Australian ODI Squad - 2014/15

[Carbine Chaos]

Not all players are picked on merit - many are picked on squad balance/X factor. Doherty is the former, Cummins the latter.

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

Well I still consider that merit in that the selectors think they will bring something unique to the team rather than just 'we want this guy to have the experience so we will pick him' as some are suggesting.

 

[footyfan1978]

Selection now becomes very interesting if Clarke is fit.

I was harsh on Finch, but I still feel his game is lacking. He should've been out early, but good on him for cashing in when he got a chance.

If Clarke is to come in next match, I still think we will drop Bailey. But Watson looks a shadow of what he once was in ODIs, with both bat and ball. Legit have no idea which way it'll play. I'd be inclined to go...

Warner
Finch
Clarke
Smith
Bailey
Maxwell
Marsh
Johnson
Starc
Haze/Cummins

Some sensible comments which is hard to find on here. Similar to you, Finch does not fill me with lots of confidence, but at same time I did see his plundering of Poms at T20 international in England and seen him making century at the game on weekend so I also not fussed either way as his overall record has his numbers look good despite looking very likely to edge catches early on to World Class bowlers.

As you said, the selection will be interesting now Clarke is back. I would like to see Bailey stay in team as I think it is better balanced batting line-up with both him and Clarke in there but someone has to make way this week and even George himself predicted it would be him last week so I sense that is what will happen but any batsmen that has 3 or 4 bad innings in a row is likely to make way for him later in tournament. Mitch Marsh had night out in his first World Cup so would be hard to leave out straight after that. My gut feel is when whips are cracking at semi final stage Bailey and Clarke will both be playing, Faulkner will be back and Mitch Marsh will be 12 th man.

Warner
Finch
Watson
Clarke
Smith
Bailey
Maxwell
Haddin
Faulkner
Johnson
Starc
Cummings
is what I am expecting at business end of tournament but if Mitch Marsh keeps playing well I more than happy to see him stay is side and whomever out of form in 3 weeks time misses out. If that be Watson, Finch or even Smith so be it. At moment though it will be Bailey as he is only just coming out of an extended run of not scoring a lot and his role in side is to be batter and one of leaders calling shots out in field. He does not bowl like Watson or Mitch Marsh so he is more vulnerable to making way. It is nice to see he got two decent bats in warm up and a good half century in 1st match so he should be in good nick next time we need him again. Doherty is only player in whole squad that not really going to have a role for side other than playing when a pace bowler needs a rest in middle preliminary stages of tournament.

 

[the_interloper]

He surely wasn't picked on merit

You can pick a guy based on more than pure stats and performances, I'm sure they would discuss with the senior batsmen who is more difficult to face out of certain bowlers etc, obviously Cummins is rated by many around the traps.

 

[dajesmac]

You can pick a guy based on more than pure stats and performances, I'm sure they would discuss with the senior batsmen who is more difficult to face out of certain bowlers etc, obviously Cummins is rated by many around the traps.

Doesn't mean alot when he gets pumped for more than a run a ball with the occasional wicket

 

[LukeParkerno1]

The mistake was not picking Sandhu who is up there with Starc as the best 50 over bowler in the country. That said Cummins will make it, question is whether that is now.

 

[footyfan1978]

The mistake was not picking Sandhu who is up there with Starc as the best 50 over bowler in the country. That said Cummins will make it, question is whether that is now.

There is no mistake. I could go with Sandhu or Pattinson over Hazelwood but at end of day whatever way selectors went it was line ball in or out so cannot call a mistake either way. Hazelwood was the safer option simply because he had been in the Aussie line-ups this season and did not blow it but still would have loved to see us go with luxury of Pattinson if we were willing to risk it. Got no issue with them holding him back for Windies tour but would have loved him in if they had of gone that way. now Hazelwood is in there hope he does his job when he is in team. Did not bowl great first game but also did not disgrace himself. If he goes for 70 off ten overs for only one wicket or none then I'll be pissed off if at expense of Cummings that is better strike bowler.
So far that has not happened so hopefully whatever way selectors go the bowlers in there do the job.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Not all players are picked on merit - many are picked on squad balance/X factor. Doherty is the former, Cummins the latter.

Johnson was with the World Cup squad in 2007 to just 'be around the squad'. I'm not sure he played any games at all.

Doherty is there on merit, in that they trust him as a pure spin bowler in this format more than anyone else.

 

[The_Reaper]

There is no mistake. I could go with Sandhu or Pattinson over Hazelwood but at end of day whatever way selectors went it was line ball in or out so cannot call a mistake either way. Hazelwood was the safer option simply because he had been in the Aussie line-ups this season and did not blow it but still would have loved to see us go with luxury of Pattinson if we were willing to risk it. Got no issue with them holding him back for Windies tour but would have loved him in if they had of gone that way. now Hazelwood is in there hope he does his job when he is in team. Did not bowl great first game but also did not disgrace himself. If he goes for 70 off ten overs for only one wicket or none then I'll be pissed off if at expense of Cummings that is better strike bowler.
So far that has not happened so hopefully whatever way selectors go the bowlers in there do the job.

Pattinson's fitness is too big a risk.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

There is no mistake. I could go with Sandhu or Pattinson over Hazelwood but at end of day whatever way selectors went it was line ball in or out so cannot call a mistake either way. Hazelwood was the safer option simply because he had been in the Aussie line-ups this season and did not blow it but still would have loved to see us go with luxury of Pattinson if we were willing to risk it. Got no issue with them holding him back for Windies tour but would have loved him in if they had of gone that way. now Hazelwood is in there hope he does his job when he is in team.

Extremely luxurious considering he is rarely picked in our ODI squad, and he's been out with injuries and reworking his action for a long period. I'm not sure he needs the pressure.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Pattinson's fitness is too big a risk.

Especially with a more important Ashes series to come.

 

[ObieWan]

Johnson was with the World Cup squad in 2007 to just 'be around the squad'. I'm not sure he played any games at all.

Doherty is there on merit, in that they trust him as a pure spin bowler in this format more than anyone else.

Pure what now? An average of 40 and less than a wicket a game =/= merit.

 

[peternorth]

johnson glowing in support of clarke returning, excited, not causing distraction.

wonder how baileys feeling.

 

[The_Reaper]

johnson glowing in support of clarke returning, excited, not causing distraction.

wonder how baileys feeling.

Feeling that he should have scored some runs in 2014 and in January

 

[ManWithNoName]

Feeling that he should have scored some runs in 2014 and in January

When did Clarke last score ODI runs exactly?

3 innings >50 in his last 17 games.

 

[The_Reaper]

When did Clarke last score ODI runs exactly?

3 innings >50 in his last 17 games.

Only player who performed when we lost to the Zimbos.

And he's better than Bailey who is not international standard

 

[ManWithNoName]

Only player who performed when we lost to the Zimbos.

And he's better than Bailey who is not international standard

Not sure "he performed against Zimbabwe" is strong justification for making changes to a side that's been winning all sumer.

 

[The_Reaper]

Not sure "he performed against Zimbabwe" is strong justification for making changes to a side that's been winning all sumer.

Not sure why beating up on weaker teams means we should keep an unchanged lineup.

You should pick the best XI not stick with a team just because you're winning.

The reason Bailey is in a position to be dropped is because he's barely scored a run all year. Yes he did scrape together a 50 on Saturday and yes in the first ODI at the WACA he scored 70 after getting dropped twice.

That's basically all he has done since that India series where the average score was about 350

 

[ManWithNoName]

Not sure why beating up on weaker teams means we should keep an unchanged lineup.

You should pick the best XI not stick with a team just because you're winning.

The reason Bailey is in a position to be dropped is because he's barely scored a run all year. Yes he did scrape together a 50 on Saturday and yes in the first ODI at the WACA he scored 70 after getting dropped twice.

That's basically all he has done since that India series where the average score was about 350

Like the Tri Series where we went unbeaten?

 

[The_Reaper]

Like the Tri Series where we went unbeaten?

I guess Bailey should have played against the South Africans last year because we won the Ashes 5-0?

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

johnson glowing in support of clarke returning, excited, not causing distraction.

wonder how baileys feeling.

Yes, I heard that. Methinks he doth protest too much.

 

[The_Reaper]

Johnson only played one match in that tri-series
Maybe we should be sticking with Cummins

 

[ManWithNoName]

I guess Bailey should have played against the South Africans last year because we won the Ashes 5-0?

Well, no. They wanted to develop a new player. This is the World Cup. We're here to win it. So why change a side that's winning?

 

[The_Reaper]

Well, no. They wanted to develop a new player. This is the World Cup. We're here to win it. So why change a side that's winning?

No. They thought the team would be better without Bailey in it.

And they were right.

At his best Clarke offers far more than Bailey- with the bat, with the ball and he's a great Captain tactically.

Bailey is in pretty poor form as well.

If as western royboy suggests Clarke is genuinely not fit than it is a different matter. If he is he offers more to the team than Bailey and thus should play.

Not for development but because a team with a fit Clarke has a better chance of winning the world cup than a team with Bailey in it instead

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

Well, no. They wanted to develop a new player. This is the World Cup. We're here to win it. So why change a side that's winning?

Reminds me of the debate about whether we should bring Cyril in for the GF last year. Why change a successful team versus if he's fit you have to play him.