Australia Test squad - 2015

[CountryRace]

james faulkner looks a player

 

[Super Hans]

james faulkner looks a player

So do Starc and Maxwell with the white ball, if only they knew how to play 4/5 day cricket.

 

[CountryRace]

So do Starc and Maxwell with the white ball, if only they knew how to play 4/5 day cricket.

all 3 are pretty young

starc should improve as a bowler test level

 

[Super Hans]

all 3 are pretty young

starc should improve as a bowler test level

Starc has all the attributes to be our #1 test bowler for a decade. I don't think it's all his fault he can't get it together though, he plays one game then misses three, no continuity. The selectors should just leave him in the shield for a full season.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

all 3 are pretty young

starc should improve as a bowler test level

He'll improve a lot now. He'll have just got a massive injection in confidence and that's half the trick.

 

[Bradesmaen]

He's a one trick pony and it doesn't work when batsmen aren't trying to score at 6 an over. Plus he can't swing a red ball

 

[Doodlesweaver]

He's a one trick pony and it doesn't work when batsmen aren't trying to score at 6 an over. Plus he can't swing a red ball

You've had a very consistent season Brades, I'll give you full marks for that.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

james faulkner looks a player

Pity he has a grand total of 0 FC tons, and his bowling whilst good is not as good as a few other options. To make it short, shouldn't be picked until either his bowling is better than the options (i.e. Pattinson, Cummins, Hazelwood, etc) or his batting displaces lets say Mitch Marsh. Not happening.

 

[frankrizzo]

Hope starc does eventually get it right with the red ball but i also hope he doesn't just automatically leapfrog people like hazlewood and get back into the test side straight away based on his amazing white ball performance, lets remember when starc was floundering in test cricket he was already at that time a quality one day bowler with an average of just 21.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It's a really interesting question about Maxwell, Starc and Faulkner. They're all young, clearly talented and have all just played important roles in a winning World Cup side. There are doubts about all of them and whether they could do a job in the Test side. But I can't shake the idea that these guys will crop up again in Test cricket, if not before the Ashes then after.

They're all 24-26 and are now seasoned international cricketers. I don't think you just leave that kind of talent sitting on the bench forever. There's going to come a point when we enter a transition phase in the Test side and if these guys are in form at the time, I think there will be an irresistible temptation to have another look at them at Test level. I understand the misgivings about all them, both in terms of their records and in terms of where they would fit into a Test side. It could be a reach to pick them, but I reckon it's one the selectors will be willing to make at some stage.

It's more straightforward for Starc. He has to carve out a spot as a first-choice fast bowler in the Test side, effectively competing with Hazlewood and Pattinson for a spot in the best XI for the Ashes. And then, fingers crossed, becoming first choice once Johnson and Harris finish up.

It's trickier for Maxwell and Faulkner. In limited-overs, all-rounders are really valuable because of the flexibility they offer – having a bowler who can score runs down the order or a top-six batsman who's capable with the ball is an obvious and necessary bonus for a side already well-stocked with specialists. In Tests, it's a harder sell. Is Maxwell reliable enough to demand a Test spot as a batsman? Probably not. Is Faulkner one of the best three quicks in the country? Again, probably not.

But there might just be enough upside with both of these guys – who bring a package of skills and enough 'competitive intelligence' to execute them when it matters – to justify taking the gamble of picking Maxwell at No.6 and Faulkner at No.8 – maybe not in the same match – and seeing what happens. I'm not saying that should happen for the Ashes, but perhaps some time in the 12 months after when there will be spots up for grabs.

 

[PaddyO]

If we have a keeper capable of batting at #6, I'd like to see Faulkner given an extended test run at #7.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Faulkner is a better long form bowler than he is in ODI's, but he's not as good at batting. The obvious reason being in test matches he's not out there to hit 60 off the last 5 overs.

 

[PaddyO]

If we have a keeper capable of batting at #6, I'd like to see Faulkner given an extended test run at #7.

This is on the proviso that the top 5 batsmen are proper batsmen...

 

[QAFL_Fan]

1. Rogers
2. Warner
3. Smith
4. Clarke
5. S. Marsh
6. Watson/M.Marsh/Faulkner (honestly can't split and yep including Faulkner)
7. Haddin
8. Johnson
9. Harris (Hazlewood for WI)
10. Pattinson
11. Lyon


Leaves a squad of 15-17 for Ashes/WI which will make up the 11 for the 7 tests I guess. Don't know the final make up but they are the pool of players I'd use. Would take Faulkner at the expense of 1 of M.Marsh/Watson

On what planet is Faulkner a contender to bat at #6 in Test cricket?

Never even made a first class hundred and averages 30.

An outstanding limited overs player, but at this stage, neither is batting or his bowling is Test standard. There would be close to 10 quicks ahead of him in the pecking order at the moment, and his batting isn't sufficient to bat in the Top 6 - so therefore not sufficient to push him up that pecking order of bowlers.

 

[Tulip]

Fancy Faulkner to make the leap more than Maxwell, but with the quality of spinner currently available you would be tempted to give him a crack at 6. With Haddin on his last legs, people's only misgiving about Nevill is his batting. If you could slide him in at 8, and then play Faulkner/MMarsh + Maxwell at 6 and 7 - you'd have an unorthodox side that may just work considering the quality of seam bowling available.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

It's trickier for Maxwell and Faulkner. In limited-overs, all-rounders are really valuable because of the flexibility they offer – having a bowler who can score runs down the order or a top-six batsman who's capable with the ball is an obvious and necessary bonus for a side already well-stocked with specialists. In Tests, it's a harder sell. Is Maxwell reliable enough to demand a Test spot as a batsman? Probably not. Is Faulkner one of the best three quicks in the country? Again, probably not.

But there might just be enough upside with both of these guys – who bring a package of skills and enough 'competitive intelligence' to execute them when it matters – to justify taking the gamble of picking Maxwell at No.6 and Faulkner at No.8 – maybe not in the same match – and seeing what happens. I'm not saying that should happen for the Ashes, but perhaps some time in the 12 months after when there will be spots up for grabs.

Maxwell wouldn't be far off Test cricket as a batsman alone, and his offies would provide variety to an attack.

The only way Faulkner gets a gig at #8 is if the selection of Maxwell at #6 also makes him our #1 spinner, and that is a long way off happening at this point.

Maxwell at least has a first class record to bring him into the conversation as a Test batsman. Faulkner is not in the conversation with either bat or ball, but could be useful as a package in the right circumstances.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

With Haddin on his last legs, people's only misgiving about Nevill is his batting. If you could slide him in at 8, and then play Faulkner/MMarsh + Maxwell at 6 and 7 - you'd have an unorthodox side that may just work considering the quality of seam bowling available.

Please explain how Nevill has question marks over his batting and would bat at 8 behind Faulkner?

Nevill has a first class average of 44 with 6 tons, including 2 doubles. (and 15 x 50)

Faulkner has a first class average of 30, with no tons and 12 x 50.

If Faulkner was in the test side, I'd bat him behind Mitch Johnson and I'd be hoping his bowling has improved ALOT!

 

[The Passenger]

Faulkner is in the awkward spot of being a bowling all rounder. That is fine but our batting isn't strong enough to hold a bowling all rounder at 7 just at the moment.

Nevill could definitely bat 6 so that will be an opening for Faulks, but it appears Mitch Marsh is likely to get first crack at 6. If Marsh succeeds then it's going to be hard for Faulkner to get a crack because 1) Marsh is still probably a way off being a top 5 batsmen as it means he would have to be as good as a specialist batsmen, and 2) This would give us 6 bowlers which is just not a necessity given our bowling is already our strength anyway.

But if Marsh doesn't grab his chance over the Windies and Ashes, then I suspect Faulkner will probably come into the team at 7 with Nevill at 6.

I don't think the selectors will view Faulkner as being quite penetrative enough to be the third seamer, though I reckon if given that chance he might just surprise a few. Not as quick as the others in the set up, but he is a very slippery customer with the ball in hand.

 

[The 747]

If we take four quicks and that doesn't include Harris, surely Starc will be right in the mix.

Johnson
Starc
Hazelwood

Are locks IMO, the question is who is #4 if Pattinson isn't considered durable enough?

 

[bananatigz]

1. D.Warner
2. C.Rogers
3. S.Smith
4. M.Clarke
5. A.Voges
6. S.Watson
7. B.Haddin
8. M.Johnson
9. R.Harris
10. J.Pattinson
11. N.Lyon

S.Marsh
J.Burns
M.Marsh
P.Nevill
J.Hazlewood
M.Starc

 

[footyfan1978]

On what planet is Faulkner a contender to bat at #6 in Test cricket?

Never even made a first class hundred and averages 30.

An outstanding limited overs player, but at this stage, neither is batting or his bowling is Test standard. There would be close to 10 quicks ahead of him in the pecking order at the moment, and his batting isn't sufficient to bat in the Top 6 - so therefore not sufficient to push him up that pecking order of bowlers.

Yeah. You sum he situation up well. He is a wonderful player for one day cricket. I have no doubt if he did play Test cricket he would give his all and not make a disgrace of himself at that format but you do not leave out a strike bowler to include him and with batting there is nothing to suggest in longer format of game that his batting at number 6 in an order would be valued to add to the team more than plenty of other options to bat at 6.
We played Simon O'Donnell on 1985 Ashes series and it did not work and I would think Faulkner bowling and batting is about where SOD was in terms of long format cricket. Handy but not elite. Like O'Donnell was, Faulkner is very very handy one day cricketer and sensational he got man of match in World Cup final. Just when New Zealand might have been able to scrape together some total up near 240 and 250 and make some type of game of it, Faulkner wrecked the recovery and they soon lost their way and did not even make 200. Starc and Clarke must have been a chance too for MoM.

 

[Badesumofu]

Faulkner isn't a top 6 Test batsman yet, and may never be. He could probably bat 7, though. So if we have a keeper who can bat 6, Faulkner could bat 7. If we have our spin come from batting all-rounders like Maxwell and Smith, Falkner could bat at 8. I don't think either of those things is happening for the WI or Ashes Tests. They might consider just batting Faulkner at 6 in WI just because they can and it would be worth it if he just clicks. Would be very much a speculative selection looking to the future rather than because he merits that spot. But we do that sometimes.

Rogers
Warner
Smith
Clarke
[batter]
[batting all-rounder]
Haddin
Johnson
Starc
Lyon
[right-arm quick]

Is probably the side for the first WI Test. I'd be inclined to give Burns another go as the number 5 and M. Marsh a go as the number 6. Hazlewood seems the obvious choice at 11 given Harris isn't playing and Patto is injured again.

Harris would come in for the Ashes in place of the worst performed quick from the WI series. Marsh and Burns are competing with Faulkner, Watson (le sigh), and Shaun Marsh for those spots in the middle order. If those 4 frontline bowlers are really firing we might even be able to just pick the best 6 batters without regard to whether they are all-rounders or not (*gasp*).

After that, I'd imagine the retirements would begin, with Haddin perhaps playing one of the home series as a farewell and to give us the first half of the Shield season to choose his replacement. Buggered if I know who replaces Rogers when he retires after the Ashes. Maybe Cowan. Could be Burns, which is a good reason to keep him in the side in the middle-order so he has a chance to acclimatise to Test cricket without the pressure of opening. I dare say he will be playing county Cricket this winter so he has a chance to prove that he can still bat. Can't really see them giving Voges a gig unless there is an injury to someone like Smith.

Hopefully with the World Cup over there won't be too many pointless bilateral ODI series keeping the likes of Faulkner, Starc and Maxwell playing a good amount of FC Cricket. These three are very, very talented young players who could have a huge impact in Tests.

 

[footyfan1978]

Maxwell wouldn't be far off Test cricket as a batsman alone, and his offies would provide variety to an attack.

I will be watching with interest how Maxwell offies develop in longer format of game. If he can keep improving he would be very very handy Test cricketer to bat at 6 and bowl quite a bit. Give him another two years and just about think he can make it.
Never seen him bat in longer format of game so will be interested to watch when he gets a chance what type of tempo he bats at and can he adjust his game to suit many many different conditions that a player comes across in Test cricket around the world. I suspect in time he can make it. Going to enjoy watching it.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Maxwell at least has a first class record to bring him into the conversation as a Test batsman. Faulkner is not in the conversation with either bat or ball, but could be useful as a package in the right circumstances.

Faulkner's FC record with the ball is excellent.

147 wickets at an average of 24 doesn't 'bring him into the conversation'?

That record is better than Starc's or Hazlewood's.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

On what planet is Faulkner a contender to bat at #6 in Test cricket?

Is he that much worse a batsman than Mitchell Marsh?

Never even made a first class hundred and averages 30.

If it's all about his average, then it's worth noting that that's more than Marsh.

An outstanding limited overs player, but at this stage, neither is batting or his bowling is Test standard.

Also true of Marsh, no?