Australia Test squad - 2015

[LukeParkerno1]

I'd prefer Smith at three rather than two of the top three being rookies. Smith can always drop back to four if and when Burns settled in.

Burns opens for his State, he is a top order bat. Never get this obsession of moving a bloke averaging 80 odd at number 4 (Smith) to put him at 3. Why? I'd take the 80 he will get at 4.

 

[Yoda_]

And if Nevill did his hammy mid test and Bancroft is the next best keeper, you'd want him to open and keep wickets? That was the hypothetical. If that happened I'd put Bancroft at 5 and keep, with Burns moving to the other openers spot.

Unlucky if it happens mid test.

 

[JackOutback]

Burns opens for his State, he is a top order bat. Never get this obsession of moving a bloke averaging 80 odd at number 4 (Smith) to put him at 3. Why? I'd take the 80 he will get at 4.

There's a vast gap in quality between Test and Shield cricket. It's why, where possible, players are eased in. Burns might open for his state but it's not his natural position.

 

[big_sav]

Apparently johnson and hazlewood will be rested for the bangladesh tour

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Apparently johnson and hazlewood will be rested for the bangladesh tour

Good. Johnson bowled rubbish in the Ashes anyway and Hazelwood needs a good rest.

 

[JackOutback]

I'm fine with Johnson resting up for the summer but why the hell does Hazlewood need a rest? He's 23, didn't play the fifth Test, isn't playing the ODIs...he should be getting as much international experience in as many varied conditions as possible because he is likely to be a key player for years to come.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I'm fine with Johnson resting up for the summer but why the hell does Hazlewood need a rest? He's 23, didn't play the fifth Test, isn't playing the ODIs...he should be getting as much international experience in as many varied conditions as possible because he is likely to be a key player for years to come.

He has played the Indian series, Windies, and 4 Ashes tests..and a World Cup and a few other ODI's. He is only 23, we don't want him to break down.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

So, who will they take?

Mitchell Starc
James Pattinson
Pat Cummins
Nathan Coulter-Nile
Peter Siddle

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I doubt they will take that many, for two Tests where they will probably play two spinners. I would guess NCN would miss out of that lot, but I would not have Cummins there. He simply hasn't played long form cricket.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I doubt they will take that many, for two Tests where they will probably play two spinners. I would guess NCN would miss out of that lot, but I would not have Cummins there. He simply hasn't played long form cricket.

Agar will go on tour, O'Keefe possibly, but Agar got wickets on the recent A tour and he would be ahead. Cummins or Pattinson, Siddle, Starc plus the two spinners.

 

[Damon_3388]

Any reason why Moises Henriques doesn't come under consideration for an all-rounder spot? Good record, good leader, seems more of a "classic" cricketer, more naturally suited to the long format than Mitch Marsh or James Faulkner. Or does he need to be 3-4 years younger (somehow he's 28 already) to be considered a "sexy" option these days?

 

[JackOutback]

Any reason why Moises Henriques doesn't come under consideration for an all-rounder spot? Good record, good leader, seems more of a "classic" cricketer, more naturally suited to the long format than Mitch Marsh or James Faulkner. Or does he need to be 3-4 years younger (somehow he's 28 already) to be considered a "sexy" option these days?

He had a couple of chances and failed to grab them, was held out of the team by Watson for a while as his age crept up, Faulkner and Marsh came along with their potential. I just don't think he is Test match standard myself, very fine Shield player though.

 

[Damon_3388]

He had a couple of chances and failed to grab them, was held out of the team by Watson for a while as his age crept up, Faulkner and Marsh came along with their potential. I just don't think he is Test match standard myself, very fine Shield player though.

I just feel like his batting is more Test standard/suitable (has two Test 50s to his name) at this stage, and his bowling is more economical and suited to the long format, too. Fills a bit of the leadership void as well (has captained NSW and Sydney Sixers, as well as captaining Australia at U/19 level too).

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Any reason why Moises Henriques doesn't come under consideration for an all-rounder spot? Good record, good leader, seems more of a "classic" cricketer, more naturally suited to the long format than Mitch Marsh or James Faulkner. Or does he need to be 3-4 years younger (somehow he's 28 already) to be considered a "sexy" option these days?

Bowling isn't good enough, simply put.

His bowling lacks penetration, it is solid no doubt but nothing more than that.

 

[to1994]

Given Henriques scored runs in India I'd include him in the squad as we're playing in similar conditions.

Bancroft
S. Marsh
Smith
Burns
Voges
M. Marsh
Nevill
Agar
Starc
Siddle
Lyon

Probably the most likely line-up for the first Test though not necessarily the best.

 

[Damon_3388]

Bowling isn't good enough, simply put.

His bowling lacks penetration, it is solid no doubt but nothing more than that.

Fair enough. I don't really see Marsh as having a heap of penetration at Test level either TBH. Not enough to offset his lack of economy, anyway.

What do we really need out of (what would be) a 5th bowler, though? In that role, I'd tend to favour keeping things tight and building pressure, over taking wickets but leaking runs.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Fair enough. I don't really see Marsh as having a heap of penetration at Test level either TBH. Not enough to offset his lack of economy, anyway.

What do we really need out of (what would be) a 5th bowler, though? In that role, I'd tend to favour keeping things tight and building pressure, over taking wickets but leaking runs.

Depends on the makeup of the other bowlers in the attack. I will favour having a wicket taker though personally. On a flat pitch, and lets face it 9/10 test pitches are flat, you need guys to take wickets.

Lets assume your makeup is Siddle/Hazelwood (one of them as the donkey tie it down bowler), Lyon (spinner), Johnson (at least for 12-24 months), and Pattinson/Cummins.

That attack has enough control to go for a more attacking bowler in Marsh.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Probably the most likely line-up for the first Test though not necessarily the best.

2 front line spinners...jeez. I know we have to play for conditions, but this tactic has failed over and over again lately.

 

[to1994]

2 front line spinners...jeez. I know we have to play for conditions, but this tactic has failed over and over again lately.

Not a huge fan of us doing it either but I can't see them resisting the urge to play Agar. They could move Nevill to 6 and play an extra fast bowler but our batting is going to be the most brittle it's been in years so it would be a very risky move given Bangladesh will be tougher then some people think.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Not a huge fan of us doing it either but I can't see them resisting the urge to play Agar. They could move Nevill to 6 and play an extra fast bowler but our batting is going to be the most brittle it's been in years so it would be a very risky move given Bangladesh will be tougher then some people think.

If we want to play Agar, drop Mitch Marsh. Nevill can bat 6. However I hate the idea as our batting is inconsistent at best, and we have Voges who bowls left armers, Smith can bowl spin as well.

 

[Underdog]

Fair enough. I don't really see Marsh as having a heap of penetration at Test level either TBH. Not enough to offset his lack of economy, anyway.

Lack of economy?

Marsh 2.98
Johnson 3.30
Siddle 2.93
Hazlewood 2.96
Starc 3.42
Watson 2.76
Pattinson 3.25
Harris 2.78
Faulkner 3.54
Henriques 2.92 (FC 3.04)

Marsh's economy is fine. If he's a more threatening wicket taker, you'd take his bowling every time.

 

[Damon_3388]

Lack of economy?

Marsh 2.98
Johnson 3.30
Siddle 2.93
Hazlewood 2.96
Starc 3.42
Watson 2.76
Pattinson 3.25
Harris 2.78
Faulkner 3.54
Henriques 2.92 (FC 3.04)

Marsh's economy is fine. If he's a more threatening wicket taker, you'd take his bowling every time.

I'm looking more at FC economy rate and general bowling style, rather than the limited sample size of Test bowling.

 

[The_Reaper]

Warner has pretty much confirmed that he won't tour Bangladesh

 

[Demosthenes]

Any reason why Moises Henriques doesn't come under consideration for an all-rounder spot? Good record, good leader, seems more of a "classic" cricketer, more naturally suited to the long format than Mitch Marsh or James Faulkner. Or does he need to be 3-4 years younger (somehow he's 28 already) to be considered a "sexy" option these days?

Injury screwed up his first class summer. He doesn't really have the recent form on the board to warrant selection, unfortunately.

Otherwise I agree with you. I think he will be seriously considered for reselection over the next 12 months.

 

[The_Reaper]

Henriques did have a big injury recently which will have set him back as well.

He's the best batsman out of of the contenders.