Australia Test squad - 2014

[The Passenger]

Siddle is hitting 140 max in the BBL. Not good if that's him bowling as quickly as he can.

He is looking more and more like a marathon runner with each passing week.

 

[Underdog]

That's not what he is suggesting.

Players should be performing at FC level to be selected (and yes Mitch Marsh was actually performing at FC level) but the selectors should also consider more than just performance. Look at the player and see if they have the tools to make it at a higher level.

This nails the point exactly.

What matters is their perceived suitability for the higher level of cricket.

I'd suggest that the selectors never really saw someone like Quiney as a realistic test cricket quality player. But in the absence of alternatives, they rewarded form and gave him a brief opportunity to prove them wrong.

If they saw him as a genuine option, he would have had more opportunities.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Players should be performing at FC level to be selected (and yes Mitch Marsh was actually performing at FC level) but the selectors should also consider more than just performance. Look at the player and see if they have the tools to make it at a higher level.

I think you're watering down what's been said by others into something far less problematic.

What you're saying is entirely reasonable: FC performance (either long-term or in the immediate past) should be a prerequisite. Every case is different – a lot depends on opportunities arising and the strength of the claims of other guys at the time – but we probably shouldn't be picking guys who don't tick either box.

But others have said that 'talent' is just as important as FC performance. That seems like a stretch and, frankly, a euphemism for picking guys who don't have the runs on the board.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I'd suggest that the selectors never really saw someone like Quiney as a realistic test cricket quality player. But in the absence of alternatives, they rewarded form and gave him a brief opportunity to prove them wrong.

If they saw him as a genuine option, he would have had more opportunities.

I think Rob Quiney is a thumbnail sketch of what went wrong with the Australian cricket team in the aftermath of the 2010-11 Ashes, when Katich, Ponting and Hussey were on the way out and the selectors were casting around for readymade batsmen to fill those holes.

By way of explanation, ask yourself this: who are the best Australian Test batsmen born between 1977 and 1985?

Top spot goes to Michael Clarke, obviously. Outstanding young talent, identified early, fast-tracked, struggled briefly and then became totally world-class and led his country with distinction. No problem. Job done.

And then who? Chris Rogers, who had to wait until he was 35-36 to get a regular game? Phil Jaques, who managed only 11 Tests and was finished at 29? Pretty thin on the ground, isn't it? I mean, you could even say Dave Hussey, even though he never actually played a Test.

Sorry – there's also Shane Watson, who has basically averaged 30 over the entire second half of his career, when he's meant to be in his prime. That mediocrity only reinforces the point: Clarke's contemporaries, those batsmen born four years either side of him, were found wanting. Compare that to the embarrassment of riches born 1970-75.

It's possible that guys like Shaun Marsh and even Ed Cowan might still come good and add to that number but it's a pretty stark illustration of the way an entire generation of batsmen went missing. In an eight-year period, Australia produced one world-class batsman.

And that bit hard when Ponting, Hussey and Katich finished up. The selectors were hoping to find another mature batsman or two who could come in and do OK while the next generation – Smith, Warner, Hughes etc – found their feet. They were hoping for another Mike Hussey – four or five years younger. They installed Marcus North a few years earlier with that in mind but that didn't work out. North is still only 35. He could still be playing had he been good enough.

Basically, Australia had to replace three established batsmen but found they simply didn't have the personnel waiting in the wings. There was Clarke and no one else.

If you'll permit the metaphor, the selectors dived headfirst into a swimming pool, only to find that there was no water in it. Instead, they found the likes of Rob Quiney and half a dozen other also-rans. And that's essentially why the Australian team went to shit for a few years.

 

[Patron]

My side for the 2015 Ashes, and for the Windies tour too

1. D. Warner
2. C. Rogers
3. S. Marsh
4. M. Clarke
5. S. Smith
6. M. Marsh
7. In form Shield Keeper
8. M. Johnson
9. R. Harris
10. J. Pattinson
11. N. Lyon

12. J. Burns (backup middle order batsmen)
13. J. Faulker (backup allrounder)
14. J. Hazlewood (backup quick)
15. S. Whiteman (Backup Keeper)

Players on the preriphery if players get injured or retire

S. Watson - backup to the backup all rounder, if both are injured watson is the next best

A. Agar - youth, talent and a backup spinning option

M. Starc - next in line for the pace position

Cowan - opening position (behing Burns) if Rogers retires

A. Voges - middle order batsmen if all hell breaks lose and Clarke retires and Smith gets injured or something

This is good and pretty much exactly how i would look at it but just a few things.
Smith should bat at 4 before Clarke. Gives Clarke more rest after fielding and means he should come in with an older ball that won't bounce as much (less ducking). Smith is also the better bat these days now clarkes on his last hamstring/back.

You are overrating faulkner as a test match player, his batting is not test standard as an all rounder, he would be a great number 8 batsmen but couldn't hold down a 6. His bowling is obviously not at the level of the frontline replacements. Watson would therefore be ahead of him. I agree with the rest. I think its the best looking side we have had since our golden era.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

This is good and pretty much exactly how i would look at it but just a few things.
Smith should bat at 4 before Clarke. Gives Clarke more rest after fielding and means he should come in with an older ball that won't bounce as much (less ducking). Smith is also the better bat these days now clarkes on his last hamstring/back.

You are overrating faulkner as a test match player, his batting is not test standard as an all rounder, he would be a great number 8 batsmen but couldn't hold down a 6. His bowling is obviously not at the level of the frontline replacements. Watson would therefore be ahead of him. I agree with the rest. I think its the best looking side we have had since our golden era.

I think Clarke would probably pull rank on Smith but i'd agree, I would play Smith at 4 as well.

And i think Faulkner has a lot of the tools neccessary. He may surprise a lot. He is more of a bowling all rounder though and therefore and would be there more for experience/desperation if we needed it

 

[The 747]

Siddle is hitting 140 max in the BBL. Not good if that's him bowling as quickly as he can.

Always been a big fan of Siddle but he's finished. Should look to Bird if he can get some long form fitness.

On a side note, it seems we actually have Pattinson, Cummins and Hazlewood all fit and playing cricket at the same time. The stars have aligned (probably for a week or something).

 

[western royboy]

I think Rob Quiney is a thumbnail sketch of what went wrong with the Australian cricket team in the aftermath of the 2010-11 Ashes, when Katich, Ponting and Hussey were on the way out and the selectors were casting around for readymade batsmen to fill those holes.

By way of explanation, ask yourself this: who are the best Australian Test batsmen born between 1977 and 1985?

Top spot goes to Michael Clarke, obviously. Outstanding young talent, identified early, fast-tracked, struggled briefly and then became totally world-class and led his country with distinction. No problem. Job done.

And then who? Chris Rogers, who had to wait until he was 35-36 to get a regular game? Phil Jaques, who managed only 11 Tests and was finished at 29? Pretty thin on the ground, isn't it? I mean, you could even say Dave Hussey, even though he never actually played a Test.

Sorry – there's also Shane Watson, who has basically averaged 30 over the entire second half of his career, when he's meant to be in his prime. That mediocrity only reinforces the point: Clarke's contemporaries, those batsmen born four years either side of him, were found wanting. Compare that to the embarrassment of riches born 1970-75.

It's possible that guys like Shaun Marsh and even Ed Cowan might still come good and add to that number but it's a pretty stark illustration of the way an entire generation of batsmen went missing. In an eight-year period, Australia produced one world-class batsman.

And that bit hard when Ponting, Hussey and Katich finished up. The selectors were hoping to find another mature batsman or two who could come in and do OK while the next generation – Smith, Warner, Hughes etc – found their feet. They were hoping for another Mike Hussey – four or five years younger. They installed Marcus North a few years earlier with that in mind but that didn't work out. North is still only 35. He could still be playing had he been good enough.

Basically, Australia had to replace three established batsmen but found they simply didn't have the personnel waiting in the wings. There was Clarke and no one else.

If you'll permit the metaphor, the selectors dived headfirst into a swimming pool, only to find that there was no water in it. Instead, they found the likes of Rob Quiney and half a dozen other also-rans. And that's essentially why the Australian team went to shit for a few years.

The last selection panel admitted it erred by killing of Katich's career before its time. Rogers probably owes his to that decision. Different panels have different views, Quiney was selected on the back of excellent Shield form, Doolan to an extent ditto, both were thrust in at 3 against goodish attacks, now we have Burns batting at 6. To me there seems to have been a bit of a shift in thinking somewhere.

North was good enough, but he had a shocking lack of confidence in his ability and it affected and made him into a 100 or none type player.

If you want to get a handle on the ins and outs, get a copy of Mike Hussey's book.

 

[Pykie]

4. Smith
5. Clarke
6. S.Marsh

Has an excellent look about it now imo, Smith/Clarke is a pretty brutal middle order combo, I like S.Marsh/Burns over M.Marsh going into England tbh, Burns has been playing at the Gabba, is an experienced new ball bat, will need someone experienced playing the swinging ball nipping around and second new ball there.

M.Marsh in reserve if Watto struggles over there. Watson is a bloody good bowler in English conditions people need to remember, gets consistent swing.

Burns to be the right/left combination with Warner if Rogers retires at the end of this series.

 

[ObieWan]

Rogers is going to the Ashes in England. This is his last home Test, but he'll be there in England.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I don't think we take a back up keeper with us and if we do, it'll be in a squad of 18

There'a always a second keper taken on the longer tours. There won't be one for the West Indies tour.

 

[The_Reaper]

We probably will take 18 anyway

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The last selection panel admitted it erred by killing of Katich's career before its time. Rogers probably owes his to that decision. Different panels have different views, Quiney was selected on the back of excellent Shield form, Doolan to an extent ditto, both were thrust in at 3 against goodish attacks, now we have Burns batting at 6. To me there seems to have been a bit of a shift in thinking somewhere.

North was good enough, but he had a shocking lack of confidence in his ability and it affected and made him into a 100 or none type player.

Still, I find it remarkable that over an eight-year span, Australia produced so few seriously world-class batsmen. Look at all the guys around Clarke's age who showed promise but couldn't make it stick.

 

[western royboy]

Still, I find it remarkable that over an eight-year span, Australia produced so few seriously world-class batsmen. Look at all the guys around Clarke's age who showed promise but couldn't make it stick.

Ponting and Clarke are batting freaks at age 12 both were destined to be test bats. I remember going to Kingsgrove Sports early one morning in the mid 90's to pick up some gear, it was about 8am, this kid came out of the Nets totally spent having been on the bowling machine for over an hour. I asked who he was and to Hamish Solomons credit he said this - "that is Michael Clarke - he will play for Australia".

My belief is that we broke the moulds after, Hussey and Rogers, the system we develop batsmen and cricketers changed significantly. Now you well he much more talented batsmen, but they won't have the technique or the mindsets of players of yesteryear, because they are not educated in the manner that players of my generation and before were.

 

[Underarm]

It would appear that way, but i was saying my test side. And i am crossing my fingers that Haddin never pulls on the Whites for Australia again after this test

Prepare to be dissapointed.
Also, Watson has better figures as an all rounder than Mitch marsh, and better batting than Burns, at worst he would the next best in both those categories.

 

[footyfan1978]

Master class of swing bowling by Starc for last wicket.

 

[KissKiss]

Master class of swing bowling by Starc for last wicket.

You can see the talent there but when conditions arent great he struggles too much and is still too inconsistant. Think he is still a year or 2 away from fully being up to it

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Yadav!

 

[The_Reaper]

about time

 

[The_Reaper]

Send in Watto to open with Warner?

 

[footyfan1978]

You can see the talent there but when conditions arent great he struggles too much and is still too inconsistant. Think he is still a year or 2 away from fully being up to it

Yeah, well Johnson only matured in last two years. It was worth the wait but frustrating at times earlier in his career. Starc has some serious skill. You do not write off someone like him so easily as some have done. Laughable!
Anyway, we have good stocks of these up and coming bowlers. Pattinson, Cummins and Starc going to do a lot of good Test bowling this next decade. Those 3 will make it hard for Coulter-Nile to make it a Test level but if he gets a chance he needs to seize it as spots for pace bowlers won't be easy to get with those 3 around for some time. Think Coulter-Nile will feature more in our one day sides but unfortunately presently injured looks like he will miss the World Cup squad.

 

[footyfan1978]

Send in Watto to open with Warner?

Practice for World Cup opening pair ?

 

[HBF]

Starc has impressed me in this test match. Bowled about as well as anyone could expect him on this flat pitch.

 

[HBF]

Stick with Warner and Rogers at the top.
Davey can go, and Bucky can anchor the innings.

Could be an entertaining 30 minutes before tea.

 

[footyfan1978]

Starc has impressed me in this test match. Bowled about as well as anyone could expect him on this flat pitch.

2nd innings will be interesting facing him on this pitch. 330 won't be easy to get if that is target we set. Even 300 will be a struggle.