Australia Test squad - 2015

[PaddyO]

I know people are loathe to pick players for the Test team based on limited overs form, and I'm not a real fan of "gifting" Baggy Greens either, but if Nathan Coulter-Nile has a good ODI series against England, and maintains his current good record in that format, is he worth a look for a couple of Tests against Bangladesh?

You don't want to gift tests, but you want to pick NCN on the basis of his ODI form?

But FWIW I think NCN will be gun in all formats.

 

[eth-dog]

The dual wicketkeeper thing is probably not sustainable long-term. The fact that Wade is still picked as ODI/T20 keeper suggests pretty clearly that the selectors are not sold on Nevill.

But batting at 7-8 is not going to give Wade much chance to make a big innings and build a case for Test selection either.

So I really don't know what the selectors are doing here.

Or that Nevill sucks in those formats and shouldn't be selected in them.

 

[Damon_3388]

You don't want to gift tests, but you want to pick NCN on the basis of his ODI form?

Well I want to have a look at him in the long format, but it would conflict with my own ideals to do so. I feel like giving him a run against Bangladesh is the least "harmful" way of doing so.

 

[eth-dog]

FWIW I think the squad for Bangladesh should be:

Bancroft
Warner
Smith
Burns
Voges
Marsh
Nevill
Agar
Starc
Lyon
Hazlewood

Handscomb
Wade
Henriques (controversial I know)
Siddle
Coulter-Nile

Wade is there as back up keeper/bat. If Voges fails and we want a more experienced player in the middle order than Handscomb you slide Wade in at 5.

 

[Docker82]

Wade keeps at Victoria before Handscomb. Enough said. Handscomb is no reserve gloveman. Bancroft will if picked be an opener, can't see them wanting to pick a reserve opener to replace or reshuffle the batting order mid series in the case of an injury to Nevill.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Well I want to have a look at him in the long format, but it would conflict with my own ideals to do so. I feel like giving him a run against Bangladesh is the least "harmful" way of doing so.

Well, he has a good first class record so it's not like he's a crap first class bowler. He probably is in the reckoning based on that as well as international ODI stuff.

 

[eth-dog]

Handscomb is a "Nevill did his hammy while batting, let's throw him the gloves" sort of player.

 

[Damon_3388]

Well, he has a good first class record so it's not like he's a crap first class bowler. He probably is in the reckoning based on that as well as international ODI stuff.

True, but his First Class record isn't exactly eye-popping, either (good, without being spectacular), and he didn't really do anything special when he played in the Shield last season, so it'd basically be a pick off of ODI form. Still, I don't see the harm in giving him a couple of Tests against a "weaker" opponent.

 

[eth-dog]

Handscomb is a "Nevill did his hammy while batting, let's throw him the gloves" sort of player.

Would also prefer to give Bancroft the gloves in this case, although a batting order shuffle would need to ensue.

 

[Hellgood]

Coulter-Nile's had a few good years at Shield level so I don't think it's fair to say selection would be a gift.

 

[Jak!x]

Would also prefer to give Bancroft the gloves in this case, although a batting order shuffle would need to ensue.

Pretty sure Bancroft was considered the best keeper batsman of his u19 World Cup over De Kock, and kept over Pierson. Would rather him back up Neville than Wade or Hanscomb

 

[The_Reaper]

Pretty sure Bancroft was considered the best keeper batsman of his u19 World Cup over De Kock, and kept over Pierson. Would rather him back up Neville than Wade or Hanscomb

Not while he's opening the batting

 

[eth-dog]

Not while he's opening the batting

This. If Burns was in the side at 4/5 you'd probably open with him and shuffle Bancroft down the order though.

 

[Yoda_]

This. If Burns was in the side at 4/5 you'd probably open with him and shuffle Bancroft down the order though.

Bancroft is an opener.
Always has been.
Always will be

 

[hugecannon]

What about Wade as a specialist bat? Averaging around 40 with a couple of 100's to his name, batting at 5/6 maybe an option.

Warner
Burns
Ferguson
Smith
Wade
M Marsh
Nevill
Johnson
Agar
Starc
Lyon

Pattinson
Bancroft
Siddle
Cummins

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

What about Wade as a specialist bat? Averaging around 40 with a couple of 100's to his name, batting at 5/6 maybe an option.

Its not the worst option. He definitely has more merit as a batsman than as a batsman-keeper.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Its not the worst option. He definitely has more merit as a batsman than as a batsman-keeper.

No chance I have a horrible feeling that he's breathing down Nevill's neck for the test spot.

 

[southernswannies]

Its not the worst option. He definitely has more merit as a batsman than as a batsman-keeper.

He does have two Test tons after all...

 

[The_Reaper]

I don't think our stocks are so bad that we'd consider Wade as a specialist.

Would give Ferguson and Lynn a go before that

 

[JackOutback]

I'm worried they are going to plump for Burns or S.Marsh as opener and not Bancroft, which would be a shame as I think we need to be bold and move forward. Open with Bancroft, Burns down the order, Marsh as back-up.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Its not the worst option. He definitely has more merit as a batsman than as a batsman-keeper.

If he does it for a season for Victoria first, maybe. Not now.

 

[PaddyO]

Bancroft is an opener.
Always has been.
Always will be

What about Wade as a specialist bat? Averaging around 40 with a couple of 100's to his name, batting at 5/6 maybe an option.

Warner
Burns
Ferguson
Smith
Wade
M Marsh
Nevill
Johnson
Agar
Starc
Lyon

If Bancroft and Burns are the guys to come into the team, then Smith might as well move back to four or five imo. Bat top order guys where they should be and makes our middle order look much better.

Warner
Bancroft
Burns
Smith
Voges
MMarsh

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

If Bancroft and Burns are the guys to come into the team, then Smith might as well move back to four or five imo. Bat top order guys where they should be and makes our middle order look much better.

Warner
Bancroft
Burns
Smith
Voges
MMarsh

Maybe, but I just don't think Burns is best suited to a top order position. I know he's done it for Queensland for a couple of years now, with success last summer, but I still feel he is better suited to 5 (or 6 when playing no all-rounder). Then again, I prefer Smith at 4 or 5 as well and don't see a number three to come in. Khawaja maybe, but its not ideal.

 

[eth-dog]

Bancroft is an opener.
Always has been.
Always will be

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.

 

[JackOutback]

If Bancroft and Burns are the guys to come into the team, then Smith might as well move back to four or five imo. Bat top order guys where they should be and makes our middle order look much better.

Warner
Bancroft
Burns
Smith
Voges
MMarsh

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.