changes for boxing day test.

[carnthemlions]

Opening partnership for Warner/Burns this summer 161, 237, 101, 8, 6, 34, 75. No reason to throw this out so soon.

Opening partnerships are a fragile thing, and at any given time about half the test playing nations seem to be in a situation where their opening partnership hasn't reached 50/100 in x amount of tests. Let's not **** around with that when we have no compelling reason to do so (Shaun Marsh is not a compelling reason).

What message are you sending if you drop the guy who literally won us the Test (and series) two games ago and almost scored a double ton in the last game?

The message is that he isn't seen as being/having the potential to be a key member of the side in the medium-long term and is therefore expendable.

 

[Buzzasto DaSilva]

I think this is a myth. Marsh took his opportunity in the tour game and then immediately did well in the tests over there. What are the selectors meant to do in that instance?

In the tour match, Marsh made 12- Khawaja retired at 101.

In the first test; Khawaja made 21 and 26, which wasn't good enough- but the entire batting line-up struggled.

In the second test; Marsh made an excellent 141 and Khawaka was 13* before he was declared on and neither batted in the second innings.

In this case, no way should Khawaja have been dropped. Sure, Marsh would have been unlucky to go out after making 141 on his debut, but Khawaja did nothing to deserve sitting out. Stability is important, to me Khawaja looks like Australia's long term solution at #3 and I don't think making Khawaja earn his spot back for NZ through the Big Bash will do anything for his career.

 

[Hellgood]

Ah had the tour game stats the wrong way around.

Still, Marsh made the runs when they counted and rightfully kept his spot ahead of Khawaja in that instance.

 

[JackOutback]

Opening partnerships are a fragile thing, and at any given time about half the test playing nations seem to be in a situation where their opening partnership hasn't reached 50/100 in x amount of tests. Let's not **** around with that when we have no compelling reason to do so (Shaun Marsh is not a compelling reason).

The message is that he isn't seen as being/having the potential to be a key member of the side in the medium-long term and is therefore expendable.

Everyone is expendable, including Burns, who has done less than Marsh recently.

 

[Buzzasto DaSilva]

Ah had the tour game stats the wrong way around.

Still, Marsh made the runs when they counted and rightfully kept his spot ahead of Khawaja in that instance.

I guess we can agree to disagree. Three tests into his career, Khawaja was averaging 30 and deserved more time.

Shaun Marsh is incredibly frustrating but he leaves one always wanting one more innings to turn it around. He has innings' of brilliance; 133 + 81 in Sri Lanka, 148 against Steyn and Morkel in Centurion and his last two matches; but had that awful run of 0, 3, 0, 11, 3, 0 against India, a pair in Port Elizabeth and 0 and 2 in the Trent Bridge debacle. If he stays in the side, I hope he makes it as he can make batting look so easy at times, I just don't think it should be at the expensive of Khawaja.

 

[Kram]

Stuart MacGill reckons that's Burns should make way for Khawaja.

 

[carnthemlions]

Everyone is expendable, including Burns, who has done less than Marsh recently.

Burns is 26 and has formed a successful opening partnership with Warner. Marsh is 32, and Burns' recent run of low scores (40,0,14,11,33) looks great in comparison with Marsh, who has had similar (and worse) runs 4 times during his 17 test career by my count. That include a staggering 12 scores of 3 or less. Burns deserves to be under a bit of pressure, but not from Marsh. If we're going to drop Burns, it should be a for an opening batsman. Bancroft was clearly next in line, but he's come back down to earth a bit so far this season.

Stuart MacGill reckons that's Burns should make way for Khawaja.

Re-shuffling a top order that's worked pretty well recently because Shaun Marsh made runs at 5... dislike.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Marsh has been dropped due to those runs of low scores, why shouldn't Burns?

Opening partnerships with Warner will always be inflated because of the nature of his batting. It doesn't hide the fact that Burns has technical flaws that need to be worked on. I'd be happy opening with Ussie.

 

[carnthemlions]

Marsh has been dropped due to those runs of low scores, why shouldn't Burns?

Opening partnerships with Warner will always be inflated because of the nature of his batting. It doesn't hide the fact that Burns has technical flaws that need to be worked on. I'd be happy opening with Ussie.

I really don't see why dropping Burns in favour of a player will inevitably be out of the side again sooner rather than later is a good idea. If Burns fails in the next game or two, bring in another opener and let him work on those flaws. We know what Shaun Marsh can and can't do, and we've seen it all before. Let's not let that get in the way of finding out whether players who might actually be part of the future of the test setup are up to it or not.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

I really don't see why dropping Burns in favour of a player will inevitably be out of the side again sooner rather than later is a good idea. If Burns fails in the next game or two, bring in another opener and let him work on those flaws. We know what Shaun Marsh can and can't do, and we've seen it all before. Let's not let that get in the way of finding out whether players who might actually be part of the future of the test setup are up to it or not.

I don't see why Marsh can't have a renaissance in his early/mid 30s and carve out a good career. He's too talented to write off and, provided he works on playing with soft hands, I can see him being a success from here on in. I wouldn't blame them for dropping him instead of Burns, I can certainly see merit in both choices.

 

[Bucking Beads]

I don't see why Marsh can't have a renaissance in his early/mid 30s and carve out a good career. He's too talented to write off and, provided he works on playing with soft hands, I can see him being a success from here on in. I wouldn't blame them for dropping him instead of Burns, I can certainly see merit in both choices.

His overall career stats suggest that simply won't happen. 1 first class century per year of first class cricket is just mind boggling. His career to date is a fair indication Marsh will never be the type of contributor required at test level. He will make a few timely knocks here and there but that's it.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

His overall career stats suggest that simply won't happen. 1 first class century per year of first class cricket is just mind boggling. His career to date is a fair indication Marsh will never be the type of contributor required at test level. He will make a few timely knocks here and there but that's it.

What have you made of Burns' summer post the GABBA test?

 

[carnthemlions]

I don't see why Marsh can't have a renaissance in his early/mid 30s and carve out a good career. He's too talented to write off and, provided he works on playing with soft hands, I can see him being a success from here on in. I wouldn't blame them for dropping him instead of Burns, I can certainly see merit in both choices.

Hey, it could happen. Highly unlikely though, I just can't see Marsh getting past his obvious mental frailty at this age. He's clearly talented, but he's also clearly not capable of utilising that talent most of the time.

 

[PTizzle]

I'd bring in Carlos Brathwaite and Bishoo if I was deciding the Windies side. Bishoo's troubled us a bit in the past (plus he's fun to watch). Carlos adds a little bit of extra batting and should be a bit hungrier than Roach/Taylor. I'd normally be all for only replacing the injured bowler but if that bowling into the wind story isn't overblown then that's ridiculous and can't be accepted.

Batting wise there's little there but you'd have to say Ramdin and Samuels would be close to their last chance. 14 innings since Ramdin's last 50 and his keeping was very ordinary. Not sure what they see in Chandrika either really, but might as well give him a chance to find his feet internationally to see if he's up to it going forward.

 

[frankrizzo]

Still don't get why this all the older marsh vs burns?

Just seems odd people want to give a badly struggling young bloke like mitch marsh the home summer to try and get his confidence with the bat but a young bloke like burns who has actually made some runs they are so sure isn't up to this level.

No even sure the 1990's english selectors would break up a promising opening pair to accommodate a batting liability who has given us just 60 overs this summer out of nearly 600 we have bowled.

 

[J Peterman]

Have to drop Shaun Marsh.

At the start of the summer Khawaja and Burns were rated as superior options. Nothing has changed since then which should lead to the selectors re-evaluating that opinion because all three have scored.

And of course given the Ashes the priority should be to identify some younger players with a few strong shield seasons behind them (aka Burns) and giving them the opportunity to make the step up.

Tell Marsh that we're glad he performed and he'll tour New Zealand and if he continues scoring runs he'll be one of the players considered next time we have an injury vacancy or if a player's form warrants them dropping.

You don't drop a guy coming off 180, it's lunacy. Burns has plenty of time to work on his deficiencies and come back a better player. There has been a hell of a lot invested in S.Marsh over the journey, i'd hope the selectors stay the course and hopefully finally reap some dividends.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Still don't get why this all the older marsh vs burns?

Lehmann has already said Mitch Marsh is playing on Boxing Day, so there is that.

 

[Kram]

You don't drop a guy coming off 180, it's lunacy. Burns has plenty of time to work on his deficiencies and come back a better player. There has been a hell of a lot invested in S.Marsh over the journey, i'd hope the selectors stay the course and hopefully finally reap some dividends.

Forget the 181, for mine he deserves to stay in for actually being the one to dig in and get us home back in Adelaide.

 

[to1994]

The real issue with Burns is that he isn't a Test opener. I have no doubt he'll make a career for himself at 4/5 at some point but his technique doesn't suit opening in the Test arena. The positive for him is that opening at Shield level has and will put him in a great position when he bats in the middle order in Tests due to the tougher periods he's already had to play through.

However they made a decision to move Smith to 4 at the start of the summer and I don't understand why that has changed. If Ussie opens, S. Marsh should move to 3 and if he can't handle that then he has to go. Unless S. Marsh gets dropped it looks like there's going to be an order reshuffle because of him and that really isn't justifiable given his long-term mediocrity. I'd drop S. Marsh and tell him he's first in line should a middle order spot available as long as he keeps performing at state level.

 

[J Peterman]

Forget the 181, for mine he deserves to stay in for actually being the one to dig in and get us home back in Adelaide.

Another good point.

Some think the best idea is to drop somebody who has hit form, to accommodate somebody with technical flaws that blind freddy could see, which will be easily exposed by better opposition.

 

[J Peterman]

The real issue with Burns is that he isn't a Test opener. I have no doubt he'll make a career for himself at 4/5 at some point but his technique doesn't suit opening in the Test arena. The positive for him is that opening at Shield level has and will put him in a great position when he bats in the middle order in Tests due to the tougher periods he's already had to play through.

However they made a decision to move Smith to 4 at the start of the summer and I don't understand why that has changed. If Ussie opens, S. Marsh should move to 3 and if he can't handle that then he has to go. Unless S. Marsh gets dropped it looks like there's going to be an order reshuffle because of him and that really isn't justifiable given his long-term mediocrity. I'd drop S. Marsh and tell him he's first in line should a middle order spot available as long as he keeps performing at state level.

If they added a "batting order subject to change" on the end of the team sheet would it make it easier to accept?

 

[Bucking Beads]

Another good point.

Some think the best idea is to drop somebody who has hit form, to accommodate somebody with technical flaws that blind freddy could see, which will be easily exposed by better opposition.

We've seen this type of form from Marsh before. Now we wait for what goes first. His hamstring or his form.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Bottom line is that it is a tough decision for the selectors. None of the batsmen really deserve to be replace but I think Burns will be the one that misses out. It will either make him or break him.

 

[J Peterman]

We've seen this type of form from Marsh before. Now we wait for what goes first. His hamstring or his form.

If his form tails off his dropping will be justified. Currently it isn't

 

[Pounce]

Well, Mitch Marsh is a certainty for the Boxing Day Test match from what Darren Lehmann has said.

Would Usman Khawaja not being selected straight away be such a bad thing? He has been missing from the starting 11 for a lengthy period of time now and two matches in the BBL (possibly only one) is not the ideal preparation for a Test match. Khawaja not being selected would give him more time to make sure he is in top form with the bat and at full fitness, even if he has to do it through the entire BBL tournament, which is better than one or two games. Having a classy and proven batsman like Khawaja sitting on the sidelines is a good problem to have.