Australian ODI Squad - 2014/15

Remove this Banner Ad

The_Reaper said:
And he's better than Bailey who is not international standard
Click to expand...
Truly baffles me as to how you can say that about a guy who was by far our best batsmen in 2013, possibly best 3 in the world in ODI's.

Has a poor 2014 and now he's not international standard.

If Priddis stinks it up this season is he now considered not afl standard?

Btw I do think if Clarke is fit Bailey will go. You know who I'd prefer to get the axe but hopefully Faulkner makes that come to fruition later on in the tournament:)
 
NSFB said:
Btw I do think if Clarke is fit Bailey will go. You know who I'd prefer to get the axe but hopefully Faulkner makes that come to fruition later on in the tournament:)
Click to expand...
Watson hasn't been in ordinary odi form recently but Bailey has done bugger all since that purple patch over in India..
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Kram81 said:
Watson hasn't been in ordinary odi form recently but Bailey has done bugger all since that purple patch over in India..
Click to expand...
Happily disagree here. He's been poor for 2 years now and unlike the test side he has credible competition for his spot. Anyway it doesn't bother me if people want to defend him, he's living on borrowed time and it won't be long now.......



...... I hope:cry:
 
NSFB said:
Truly baffles me as to how you can say that about a guy who was by far our best batsmen in 2013, possibly best 3 in the world in ODI's.

Has a poor 2014 and now he's not international standard.

If Priddis stinks it up this season is he now considered not afl standard?

Btw I do think if Clarke is fit Bailey will go. You know who I'd prefer to get the axe but hopefully Faulkner makes that come to fruition later on in the tournament:)
Click to expand...

Bailey had a great purple patch at the start of his career and also dominated that one series in India. But everyone scored in that series.

He has now gotten back to his regular level.
 
Kram81 said:
A lot of West Coast supporters think he wasn't AFL standard last season ;)
Click to expand...
True. But only because he was holding back all of our future superstar midfielders all on his own. :p plus, deep deep down, we all want those curls.

Back to the topic though.
I feel sorry for Bailey missing out for Clarke, but in reality, if Clarke isn't fit- he will breakdown again soon enough. If he is fit- then Bailey is next in line should Watson continue his bad run, or we get any other injuries.
It's hardly the end of the world, I would be surprised if he wasn't back in the side by the end of the w/c.
 
IMO our best side includes only two fast bowlers (Starc and Johnson) and all four all-rounders (Watson, Faulkner, Maxwell and Marsh). It allows us to go at the bowling more aggressively through our batting innings. While being a bowler down might cost us 10 runs in the field, I don't think it would matter if you are making 300-350 every innings. Starc, Johnson and Faulkner can bowl the opening overs, power plays and at the death. Watson, Maxwell and Marsh should then only bowl with the field out.
 
Some comments read like some of you guys never played real cricket yourself.
There are two prime ways you win a cricket game.
1) you bowl opposition out for lower than your score
or
2) You score so high yourself the other side cannot reach it.

When you can have the ability to win a game both ways, you do not pick a team based on trying to win the game one way at expense of the other.
 
peternorth said:
is bailey the annointed one (captaincy wise) given he was bestowed the t20 'ship, then ODIs? if so, should he get a gig based on the (c)? CA/ACB have had a habit of doing that in recent times
Click to expand...
*disclaimer* whether you choose to believe this is up to you, I don't make things up but I'm not revealing my source on this one so don't ask.

Bailey was viewed by the THEN selection panel as the next option if they had to sack Clarke as skipper due to dressing room disharmony. That they had a backup plant gives you an indication of how bad things were. He got the roles as Captain in these instances because of this and the fact that he was at the time a permanent member of both teams.

The new heir has now showed himself, Bailey will soon fade from the international scene as a result.
 
Selection is getting pretty tough for Australia, lots of cricketing talent around.

IMO changes to the side should be Watson out, Clarke in, Hazelwood out Cummings in. The big dilemma will be when Faulkner is fit, if we have a fit team to pick from, Mitch Marsh has been very good with both bat and ball but Faulkner is a match winner with the bat and an excellent death bowler.

Bailey is in form, made runs in the warm up, made runs again the other day in the opener and has an average of over 42 which IMO is good enough to keep him in, if not for his leadership as his captaincy has been very very good. If would be stupid if they drop him for Clarke who has struggled for ODI form of recent years.

Watson is the player to go, his bowling isn't overly useful anymore since he's lost 5-10km of pace. He's a flat track bully and not reliable to facing the moving ball. He's been very good in the past but he's played a lot of cricket recently and done very little. All this rubbish about Clarke replacing Bailey and Watson being on notice is just that, rubbish. You don't drop a guy making runs for one who isn't. How long are we willing to have Watson on notice? How long are we willing to wait? Until the world cup is over and it's cost us a cup? You pick the team with the best form, if we don't this just reeks of boys club, pick your favorites/mates mentality.

The other aspect is team structure. You need two genuine openers which we have and you need to bat your best batsmen at number 3 which we haven't had. IMO this is our weakness, this is where teams like South Africa have us. Clarke or Smith should be batting at 3. Personally I'd go with Clarke, he might be lacking some match practice but when fit he's just about our best batsman, has the skill to bat there and he needs to bat early as he's not a real slogger of the ball, more a classic batsman. Smith is much the same but he may be better at scoring against tighter fields that you will get later in the match.

Hazelwood is a good talented young bowler but he wasted the new ball the other night and bowled garbage. The way I see it, our depth of talent is that good, if you stuff up then someone else comes in the next game particularly if you haven't got a run of great form behind you.

Pick guys who are in form, handle the pressure and take their opportunities and we'll win the cup. Pick favorites, pick mates, pick regulars because you can't change your mind and it will be our undoing as it has been for so many times in the past.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

gbatman said:
Selection is getting pretty tough for Australia, lots of cricketing talent around.

IMO changes to the side should be Watson out, Clarke in, Hazelwood out Cummings in. The big dilemma will be when Faulkner is fit, if we have a fit team to pick from, Mitch Marsh has been very good with both bat and ball but Faulkner is a match winner with the bat and an excellent death bowler.

Bailey is in form, made runs in the warm up, made runs again the other day in the opener and has an average of over 42 which IMO is good enough to keep him in, if not for his leadership as his captaincy has been very very good. If would be stupid if they drop him for Clarke who has struggled for ODI form of recent years.

Watson is the player to go, his bowling isn't overly useful anymore since he's lost 5-10km of pace. He's a flat track bully and not reliable to facing the moving ball. He's been very good in the past but he's played a lot of cricket recently and done very little. All this rubbish about Clarke replacing Bailey and Watson being on notice is just that, rubbish. You don't drop a guy making runs for one who isn't. How long are we willing to have Watson on notice? How long are we willing to wait? Until the world cup is over and it's cost us a cup? You pick the team with the best form, if we don't this just reeks of boys club, pick your favorites/mates mentality.

The other aspect is team structure. You need two genuine openers which we have and you need to bat your best batsmen at number 3 which we haven't had. IMO this is our weakness, this is where teams like South Africa have us. Clarke or Smith should be batting at 3. Personally I'd go with Clarke, he might be lacking some match practice but when fit he's just about our best batsman, has the skill to bat there and he needs to bat early as he's not a real slogger of the ball, more a classic batsman. Smith is much the same but he may be better at scoring against tighter fields that you will get later in the match.

Hazelwood is a good talented young bowler but he wasted the new ball the other night and bowled garbage. The way I see it, our depth of talent is that good, if you stuff up then someone else comes in the next game particularly if you haven't got a run of great form behind you.

Pick guys who are in form, handle the pressure and take their opportunities and we'll win the cup. Pick favorites, pick mates, pick regulars because you can't change your mind and it will be our undoing as it has been for so many times in the past.
Click to expand...

Hazlewood bowled no worse than Cummins has recently.

In fact given how well he has bowled this summer he deserves a run against Bangladesh after just the one poor match.
 
gbatman said:
Selection is getting pretty tough for Australia, lots of cricketing talent around.

IMO changes to the side should be Watson out, Clarke in, Hazelwood out Cummings in. The big dilemma will be when Faulkner is fit, if we have a fit team to pick from, Mitch Marsh has been very good with both bat and ball but Faulkner is a match winner with the bat and an excellent death bowler.

Bailey is in form, made runs in the warm up, made runs again the other day in the opener and has an average of over 42 which IMO is good enough to keep him in, if not for his leadership as his captaincy has been very very good. If would be stupid if they drop him for Clarke who has struggled for ODI form of recent years.

Watson is the player to go, his bowling isn't overly useful anymore since he's lost 5-10km of pace. He's a flat track bully and not reliable to facing the moving ball. He's been very good in the past but he's played a lot of cricket recently and done very little. All this rubbish about Clarke replacing Bailey and Watson being on notice is just that, rubbish. You don't drop a guy making runs for one who isn't. How long are we willing to have Watson on notice? How long are we willing to wait? Until the world cup is over and it's cost us a cup? You pick the team with the best form, if we don't this just reeks of boys club, pick your favorites/mates mentality.

The other aspect is team structure. You need two genuine openers which we have and you need to bat your best batsmen at number 3 which we haven't had. IMO this is our weakness, this is where teams like South Africa have us. Clarke or Smith should be batting at 3. Personally I'd go with Clarke, he might be lacking some match practice but when fit he's just about our best batsman, has the skill to bat there and he needs to bat early as he's not a real slogger of the ball, more a classic batsman. Smith is much the same but he may be better at scoring against tighter fields that you will get later in the match.

Hazelwood is a good talented young bowler but he wasted the new ball the other night and bowled garbage. The way I see it, our depth of talent is that good, if you stuff up then someone else comes in the next game particularly if you haven't got a run of great form behind you.

Pick guys who are in form, handle the pressure and take their opportunities and we'll win the cup. Pick favorites, pick mates, pick regulars because you can't change your mind and it will be our undoing as it has been for so many times in the past.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but how can you say that Baileys recent form plus his average of 42 saves him but then totally discard Watson who has a similar average? Don't forget that before last game Bailey was averaging 5 over his last four ODI's and had just one 50 over 16 innings.

Even more importantly, you drop Watson for Clarke and we have 5 bowling options including Marsh and Maxwell, very risky.

Watson is under pressure no doubt, but it would be strange to drop him before Bailey for Clarke.

He will be nervous when Faulkner is fit though you would think.
 
Scotland said:
Warner
Finch
S Marsh
Smith
Clarke
Maxwell
Faulkner
Haddin
Johnson
Starc
Hazelwood

You can make a team without Watson or Bailey.:)

A bit light on for bowling, but M Marsh is also available so you could drop S Marsh and put Smith up to 3.
Click to expand...

Well it would be pretty hard to select SOS from outside the squad
 
bird_man said:
Sorry, but how can you say that Baileys recent form plus his average of 42 saves him but then totally discard Watson who has a similar average? Don't forget that before last game Bailey was averaging 5 over his last four ODI's and had just one 50 over 16 innings.

Even more importantly, you drop Watson for Clarke and we have 5 bowling options including Marsh and Maxwell, very risky.

Watson is under pressure no doubt, but it would be strange to drop him before Bailey for Clarke.

He will be nervous when Faulkner is fit though you would think.
Click to expand...
Why cherry pick? Call me old fashioned but the previous match is most important indicator of form. Lets not over complicate things
 
SleazySimon said:
Why cherry pick? Call me old fashioned but the previous match is most important indicator of form. Lets not over complicate things
Click to expand...

Basing your side on just the last game is not old fashioned, it's just ridiculous.

And I hardly say that looking at the last 5 or 6 games is cherry picking, it's recent form, which is important. Hardly cherry picking

12, 16, 4, 10, 5, 2, 55
11, 40, 19, 82, 16, , 41, 0

Over the last 7 games Watson average is two times that of Bailey... He also bowls. But do we pick Bailey because in the last game he scored more? We would see some strange selections over the time if that were the case.
 
Last edited:
fpcookie said:
Speaking of team structure, having 3 f/t bowlers + 2 allrounders bowling 50 overs is risky. Watson survives based on this.
Click to expand...
Yeah valid point, I think you'd get your 30 overs out of the three quicks plus Maxwell, Marsh and Clarke, who is adamant he's going to bowl can get the next 20 out. Finch can roll a few out as can Smith. I agree though that ideally you want another seamer in there somewhere. For this, if lets say Faulkner was fit, you could argue that Clarke replaces Watson at 3 and Faulkner replaces Bailey. It's good to have options. Who knows Watson may regain form soon.
 
Bumpswithagrin said:
This article suggests we might go with four quicks for the next game at the expense of one of Maxwell or Marsh due to the game possibly being shortened due to rain. Anyone think this is a real possibility? Can't see it happening myself.

http://www.cricket.com.au/news/glenn-maxwell-australia-weather-bangladesh-four-quicks/2015-02-18
Click to expand...
If the game's probably going to be shortened due to rain, I'd keep Maxwell in. He's in form, and has the potential to hit big & quick. If we've got a short innings he's your batsman (It'd be Faulkner if he was fit).
 
Bumpswithagrin said:
This article suggests we might go with four quicks for the next game at the expense of one of Maxwell or Marsh due to the game possibly being shortened due to rain. Anyone think this is a real possibility? Can't see it happening myself.

http://www.cricket.com.au/news/glenn-maxwell-australia-weather-bangladesh-four-quicks/2015-02-18
Click to expand...

Well if the game is going to be short and we just want runrate then bye bye Clarke because you'd take Maxwell and Marsh over him in a T20 anyday.
 
bird_man said:
Basing your side on just the last game is not old fashioned, it's just ridiculous.

And I hardly say that looking at the last 5 or 6 games is cherry picking, it's recent form, which is important. Hardly cherry picking

12, 16, 4, 10, 5, 2, 55
11, 40, 19, 82, 16, , 41, 0

Over the last 7 games Watson average is two times that of Bailey... He also bowls. But do we pick Bailey because in the last game he scored more? We would see some strange selections over the time if that were the case.
Click to expand...
All that shows is that yes Bailey is in a slump while for Watson that is the best he's capable of, and he's not going to get any better. He hasn't for 10 years.
It is perfectly normal for all batsman go though periods of bad form. Baileys form slump is no different to that of Hayden, Gilchrist, Mark Waugh etc had in their careers. Show patience. That's a bit different to playing 10 years of mediocrity with nothing more than the odd 50.
As for his bowling he's finished surely. Hasn't been taking wickets either. Even Smith is a better option.
So what we are left with is an all rounder who cant bat and cant bowl. Or someone as good as Aaron Finch at his best. I know who id prefer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Aussie ODI squad v West Indies
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
145
Views
5K
corbies
corbies
N
Australian Women v South African Women Jan 27-Feb 18 2024, 3 T20s, 3 ODIS and 1 Test
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
402
Views
8K
Registered User
Registered User
N
England v New Zealand ODI Series (Aug 25-Sept 15 2023)
2 3
Replies
63
Views
1K
Santana
Santana
N
Australian Women v West Indies Women (3 T20s and 3 ODIs) Oct 2023
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
225
Views
5K
grumbleguts
grumbleguts
C
New look ODI side
Replies
9
Views
678
Chaisa
Chaisa
eth-dog
Ireland tour of Afghanistan (1x test, 3x ODI, 3x T20I)
Replies
24
Views
557
Jamurp
Jamurp
C
Australia test squad for NZ tour
Replies
18
Views
574
Gough
Gough

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top