LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Yes and how marvelous did that work out...how about these FC batsmen make runs, runs and more runs for once.
Who should replace Khawaja
- Thread starter bird_man
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Yes and how marvelous did that work out...how about these FC batsmen make runs, runs and more runs for once.
This is the problem though, there isn't anyone to my knowledge averaging 60+ in the shield and belting the door down like back in the day, an average of 40 is usually good enough to get in the side.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Then pick Ed Cowan. He isn't my option but at least I know he won't gift wrap his wicket the same way every single time. I don't see the point of picking a 34 year old who averages 38....Voges averages 50 in first class cricket, massive difference. I'm all for picking an older player if they average 50, but not when they average less than 40.
It's all well and good to make statements like that but in the end you have to pick 11 blokes, even if there's not enough quality options available. I mentioned Bailey before but there wasn't too many better options available at the time I don't think, he was probably worth the punt imo. But not picking a bloke mainly because they are 34 is dumb, Rogers would have been about that when he got a recall and he worked out great.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Again Rogers had a FC batting average of 50 when he was picked. There is a difference, when you are picking someone who can improve in the side (22-29 years old) and picking a band aid solution (33-36+). These older batsmen have to average close to 45-50. The rule of thumb is that if your FC average is 38, you are not then going to have a test average of 60...you might average 35 at test level. Again what is the point? Why not pick Cowan who averages 30 at test level? Bailey was a terrible selection and was picked off a massive series against India in the ODI's over in India with little FC form, and it was terrible.
KissKiss
Norm Smith Medallist
- Nov 26, 2012
- 7,743
- 8,760
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
I'd prefer to go with recent averages over career averages as there are so many things that affect that. Klinger is averaging 91.25 this season (58.11 last season and 45.95 the year before). With an already very inexperienced team I can understand holding off on Bancroft for the time being but Klinger deserved a shot right now much more than SMarsh
Again, speaking in absolutes regarding figures is not clever. The only way to do it is by judging candidates against each other. If one bloke is 28 and averaging 32 and the next bloke is 35 and averaging 45 I know I'd be picking the older bloke.
Obviously in hindsight Bailey was a bad pick but again, I believed at the time it was worth the punt given there wasn't much competition around at the time.
And Marsh averaged over 60 last shield season
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
No issue if he is averaging 45, he is averaging 38, bit of a difference there. I don't want Marsh near a test side, but I sure on earth don't want us to band aid solution our test side picking Klinger. I feel for him but he missed his chance. If they were ever going to pick him, it would have been over in England.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Mitch Marsh was pretty similar the year before wasn't he?
At 34 he's still got the opportunity for 3-4 good years at test level, I hardly think that's a band aid.
Khawaja just got picked off an first class average barely over 40 with no first class runs for years (mainly due to injury)
Stats and averages are nice to look at and can be a good guide but to much importance is given to them in regards to selections.
And of course arbitrary stat requirements for selections as some advocate is not a good idea. May as well just select off the leading run scorers list on cricinfo.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
He is not playing till he is 38. We would only bother if he was an absolute certainty to get to the Ashes in England...not for me. Won't make it 4 years, not much point.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
They do give a guide over time though, so a player can't have 1-2 good seasons in 10 and expect to get a test spot. I'm not saying only look at averages, but they are a very good guide.
There are a lot of series in the next 4 years that we need to worry about winning. You can't always select for the future, you also have to worry about winning the next series, or even the next Test.
And not sure you can guarantee he won't be playing in 4 years anyway, you absolutely can't actually.
But you want Cowan who averages WORSE than Marsh at Test level, and barely better at FC level?
Players are picked at a point in time to fill a spot. It's useless going back in time and trying to highlight failed picks to support your argument. Quiney was a failure but when picked had two very solid seasons of Shield behind him and given they didn't want to expose Hughes so early after his technical adjustments. Bailey got his gig in a similar manner. That they failed is a fact but neither were bolt from the blue selections - at least they got a look at it. Marsh we've seen before and it's been just average. Given its an even lot of candidates (Burns & Khawaja hardly demeaned a call up) you might have hoped we could have had a look at someone else but given the relative inexperience in the team they went for who they know. That's it.
Do you think the pink ball test played a part?
Not the best time to bring in an untried bloke
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
But you want Cowan who averages WORSE than Marsh at Test level, and barely better at FC level?
I would rather Cowan than Marsh...but I hardly want Cowan. At least Cowan has only been dumped once...what's Marsh up to 5 times is it?
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
If you can 100% guarantee he is playing in 4 years sure. We won't pick a guy who averages 38 in FC cricket when he is at best playing 2 years, maybe 3 at an absolute pinch. I would rather give Handscomb a go personally, after that there are a few others that I would want to see have a go before we go for a band aid solution in Klinger. I would consider Klinger if we had an Ashes in England next year, but I don't see the point right now, especially as we do have enough experience in Warner, Voges in the top 6, and Lyon is there too, not to mention Smith who has played a few years.
Two times
1. After that Indian series
2. After that one off 61 game in England a few months ago
I really wouldn't count getting replaced after two test stints as an injury replacement when the person you replaced recovered as getting dropped
No - given the relative inexperience in our team, they were always going to lean to experience at Test level. Hard to make Starc, Hazelwood or Pattinson the leader of the attack, Siddle provide's the experience. Marsh at 5 is a hell of a lot better than Marsh at 3. Smith whilst not a selector does have a fair amount of input.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Still too many and more than Cowan and I'm not saying I want Cowan in the team. At least Cowan would allow Smith to not be shuffled around like a pack of cards though. Keep him at 4. Even if the selectors proclaim Marsh is the right one (laughable but lets go with it), surely you pick a bloke that bats 3? Why are we continually stuffing Smith around?
Never really got the obsession with Marsh in the top order. He might look technically solid but when he scores runs for WA it's at 5.
Good to hear that Smith does get some input. Hopefully he has a better relationship with the selectors than Clarke
