Who Plays in The Ashes

[Scotland]

If nothing else CA aren't boring.

He's fortunate and I would have definitely given Maxwell a fair shot at home at 6 but picking Marsh isn't that 'baffling'.

I reckon it is.

236 @ 39.3 in his 3 Shield games since his most recent dropping from the test side. Can only assume they think his JLT Cup form will translate. Which it never has previously.

He's 34, has failed numerous times and isn't really banging the door down. Odd decision. I don't like him in the lower order anyway. Belongs near the top with the ball coming on to the bat.

 

[bungwahl]

Once again, it's not either or.

It's fortunate we allowed Steve Waugh to play three years of test cricket without a century without dumping him at the first opportunity. Sure, like Waugh, this doesn't mean Renshaw gets a free pass his whole career. But he surely showed enough last summer to deserve a crack at it here.

Waugh wasn't an opening bat, he was an all-rounder. Before he scored his first hundred in 1989 he was averaging in the 30's with bat and ball, in a very weak Australian side.

That was also 30 years ago and I think we can all appreciate that times have changed.

 

[Kram]

If nothing else CA aren't boring.



I reckon it is.

236 @ 39.3 in his 3 Shield games since his most recent dropping from the test side. Can only assume they think his JLT Cup form will translate. Which it never has previously.

He's 34, has failed numerous times and isn't really banging the door down. Odd decision. I don't like him in the lower order anyway. Belongs near the top with the ball coming on to the bat.

Didn't the selectors watch him live hit some score in the 90s v NSW in the Shield with an attack of Starc, Hazelwood and Cummins? Not saying I agree with the decision but maybe they seen something that day that makes them think it's worthwhile as opposed to looking at stats on the net.

It's a bit surprising the selection, but hardly some great injustice in the history of humanity that some are making out.

 

[Gough]

There was nobody to drop Waugh for when he was first selected. It was him, O'Donnell, or Ken MacLeay.

 

[Scotland]

Didn't the selectors watch him live hit some score in the 90s v NSW in the Shield with an attack of Starc, Hazelwood and Cummins? Not saying I agree with the decision but maybe they seen something that day that makes them think it's worthwhile as opposed to looking at stats on the net.

They probably did, but I hope they also watched the first innings where he made 2. Or the 5 of 8 innings in India where he didn't make double figures.

What I posted during the India series:

I don't want Marsh to fail, but I am sick of the (recent) justifications over his selection. 'Subcontinent specialist', 'most reliable middle order batsman we have'. Give me a break.

16, 0, 66, 9, 2 is exactly the sort of return I would expect from Marsh whether in India, Australia, Vanuatu or anywhere else. He might still make 100 in the second innings or the 4th test, but the idea that he's going to be a guy who consistently performs is nonsense. He is nearly 34 years old and averages 37. That is his level. He's not a Smith or Renshaw that will blossom into their 20s at test level, or a Martin Love/Stuart Law with dozens of FC centuries - he's an experienced player who averages 37, because he only passes 50 a quarter of the time and makes single figure scores a quarter of the time.

Assuming he stays in the side for 5 tests I expect a return similar to that of George Baily in 2013/14.

If Marsh finishes the series averaging more than 40 I'll gobsmacked.

 

[Scotland]

I don't know why people continually bring up Steve Waugh. By the time he scored his first test century in his 27th or 28th test he was 24 years old.

He also batted down the order, bowled (had about 40 wickets) and had 10 50s to his name. The only player he's vaguely comparable to in the current era is Mitch Marsh.

 

[Gough]

The 1988/89 series was the making of Steve Waugh, the West Indies worked him over, he stared them down and he was unlucky to miss out on a couple hundreds.

 

[Kram]

The poster bringing it up Waugh as a comparison for Renshaw probably wasn't even born then.

They probably did, but I hope they also watched the first innings where he made 2. Or the 5 of 8 innings in India where he didn't make double figures.

What I posted during the India series:



Assuming he stays in the side for 5 tests I expect a return similar to that of George Baily in 2013/14.

If Marsh finishes the series averaging more than 40 I'll gobsmacked.

It's a surprising call but all I'm saying is that it's hardly the most bizarre selection in the history of cricket as some are portraying it as.

 

[largebus]

I don't know why people continually bring up Steve Waugh. By the time he scored his first test century in his 27th or 28th test he was 24 years old.

He also batted down the order, bowled (had about 40 wickets) and had 10 50s to his name. The only player he's vaguely comparable to in the current era is Mitch Marsh.

No way he would get that many chances if he wasn't from NSW

 

[MC Bad Genius]

The poster bringing it up Waugh as a comparison for Renshaw probably wasn't even born then.

It's a surprising call but all I'm saying is that it's hardly the most bizarre selection in the history of cricket as some are portraying it as.

I reckon the Paine selection is a lot more bizarre.

 

[to1994]

S. Marsh has scored some high quality hundreds in a variety of conditions, that's probably the basis around his selection given he's in good form. Even the guy's like Handscomb who're in the side have done relatively little outside big scores against relatively unchallenging attacks on Australian soil.

I'm aware that this series is in Australia but if England get on a roll with the ball you probably want someone experienced at 6, especially when you have an untested Bancroft opening and Tim Paine at 7. If we play Maxwell or Cartwright at 6 then 5-7 would have around 20 Tests between them, probably not suitable in an Ashes series where CA will be crucified if we lose.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Bancroft was never coming in to bat at 6. It was between him and Renshaw for the opening role. They've picked the man in form in Bancroft. How can you possibly rationalise that it wasn't between those 2 to open the batting?

Lots of players - even future openers - have started at No 6.

Heck, Marsh has gone from 3 to 6.

Again- for whatever reason - those happy with Renshaw being dropped are dressing it up as Bancroft vs Renshaw. It didn't need to be.

There is not a single player, spectator, coach, journo, pundit, BF poster... or any person at all in all of Australia who is critical of Bancroft coming in.

 

[The_Reaper]

Lots of players - even future openers - have started at No 6.

Heck, Marsh has gone from 3 to 6.

Again- for whatever reason - those happy with Renshaw being dropped are dressing it up as Bancroft vs Renshaw. It didn't need to be.

There is not a single player, spectator, coach, journo, pundit, BF poster... or any person at all in all of Australia who is critical of Bancroft coming in.

Out of curiosity lets say Renshaw did play at the Gabba. What is your minimal requirement for his performance for the series to avoid getting dropped?

And would it change if we were losing?

 

[Bradesmaen]

Didn't the selectors watch him live hit some score in the 90s v NSW in the Shield with an attack of Starc, Hazelwood and Cummins? Not saying I agree with the decision but maybe they seen something that day that makes them think it's worthwhile as opposed to looking at stats on the net.

It's a bit surprising the selection, but hardly some great injustice in the history of humanity that some are making out.

Hardly surprising that someone hit 90 against Starc and Cummins. It's hilarious when you read them say that the reason Cummins and Starc will succeed is because Hazelwood can control the ball...

The injustice Kram is about the fact that he's come in and failed almost every time. Goes back, does the same and they expect a different result at 34.

 

[Big Bryza]

Lots of players - even future openers - have started at No 6.

Heck, Marsh has gone from 3 to 6.

Again- for whatever reason - those happy with Renshaw being dropped are dressing it up as Bancroft vs Renshaw. It didn't need to be.

There is not a single player, spectator, coach, journo, pundit, BF poster... or any person at all in all of Australia who is critical of Bancroft coming in.

You're deluded, it was Renshaw v Bancroft.

 

[estibador]

The Marsh decision makes no sense to me. I hope he makes runs because if he makes it to Melbourne without any runs on the board there's a good chance he gets booed onto the pitch.

They're a marvelous crowd the Victorians

 

[IKnowtheDog]

There was nobody to drop Waugh for when he was first selected. It was him, O'Donnell, or Ken MacLeay.

O'Donnell didn't have much of a chance as if memory serves me correct Waugh replaced him in the test team. The only other possible candidate at that time was another West Aussie Tom Moody. Looking at Steve's stats at that time he was pretty reliable in both formats of the game. Couple of interesting points at that time in AUS cricket
- impact of rebel tours
- the test team and ODI (with a few exceptions) was pretty close to the same

Interesting to note Dean Jones average in Sheffield Shield in 88/89 was 28.72, 316 runs from 12 innings. HS 102*. Only reason I mention is an example where a player can struggle at a lower form, yet perform at a higher level

 

[Stevi_Tigers]

shaun marsh must have pics of the selectors in compromising positions and tim paine lel

 

[HODGEYROAD]

Just can't wait until it's Thursday, get home form work and have a few beers and watch some Ashes Test match Cricket.

 

[madmug]

Just can't wait until it's Thursday, get home form work and have a few beers and watch some Ashes Test match Cricket.

Yes, Ive managed to arrange the arvo off. I'll have my little radio in the office. They all know to leave me alone at least for the first over of the test.

 

[ezard15]

Wade keeps in front of Paine for Tassie.

So your mate Painey can't be going that crash hot with the gloves.

lol. so are you saying you have seen them both keep and think Wade is better?

I suspect you are saying you haven't actually watched Paine keep - therefore would it be fair to say you don't have an educated opinion on the topic?

 

[ezard15]

Neville is a good keeper.

Actually you are right. When they allow him to hold a big hessian sack behind the wickets he is a good keeper.

I would still take Paine though.

 

[ezard15]

Paine has kept wicket in 3 shield games over the last 2 years... So while I agree with your statement re Wades ability with the gloves, selecting Paine as the keeper over Wade or Nevill is one of the most bizarre decisions in recent memory

Have you seen him keeping for Australia in 20/20 games?

He is bloody amazing and unlike Wade he hasn't been mediocre at test level for years. Given his horrible bad luck I am very happy for him.

Let's smash these bloody poms!!

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

You're deluded, it was Renshaw v Bancroft.

I agree the selectors made it Renshaw vs Bancroft

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Out of curiosity lets say Renshaw did play at the Gabba. What is your minimal requirement for his performance for the series to avoid getting dropped?

And would it change if we were losing?

Have said earlier that IMO his last summer earned him the first couple of tests at least. Not a lifetime pass.

Similarly - I don't think Bancroft should get dumped instantly if he fails first up. If the selectors genuinely believe he is a strong test cricket prospect then he needs to be backed in for a period of time.

It's flavour of the month selections based on a short period of good/bad form that I don't like. Leads to situations like our current wicket keeping one or the period we churned through about 15 spinners before sticking with Lyon (despite many people being critical of his ongoing selection).