Changes for 3rd Test, SCG

[Scotland]

Looking at the Shield stats, there isn't a great deal to be excited about in terms of batsmen.

Agreed, but since we don't really use that as a basis for selecting bowlers, why use it for batsmen?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Johnson is by no means an all rounder. Bat him in the middle order and see how many runs he makes then. A bowler who can bat a bit is no means an all rounder. I'm guessing that comment was a joke.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Agreed, but since we don't really use that as a basis for selecting bowlers, why use it for batsmen?

Hastings? Bird?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Hastings? Bird?

Hazelwood?

 

[Scotland]

Hastings? Bird?

These guys are what, 7th, 8th in line?

 

[Badesumofu]

Johnson is by no means an all rounder. Bat him in the middle order and see how many runs he makes then. A bowler who can bat a bit is no means an all rounder. I'm guessing that comment was a joke.

Against Sri Lanka's 30 - 60 averaging bowlers, I say he qualifies. He did get a ton against the best pace attack in the world a couple of years ago. I'm not advocating he play as a permanent number 7, but I think he could play that role in the Sydney Test, and thereby allow us to play all four quicks. It might be worth more to get a look at Maxwell, though. Maybe rest Siddle since the series is won anyway.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

These guys are what, 7th, 8th in line?

They were selected on form, that's what I am saying.

 

[CAS79]

Maxwell is a fielder who bowls and bats a bit. His batting is just T20 style, he has no ability to grind, he will just try and hit out. Against Sri Lanka that might be ok, against India and better nations he will fail. His Bowling is also very average. He doesn't turn it enough, has no other ball but the stock offspinner. Warner (and I don't even like his bowling) is a better second spin option than Maxwell.

Selectors are once again punting on potential rather than picking on proper form. Disgusting, when will they get over this youth fetish?

Your a bit over the top with your criticism Bradesman. He is a batsman, weather hi performances have justified a call up is another question but today your implications have been he's effectively hopeless with both bat and ball and that plain not true.

Disclaimer for those taking it as a message of support though, his 2012 fc form with the bat does not seem to justify selection.

 

[bird_man]

i can't see us playing 4 quicks at the SCG, maybe the WACA.

 

[Scotland]

They were selected on form, that's what I am saying.

They were, but only after most other avenues were exhausted.

With all fast bowlers in Australia available and picking a test XI from scratch leading Shield wicket taker of 2011/12 and 2012/13 Jackson Bird is behind Starc, Cummins, Pattinson, Hazelwood... in the pecking order.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

They were, but only after most other avenues were exhausted.

With all fast bowlers in Australia available and picking a test XI from scratch leading Shield wicket taker of 2011/12 and 2012/13 Jackson Bird is behind Starc, Cummins, Pattinson, Hazelwood... in the pecking order.

I don't think Bird is behind Hazlewood; I think they just had him around the squad to give him some experience with the big boys. Cummins will come back pretty far down the order (at least I hope), and that's the way it should be.

In a way Starc earned his spot with form, but limited overs form. The want to play a left armer certainly helped him with regards to selection.

 

[CAS79]

They were, but only after most other avenues were exhausted.

With all fast bowlers in Australia available and picking a test XI from scratch leading Shield wicket taker of 2011/12 and 2012/13 Jackson Bird is behind Starc, Cummins, Pattinson, Hazelwood... in the pecking order.

Bird has to have lifted himself ahead of Hazlewood.

 

[Jeremias]

I'd be replacing the injured Watson with Maxwell, and I think we'll probably see Siddle rested for Starc as a continuation of the rotation policy. I wouldn't mind Khawaja coming in for Clarke because we don't need the skipper in the 3rd test but I'd say that's quite unlikely to happen.

Cowan
Warner
Hughes
Clarke
Hussey
Maxwell
Wade
Johnson
Starc
Lyon
Bird

 

[CAS79]

Can it also be mentioned the only top 6 batsman Maxwell has dismissed this season in a FC game is Mark Cosgrove caught at long on trying to smack him out of the park. His bowling is very inconsistent and lands a lot of bad balls for an offie.

 

[Selective Retention]

i can't see us playing 4 quicks at the SCG, maybe the WACA.

For a one off test I wouldn't mind Starc replacing Watson and going with the 4 quicks and Lyon.

We already know our batting depth isn't up to it. It would be a no win situation for Khawaja to come in for 1 test. With the Indian tour coming up, it does makes some sense to have a look at Maxwell. Personally I think sorting the bowling pecking order out is more important though as the 6 batsman look pretty safe for the medium term, even if their performances don't all justify that.

 

[BluesMan]

Starc is a definite. Clarke said so in his press. Johnson is safe, so I'm going to say Bird misses out which is dissapointing.
Maxwell will play for Watson. Good on Maxy. He does not just throw the bat at everything in the longer forms, like some suggest, so I support the selection. So it's just Ussie maybe in for Clarke.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Play the 4 quicks and Maxwell. Quicks are all in form, may as well play them all if we're playing Maxwell.

Warner
Cowan
Hughes
Clarke
Hussey
Maxwell
Wade
Johnson
Siddle
Starc
Bird

Lyon 12th man

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Play the 4 quicks and Maxwell. Quicks are all in form, may as well play them all if we're playing Maxwell.

Warner
Cowan
Hughes
Clarke
Hussey
Maxwell
Wade
Johnson
Siddle
Starc
Bird

Lyon 12th man

One does not simply not play a front line spinner at Sydney.

 

[brisbane13]

I think maxwell is a batsmen (pretty good one as the 42 suggests) who bowls a bit.
Meanwhile I view Henriques as a genuine all round option in the Watson mould who is averaging 80 with the bat and 20 with the ball this season.

The fact that maxy is in the squad means he's a fairly likely inclusion, however i'd be picking henriques because i feel that the second spinner role could be filled by a combo of clarke and warner, giving us a balanced attack of 4 quicks, a front line spinner and 2 handy part timers.

With watson going out, why not replace him in like for like fashion?

Henriques hasn't done anything in his career to warrant anything except from that 160 odd that he scored against Tasmania, he comes with a big reputation mainly built up buy mark waugh and slater,

 

[Jimthegreat]

Johnson is by no means an all rounder. Bat him in the middle order and see how many runs he makes then. A bowler who can bat a bit is no means an all rounder. I'm guessing that comment was a joke.

Agree, not the same pressure when you're a bowler who bats a bit. If they go out of a duck we don't give a sh1t. Once he's an all rounder though at 7 and they have to bat like real batsmen under pressure then tend to bat differently and like crap. Then we do give a sh1t when they make a duck. Johnson bats at 8. Like my all rounder to average more than 21.

 

[Jimthegreat]

One does not simply not play a front line spinner at Sydney.

Once upon a time you were right. Not necessarily now, especially as our spinner isn't that "frontline" thus Maxwell can hold up an end. It does as much for the quicks these days. I sometimes like the old Windies theory, just pick your best bowlers. It's might turn a bit more but it's not the diabolical turner like days gone by. Lyon's steady but he's not exactly going to run though a side even in Sydney. I'll back the quicks to do alot better.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Once upon a time you wee right. Not necessarily now. It's might turn a bit more but it's not the diabolical turner like days gone by. Lyon's steady but he's not exactly going to run though a side even in Sydney. I'll back the quicks to do alot better.

Sydney is one place where he may thrive and get some mojo, why the hell would you drop him and deny him that chance? Would be hugely detrimental to his confidence.

 

[Phone]

Agreed, but since we don't really use that as a basis for selecting bowlers, why use it for batsmen?

partly because a bowler can bowl 120 balls, not take a wicket, and still be impressive (and take 4 wickets and deserve to be dropped). batsmen don't have it the same way.

 

[Scotland]

partly because a bowler can bowl 120 balls, not take a wicket, and still be impressive (and take 4 wickets and deserve to be dropped). batsmen don't have it the same way.

Good point.

Apart from the fact that we pick guys who've barely bowled 120 balls in first class cricket over those that have consistently taken wickets for a season or more.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Sydney is one place where he may thrive and get some mojo, why the hell would you drop him and deny him that chance? Would be hugely detrimental to his confidence.

Prefer to give Bird, Johnson and Starc another go. They'll be way more dangerous.