Yes, one where the actual players who have performed get given a chance before being written off for pereceived weakness.
There is way too much focus on a beautiful technique between CA selectors and fans alike.
Give me a side with Burns in it over a side with Harris/Labalababala anyday. Proven runs and centuries mean more to me than a pretty technique but nothing of substance.
There is way too much focus on a beautiful technique between CA selectors and fans alike.
Give me a side with Burns in it over a side with Harris/Labalababala anyday. Proven runs and centuries mean more to me than a pretty technique but nothing of substance.
My issues with Burns stem from the fact we've seen him open the batting in different conditions and I don't think he's suited for it at international level. On a road or against weak bowling, sure it's not going to be a big deal but in a high pressure setting against the best operators in the world I either don't want him there, or at least down the order. Can we stop pretending he dismantled Boult and Southee on a green seamer? He scored runs against them on one of the flattest wickets I've seen New Zealand produce.
Now that being said, I agree he's been good in the Shield and the cupboard is bare. All I want to see is for the selectors make a tough decision instead of doing what they ALWAYS do and follow their "don't change a winning team" mantra which has cost us big time since at least 2013. I think most of us can agree that when Matt Renshaw was in form he looked the part and like someone who could have success in most conditions, if he can put it together in the remaining Shield games or even Bancroft, I think they'd be far better suited in England then Burns at the top of the order. Not opposed to Burns, but let's not do what we did to Aaron Finch and throw him in as opener to set him up to fail, he'll have better success over there at 5/6. That to me is the best option if he continues to get runs in the Shield.

