Matthew Wade

Remove this Banner Ad

Also I don't think his public whinging helps his cause. Shows his character
Public whinging? What displaying the fact he is confused and pissed off about not being selected after leading the shield run scoring and being second in the BBL? Good on him for saying something, far too many players are a product of a sanitised environment of sport these days.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Whether or not Finch is out of form, the captain won't get dropped before the first game.

Wade is not in the same league as Warner.

I didn't say only take 2 openers, but you said play him as an opener.

FWIW, I'd take Short before Wade.
 
Sounds like the consensus around this thread is wade has had his chance and Warner is going to make us forget all about Matty.
 
Sounds like the consensus around this thread is wade has had his chance and Warner is going to make us forget all about Matty.
Well it’s ironic isn’t it? Here we have people saying don’t give Wade a chance because of his poor record, yet we have no issue opening the door to Warner who is currently not in the side for a far more serious reason.
 
Well it’s ironic isn’t it? Here we have people saying don’t give Wade a chance because of his poor record, yet we have no issue opening the door to Warner who is currently not in the side for a far more serious reason.
I actually agree with you on this 100%. Warner walking straight back in with a big smile on his face, having learnt nothing (I'm assuming) is a bit tough to take too.
 
Even if these arguments are valid it shows the hypocrisy with the selectors.

Had plenty of chances before? Sure but then they're happy to pick the Marsh's and ffs even Siddle made an ODI squad recently.

Flog factor? Absolutely he is but it's hard to justify that with blokes like Warner and Smith likely to come straight back in, he's not a cheat at least. Not to mention the endless list of other flogs to get an Australian gig.

The pick the potential over run makers in recent times has generally failed. Really only Smith and somewhat Watson have been successes in that regard.
 
Not really.

One is world class and the other isn't.
But the point is wade has gone away and improved his game, what’s Warner been doing? Not much in the way of first class cricket. I think people are overestimating him and Smith to be honest.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Even if these arguments are valid it shows the hypocrisy with the selectors.

Had plenty of chances before? Sure but then they're happy to pick the Marsh's and ffs even Siddle made an ODI squad recently.

Flog factor? Absolutely he is but it's hard to justify that with blokes like Warner and Smith likely to come straight back in, he's not a cheat at least. Not to mention the endless list of other flogs to get an Australian gig.

The pick the potential over run makers in recent times has generally failed. Really only Smith and somewhat Watson have been successes in that regard.
I wouldn’t regard Watson much of a success
 
But the point is wade has gone away and improved his game, what’s Warner been doing? Not much in the way of first class cricket. I think people are overestimating him and Smith to be honest.
Granted Wade has improved, but Warner averages 45 at test level over a long period of time.

Wade is beating up domestic bowlers.
Cannot compare the two.

Over estimating Smith....really?
 
Oh moving it now even though we having been talking the ODI side.

Apart from the lols with lbw reviews plonking his pad out there what is exactly wrong with averaging 35 with the bat and 33 with the ball in Test cricket?
No, not moving it, as I said, talking about test cricket. What’s wrong with averaging 35 with the bat as an opener? And you call me clueless....
 
Oh moving it now even though we having been talking the ODI side.

Apart from the lols with lbw reviews plonking his pad out there what is exactly wrong with averaging 35 with the bat and 33 with the ball in Test cricket?
The poster that made the comment that I quoted mentioned picking potential over performance, and the selectors getting it wrong. So I referenced Watson’s test career from that. Is that hard for you to grasp?
 
No, not moving it, as I said, talking about test cricket. What’s wrong with averaging 35 with the bat as an opener? And you call me clueless....
He's an all rounder that averaged 33 with the ball, it's a pretty handy record still. Should have been down at 6 but that's hardly his fault. Even trying to move it you got caught out mate.
 
He's an all rounder that averaged 33 with the ball, it's a pretty handy record still. Should have been down at 6 but that's hardly his fault. Even trying to move it you got caught out mate.
Mate, I didn’t try and move anything. I said I felt he wasn’t that good as a test player. I’ve got nothing to gain by lying on an Internet forum to a bunch of faceless nobodies. I know it’s a big deal for you to try and trump me, but it isn’t for me.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top