Australia v Sri Lanka; 2nd Test @ Manuka Oval Feb 1-5.

[Len Nicodemo]

Stoinis will tour, make no mistake about that. Actually playing might be a different matter though. Only a suggestion if Pattinson plays as cover for his brittle body. Don't want to be down to 3 bowlers, especially as a number of Tests are back to back.

If you play Pattinson you'd probably have to back his fitness though. I'd prefer the 6 batsmen myself.

But we shouldn’t take Stoinis as cover for Pattinson, it should be someone else

 

[Sproj]

A top 6 with Burns opening and Stoinis is not a side that will win away from home anywhere, let alone England.

You're just looking at stats, anyone who has actually watched Burns and watched how England succeed IN England know he's not up to it. Don't you find it odd that he's scored Shield runs etc. and yet was ignored for both the UAE and India? It's because the selectors saw enough of him and knew he wasn't going to be up to it against good bowling.

It might have looked harsh when he was first dropped as an average in the high 30s might look solid enough to work with, but they looked beyond that and saw a player who is not going to succeed except on roads or against poor bowling. Nothing has changed.

The stats were a bit of a joke, hence the haha. The reality still remains that Burns has more centuries than all the other opening contenders bar Khawaja combined in less tests.

He has flaws that could be exposed, just like every other batsman in the history of the game, including the Don.

Anyone who watches cricket (to use one of the most annoying tropes in the history of sports discussion) knows you don’t need a flawless technique to succeed, particularly as an opener. Otherwise, G.Smith and Cook would have had no careers at all, let alone world class ones.

And as for your point about selectors, do you really want to go that path? These are the same guys who picked Finch as an opener despite averaging like 20 and who think Labrunch is a test quality batsman AND a number 3.

 

[Jimthegreat]

But we shouldn’t take Stoinis as cover for Pattinson, it should be someone else

Pattinson is a bowler. Any cover in the XI for him, if we went down that path, will be someone who bowls in case he breaks down during the game. But, as I said, in my opinion, if we pick Pattinson we have to back him to get through hence select 6 batsmen.

We will be taking an all-rounder to England. You can bet your boots on it that Stonis will be going to England as part of the touring party.

 

[Park cricketer]

 

[Len Nicodemo]

What actually happened?

 

[Len Nicodemo]

The stats were a bit of a joke, hence the haha. The reality still remains that Burns has more centuries than all the other opening contenders bar Khawaja combined in less tests.

He has flaws that could be exposed, just like every other batsman in the history of the game, including the Don.

Anyone who watches cricket (to use one of the most annoying tropes in the history of sports discussion) knows you don’t need a flawless technique to succeed, particularly as an opener. Otherwise, G.Smith and Cook would have had no careers at all, let alone world class ones.

And as for your point about selectors, do you really want to go that path? These are the same guys who picked Finch as an opener despite averaging like 20 and who think Labrunch is a test quality batsman AND a number 3.

Burns isn’t going anywhere. If he does get dropped for the ashes then it’s a joke and we are back to the old days of B grade selection.

He has played 15 test matches and on 8 occasions has scored 50+. Statistically behind Warner & Smith (and based on form) he is our third best batsman.

 

[Park cricketer]

What actually happened?

 

[damochandler]

So Gregg Chappell has left the selectors role for the third time. When will Cricket Australia dump him for good from everything

 

[Pykie]

Starc at his best is quite possibly the most unplayable bowler in world cricket. Starc at his worst is as pop gun as Mitch Marsh.

If only he could get his worst to go a few levels up, he'd be essential to the bowling line up.

If only Pattinson was fit, then between him, Cummins, Richardson and Starc, the batting would basically allow you to play five bowlers.

Are we mixing his ODI form again?

He’s never taken more than 6 wickets in an innings in 200 test wkts. Can’t be too unplayable at his best....

 

[The Convert]

So Gregg Chappell has left the selectors role for the third time. When will Cricket Australia dump him for good from everything

Agree, he is not a success at this stuff.

His develop young talent program seems to have a few holes in it as well

 

[swanssince2002]

So another one at the top bites the dust... good on em for having an actual cleanout but who knows if this will be beneficial for the long term.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

I first saw Pattinson in the India series in 2011 when he demolished our lot. His aggression and confidence at such a young age stood out to me. I thought he was the next big thing in Australian cricket after that.

Sad to see his career has been marred by injuries and hasn't turned out that way 7 years later. To be fair, I have a bad track record of predicting greats. I also thought Shaun Marsh and Callum Ferguson would go on to become Australian greats when I first saw them.

Don't blame you for thinking that about Shaun Marsh. He looked astoundingly correct and calm his first year in the IPL. And was the same in his first test series. He's been a bit all over the shop since then.

Pattinson has been completely done in by injuries. It must be so difficult for him as he must have felt himself that he was going to be a big star.

 

[PT Bar None]

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Better from Starc and he is bending his back but this around the wicket stuff is bull shit. Get over the wicket and bowl at off.

I suspect bowling at top of off is not his strength as he never seems to be able to do it for any length of time. You would hope by now that he and the bowling coaches know his strengths as a bowler.

 

[The Passenger]

A top 6 with Burns opening and Stoinis is not a side that will win away from home anywhere, let alone England.

You're just looking at stats, anyone who has actually watched Burns and watched how England succeed IN England know he's not up to it. Don't you find it odd that he's scored Shield runs etc. and yet was ignored for both the UAE and India? It's because the selectors saw enough of him and knew he wasn't going to be up to it against good bowling.

It might have looked harsh when he was first dropped as an average in the high 30s might look solid enough to work with, but they looked beyond that and saw a player who is not going to succeed except on roads or against poor bowling. Nothing has changed.

Have always been a fan of Burns but said from even before his test debut that he has major flaws outside off stump. I wrote this about him in 2012.

joey burns tons up. my only concern with him is that he plays away from his body a bit. can get exposed by international bowlers, such as dale steyn and co.

At 29, I don't think these issues he has outside off stump are ever going to leave him, unfortunately.

That being said, every batsmen we have available - aside from Smith - has sizeable flaws and/or form issues (Even Warner who's away record is mediocre).

So it would seem unfair to not pick one guy for his flaws but overlook the flaws other guys have.... And given Burns is probably the form batsmen in the country this summer, has a test average above 40 now and will have scored a big century in our final test before the Ashes (even if this is a paltry Sri Lankan bowling line-up), I don't see how it would be possible to overlook him.

Getting through the first hour has always been a big problem for him, and the swinging ball in England - with Anderson especially - will be a huge challenge in that regards. But he is a genuine world class batsmen when he does.

 

[to1994]

Have always been a fan of Burns but said from even before his test debut that he has major flaws outside off stump. I wrote this about him in 2012.

At 29, I don't think these issues he has outside off stump are ever going to leave him, unfortunately.

That being said, every batsmen we have available - aside from Smith - has sizeable flaws and/or form issues (Even Warner who's away record is mediocre).

So it would seem unfair to not pick one guy for his flaws but overlook the flaws other guys have.... And given Burns is probably the form batsmen in the country this summer, has a test average above 40 now and will have scored a big century in our final test before the Ashes (even if this is a paltry Sri Lankan bowling line-up), I don't see how it would be possible to overlook him.

Getting through the first hour has always been a big problem for him, and the swinging ball in England - with Anderson especially - will be a huge challenge in that regards. But he is a genuine world class batsmen when he does.

Fair enough, I'm happy for him to be there about but I just hope they don't set him and the team up to fail simply because they don't want to change a 'winning' team.

I really hope Renshaw can score some runs and they can ideally move Burns down the order in England possibly to 5 or 6 as my issues with him are mostly when he's at the top of the order.

 

[Ohitsthatguy]

Whatever happened to big billy stanlake?

Gave up first class cricket for a cheap buck.

Hasn't played a first class game since 2015. How sad is that?

 

[Pykie]

A bit like Johnson during the first half of his career. Every so often an unplayable ball or unplayable spell mixed with plenty of shit.

Yes and Johnson was dropped for over a year because of it. His form wasn’t even that bad. Starcs at the moment is statistically much worse.

Johnson had 189 wkts @ 30.93 with a ER of 3.43 at the time.

Eerily similar stats wise.

I’m not seeing the pitch forks out from the media like they were for Johnson though. Starc is close to the most overrated Australian quick of all time based on the rhetoric out of the media over the last few months.

Most of them value hitting 150kph more important than landing it on the pitch it seems.

 

[damochandler]

A bit like Johnson during the first half of his career. Every so often an unplayable ball or unplayable spell mixed with plenty of shit.

That 09 ashes Cooley got in his head and took him away from what he was doing best. Just bowling fast. Clarke actually told him in a tour game to just bowl fast. After that he won that 4th test match. In the 2010 ashes he was better than people think he was and was made a scapegoat

 

[Topkent]

or maybe he's, y'know, basing it on his experience of sri lanka

and on the fact that sri lanka has historically racked up huge totals at home

An yet all it took was 30 seconds of research to show how they have changed.

 

[Topkent]

A top 6 with Burns opening and Stoinis is not a side that will win away from home anywhere, let alone England.

You're just looking at stats, anyone who has actually watched Burns and watched how England succeed IN England know he's not up to it. Don't you find it odd that he's scored Shield runs etc. and yet was ignored for both the UAE and India? It's because the selectors saw enough of him and knew he wasn't going to be up to it against good bowling.

It might have looked harsh when he was first dropped as an average in the high 30s might look solid enough to work with, but they looked beyond that and saw a player who is not going to succeed except on roads or against poor bowling. Nothing has changed.

I shake my head everytime I read these posts.
EVERY SINGLE BATSMEN IN HISTORY has struggled when the ball starts swinging more especially against world class users of that swing like Anderson and Broad.
Why are you writing off burns like there is some technically proficient kid averaging 50 in the shield? No opener is averaging over 40 in shield cricket on flat wickets, in fact only about 4 batsmen are averaging over 40 in shield cricket in their careers who have played a meaningful amount of cricket
That means we either pick blokes who are in form or give up and not even tour

 

[The Speaker]

An yet all it took was 30 seconds of research to show how they have changed.

have they actually?

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Yes and Johnson was dropped for over a year because of it. His form wasn’t even that bad. Starcs at the moment is statistically much worse.

Johnson had 189 wkts @ 30.93 with a ER of 3.43 at the time.

Eerily similar stats wise.

I’m not seeing the pitch forks out from the media like they were for Johnson though. Starc is close to the most overrated Australian quick of all time based on the rhetoric out of the media over the last few months.

Most of them value hitting 150kph more important than landing it on the pitch it seems.

It's embarrassing how much smoke gets blown up the arses of players these days - you've got to have a very strong head to not let it **** you around.. But then it's not just in sport that this goes on.

 

[Topkent]

have they actually?

I just told you 10 innings of Sri Lanka South Africa and England combined the top score was 346. Hussey is just too nice to actually be critical of this terrible wicket

 

[The Speaker]

I just told you 10 innings of Sri Lanka South Africa and England combined the top score was 346. Hussey is just too nice to actually be critical of this terrible wicket

And the year before that there were two scores of 600 and three more over 400, and a bunch more well over 300.

Talk about selective use of stats just to hurl insults at a commentator who is among the better ones on television.