Australian test selection 2019-2020

[Red Hill]

No, picking players in form is bad rationale. Anyone can fluke some runs in quick succession. Nathan Hauritz hit two tons in a row once (Tim Paine must be jealous - it's taken 13 years for him to match that total). How often has picking batsmen "in form" actually worked out for us? What is there to suggest that picking players in form is actually an effective way to select teams? It rewards merit....and then they get dropped 6 tests later and we pick some other in form player. May I remind people for the 200th time that Smith hadn't scored a FC ton for over 12 months when he got recalled. Tbf, I don't really care that much about people like us using this rationale, but I'd like to think full time selectors who should have access to a wealth of information can do a bit better than going onto cricinfo and throwing darts at the top 5 leading run scores. Batsmen don't magically get much better or worse in the space of 5 months. The selectors should be able to sit down in October before the shield season starts and identify, based on stuff like previous run scoring and the dreaded eye test, and work out who they have in mind for a test spot, and some ****er scoring two tons in a row while another ****er fails two times in a row shouldn't throw things into chaos

I don't disagree except we just don't have any depth any more. When everyone knew there were one (potentially two) opening spots and one or two middle order spots up for grabs, success became paramount, because if we reward last year's full Shield season, we end up with Harris, Wade, Pukovski, Maddinson, SMarsh, Bancroft. Bancroft and Harris just don't look test standard to me. I think Harris can probably Chris Roger himself if he gets a bit smarter over the next few years, but he and Bancroft looked woeful in England.

The two batsmen that I would like to see in the Aust team within two years are Pukovski and Patterson. I also want to see Renshaw make some runs, because I rate him. If I was identifying talent I'd pick these three. But you can't pick these three guys if they aren't making Shield runs, or if they're injured. In two to three years (assuming Warner's retired) I'd like to see:

Renshaw
- ? -
Pukovski
Smith
Patterson
Labuschange


These guys aside, I don't see anyone else in the Shield deserving, and if you don't reward runs made, what else can you work on if the ones you rate aren't making runs or are injured?

 

[TheJediBrah]

No, picking players in form is bad rationale. Anyone can fluke some runs in quick succession. Nathan Hauritz hit two tons in a row once (Tim Paine must be jealous - it's taken 13 years for him to match that total). How often has picking batsmen "in form" actually worked out for us? What is there to suggest that picking players in form is actually an effective way to select teams? It rewards merit....and then they get dropped 6 tests later and we pick some other in form player. May I remind people for the 200th time that Smith hadn't scored a FC ton for over 12 months when he got recalled. Tbf, I don't really care that much about people like us using this rationale, but I'd like to think full time selectors who should have access to a wealth of information can do a bit better than going onto cricinfo and throwing darts at the top 5 leading run scores. Batsmen don't magically get much better or worse in the space of 5 months. The selectors should be able to sit down in October before the shield season starts and identify, based on stuff like previous run scoring and the dreaded eye test, and work out who they have in mind for a test spot, and some ****er scoring two tons in a row while another ****er fails two times in a row shouldn't throw things into chaos

No one's saying you should just pick the 6 top run-scorers from the Shield that season for the Test team though, you're arguing with a largely non-existent opposition. They're saying it should be considered, which it definitely should. If you've got players with not much between them career-wise then pick the "in-form" player. I don't think anyone's saying that a consistent performer like a Joe Burns should be completely overlooked for some random that scored a couple of recent hundreds but done nothing else in their career.

 

[NUFAN]

Red Hill is saying literally to pick the 3 top non Tom C00pers.

 

[Burgey]

I don't disagree except we just don't have any depth any more. When everyone knew there were one (potentially two) opening spots and one or two middle order spots up for grabs, success became paramount, because if we reward last year's full Shield season, we end up with Harris, Wade, Pukovski, Maddinson, SMarsh, Bancroft. Bancroft and Harris just don't look test standard to me. I think Harris can probably Chris Roger himself if he gets a bit smarter over the next few years, but he and Bancroft looked woeful in England.

The two batsmen that I would like to see in the Aust team within two years are Pukovski and Patterson. I also want to see Renshaw make some runs, because I rate him. If I was identifying talent I'd pick these three. But you can't pick these three guys if they aren't making Shield runs, or if they're injured. In two to three years (assuming Warner's retired) I'd like to see:

Renshaw
- ? -
Pukovski
Smith
Patterson
Labuschange


These guys aside, I don't see anyone else in the Shield deserving, and if you don't reward runs made, what else can you work on if the ones you rate aren't making runs or are injured?

What about the fella who's made 6,000 test runs opening at 47 odd and who made a hundred last week in Brisbane? Maybe he's worth a shot?

 

[Red Hill]

Red Hill is saying literally to pick the 3 top non Tom C00pers.

Not really. What I'd like to be saying is pick Pukovski, Patterson and Renshaw. But I also don't wanna reward mediocrity (Renshaw) and Patterson is injured. Pukovski should 100% play tests this summer if he is ready to go in all aspects.

And for all the slights on SMarsh, and his age, he might still be a better test bat that Harris and Bancroft. He's shown that he can deal with international attacks in plenty of innings played.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Red Hill is saying literally to pick the 3 top non Tom C00pers.

Whether that's a bad idea or not depends on who those top 3 are, and it's not as dumb as it usually would be given how few players right now (if any) are knocking the door down with consistent excellent performances over the course of years. 15 years ago when we had over a dozen dominant domestic and international batsmen then yes just picking the top 3 scorers from a few Shield rounds would have been stupidity. That's not the case right now though.

And I'm sure Red Hill is exaggerating a bit, and not suggesting picking the top 3 regardless of who they are.

 

[Spikey]

No one's saying you should just pick the 6 top run-scorers from the Shield that season for the Test team though, you're arguing with a largely non-existent opposition. They're saying it should be considered, which it definitely should. If you've got players with not much between them career-wise then pick the "in-form" player. I don't think anyone's saying that a consistent performer like a Joe Burns should be completely overlooked for some random that scored a couple of recent hundreds but done nothing else in their career.

I mean, people are saying don't pick Usman and then throwing Mad Dog's name around

 

[TheJediBrah]

I mean, people are saying don't pick Usman and then throwing Mad Dog's name around

I wouldn't mind a form pick like Maddog over Usman as long as it's just one and the rest of the team are consistent performers.

I'd say Uzzy really should be playing Tests at home but if he can't make a score or two in 4 Shield rounds then it's not a good sign

 

[mr_mister]

Labuschagne surely won't be moved to 6

 

[TheJediBrah]

He'll have to stay at 3. Ideally I'd like him at 5 but we don't really have a strong top 3 to displace him, and whichever 2 of KPat, Pucovski and Wade make up the middle order will be better off at 5 and 6 for now.

 

[stephen]

He'll have to stay at 3. Ideally I'd like him at 5 but we don't really have a strong top 3 to displace him, and whichever 2 of KPat, Pucovski and Wade make up the middle order will be better off at 5 and 6 for now.

If Khawaja gets in the runs in the next two shield matches then her could slot back in at 3 and Labuschagne could drop down to 5.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Let's forget about KPat for now on the basis of injury. I definitely rate him highly, despite it not being the best attack he was facing he looked like he was comfortable at Test level.

Anyone saying that the runs he made against Sri Lanka count while also saying the runs Burns and Head made do not is being blatantly hypocritical

 

[TheJediBrah]

KPat is 3rd picked Test batsman for me tbh, behind Smith and Labu

 

[aussie tragic]

Warne has named his 1st test XII

1. Warner
2. Khawaja
3. Labuschagne
4. Smith
5. Wade
6. Pucovski
7. Paine
8. Pattinson
9. Cummins
10. Lyon
11. Hazlewood
12. Starc

No surprise Starc misses out again lol

 

[Gob]

surprisingly bearable team from Warne

 

[stephen]

Yeah not a bad team at all. Maybe Warne applied for the selector job on seek.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah I think I actually entirely agree with it. I've never had this happen before.

I'm totally open to Starc or even Richardson in for Patto and/or Head in for Pucovski but if it was just up to me I think that's what I'd roll with.

Disclaimer: I have no faith in Wade but when you pick someone as a batsman for a Test and they ton up, you shouldn't really drop them for someone who was available when they tonned up. So I think dropping Burns for Warner was fine but dropping either Patterson or Burns for Wade in the first place was ugh, and dropping Wade for anyone else here would be equally ugh even though I'll likely be all for dropping Wade after another couple of Tests.

 

[Red Hill]

Labuschagne surely won't be moved to 6

was thinking more long term, Pukovski is a #3 and Smith has #4 so he will probably end up at #5 or #6.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

I don't back Wade as a long term option but for the time being he is worth persisting with, in general I am not a fan of change for the sake of change

 

[morgieb]

Surprisingly sensible squad from Warne. I feel more comfortable blooding Pucovski at home than I did in the Ashes, and Khawaja is probably the second best opener in the country (though would like some runs [yeah I know he's had some dodgy decisions but still....])