are going to have a very green top 3 and this is something Hazelwood commented upon targeting. I’ll be interested to see what the team winning the toss does if the surface is a bit green.
If I read this correctly then the lineup is something like:
11 Hazlewood / Siddle
Yes that the way I read it as well - still think Starc should be there.
The fast bowlers should/must be rotated in this series so soon after the CWC. Both Pattinson and Hazelwood are fresh and, presumably, raring to go.
There's been talk in the press about the Ashes cricketers from both sides feeling a bit fatigued after the CWC, read here: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/jul/27/ashes-england-australia-2019-cricket
One lesson that has been learnt over the past 5 or 6 years is that Mitch Starc is below par when fresh. He thrives on work and is at his best when he has lots of game time under the belt. I'd be starting him.
I am not convinced by Wade at 6. I'd prefer one of the specialist batsmen or Labuschagne there.
how is Wade not a specialist batsman? His form of late has been incredible. He doesn't keep anymore.
Seems like Starc has been left out. Bowling lineup will be Cummins, Pattinson, Lyon and Hazlewood/Siddle.
I think it's fair enough too. Cummins, Pattinson and Siddle in these conditions could well be our best pace attack. We need an early win in the series too and this could be the best way to get it.
The Sri Lanka series feels like it was years ago. Seems harsh to leave Kurtis Patterson out, given he must average about 200 in tests, but for once it seems we have a number of batsmen in form.
I question the selection of Bancroft. For some reason the commentary about him is a bit misty-eyed, and forgets the fact that he was never really that good. Marcus Harris has shown just as much form as Bancroft ever did, and has done well for Australia A.
Mitch Starc was off the boil over summer, and his form tailed off over the course of the World Cup. He's a class bowler and I think he will feature in the series, but I'm OK with Pattinson getting a shot in the first test.
I'm really uncertain as to how the series plays out. England should be strong favourites, but they don't on paper look like the classy, settled lineup they have been in years passed. Their batting line-up looks particularly flimsy, and their performance against Ireland was worrying.
But you once again come back to our perennial struggles batting against the moving ball, and how we will consistently put up scores on green decks.
My prediction is England 3-1, with most of the games decided within four days.
I think Bancroft has been selected purely on his willingness (and ability) to field at bat pad.
There was a lot of talk of not playing Starc specifically at Edgbaston last summer. I remember Vaughan talking about how the wicket is suited to guys who continually hit a length and get movement off the seam.
On paper we probably have a better batting lineup than England. I think the real test will be how we handle the pressure and the conditions. I’m not expecting us to win but we’re in with a good shot.
Sadly I predict a lean series for Uzzie & Bancroft.
Whether Wade can translate his recent form into the test arena is certainly questionable. 38 innings average of less than 30 would suggest not.
Except he had never shown remotely this sort of form with the bat when he previously played test cricket. I don't think you can take his past test record as an indication of how he will go this time.
There are a couple of reasons why Bancroft could be picked. Firstly, he's a right hander. Potentially the OZ team could have five lefties if Harris was picked. The second would be Bangers form, especially on that goat track they played the trial game on. The 90-odd he scored was a match winning innings. In terms of the comparison between him and Harris, I reckon they're both on par. They've both scored similar runs of late. I do worry about Harris' temperament, though, where we gets out to a loose shot when seemingly well set.
Separate names with a comma.