Changes for 3rd Test v India

[Blue1980]

They need to make the WACA a fast bowler's paradise for the final Test (or the stadium if it's ready) and unleash Starc, Pattinson, Cummins and Hazlewood.

WACA will still host tests in future yes?

 

[Badesumofu]

Very happy with Cummins, and I'd expect him to play. If they weren't intending to pick him then better to keep him in the Shield.

He's clearly good enough - I don't think there's much doubt that when fit he deserves to be picked. He's a fantastic bowler. He took 8 wickets in the Shield match which he got through without any issue. It's a ballsy selection but it was ballsy to pick him the other time they did and that paid off.

Edit: since this is the 'pick a side' thread:

Warner
Renshaw
Smith
Marsh
Handscomb
Khawaja/Maxwell/Agar
Wade (I'd be tempted have Handscomb keep and pick two of the above, but Wade's keeping has actually been good lately and I think we need a proper keeper on these pitches)
Cummins
O'Keefe
Hazlewood
Lyon

 

[Blue1980]

This is the height of stupidity

Stoinis is, this isn't

 

[JackOutback]

WACA will still host tests in future yes?

Yes, but not the ones that matter (i.e. England and India).

 

[The 747]

WACA will still host tests in future yes?

Not for much longer IMO

 

[The 747]

Yes, but not the ones that matter (i.e. England and India).

Without that money the facilities are going to continue to degrade

 

[frankrizzo]

The cummins selection isn't horrible if they are just going to back him and let him bowl but if they keep up this insurance policy crap of playing out of their depth cricketer at 6 just in case a quick gets injured then cummins is a bad pick.

 

[ROOTA#6]

They need to make the WACA a fast bowler's paradise for the final Test (or the stadium if it's ready) and unleash Starc, Pattinson, Cummins and Hazlewood.

4 quicks doesn't work in Australia. Need the spin variation. The most recent times we've tried it have bitten us in the arse hasn't it?

 

[Plugger35]

Picking Cummins is a big risk if they expect him to be a workhorse on a flat Indian pitch as one of just two fast bowlers, he can be very expensive too.

Personally I would pick Bird who is capable of being a workhorse and is less expensive, it's not like Bird is incapable of picking up a bag of wickets either.

 

[Scotland]

Cummins has only one test to his name so his stats don't mean a lot, but of 51 ODI wickets he has 2 bowled and 1 LBW, and 13 caught behind.

Bird with 34 test wickets has 9 bowled and 4 LBW, and 9 caught behind.

Different games in terms of batting intent but I'm not convinced Cummins is the right type of bowler to pair with Hazlewood. Bowling fast and just back of a length and looking for edges high on the bat isn't really the go in India. We need someone who can bowl a consistent line and length outside and look to attack the stumps the the reversing ball.

 

[strewthcobber]

4 quicks doesn't work in Australia. Need the spin variation. The most recent times we've tried it have bitten us in the arse hasn't it?

Our captain would almost certainly be suspended due to over rates as well

 

[The 747]

Our captain would almost certainly be suspended due to over rates as well

I'd be very happy to see our captain get suspended for that anyway, our over rates are usually disgraceful.

 

[MC Bad Genius]

Cummins has only one test to his name so his stats don't mean a lot, but of 51 ODI wickets he has 2 bowled and 1 LBW, and 13 caught behind.

Bird with 34 test wickets has 9 bowled and 4 LBW, and 9 caught behind.

Different games in terms of batting intent but I'm not convinced Cummins is the right type of bowler to pair with Hazlewood. Bowling fast and just back of a length and looking for edges high on the bat isn't really the go in India. We need someone who can bowl a consistent line and length outside and look to attack the stumps the the reversing ball.

That's an interesting analysis - thanks for posting. This is why I love Bigfooty! I'd be interested to see what his stats are in the shield for mode of dismissal. In the match just finished, 3 of his 8 wickets were bowled and the others all caught (I'm not sure if they were all behind the wicket). My only gripe with your analysis is that caught behind doesn't always indicate a ball being bowled short of a length, but could be a fuller ball that gets some movement.

To be honest, I think this selection is a risky move, but it's a bold one. No one really doubts his ability to bowl at Test level, but the potential for injury is definitely a concern. You'd think that with such a long recovery, it would've been monitored very closely and they think it's a calculated risk and like others have pointed out, he won't need to do workhorse spells on these pitches. Bird was obviously on tour as a potential third seamer if the pitch required, or as a replacement if Hazelwood got injured, but isn't the strike bowler that Starc/Cummins provides.

My XI:

Warner
Rensha
Khawaja
Smith
S. Marsh
Handscombe
Wade
Cummins
O'Keefe
Hazelwood
Lyon

I think with Cummins coming in though, Khawaja would be even less likely to move back into the lineup. They'll definitely go for an all-rounder as back-up ... which completely waters down the bold move to pick Cummins in the first place. But we can't really be expecting consistency with selectors, can we?

 

[Cleavy]

http://www.cricket.com.au/news/davi...australia-tour-of-india-highlights/2017-03-11

forget the reverse sweeps and switch hits!

 

[The_Reaper]

That's an interesting analysis - thanks for posting. This is why I love Bigfooty! I'd be interested to see what his stats are in the shield for mode of dismissal. In the match just finished, 3 of his 8 wickets were bowled and the others all caught (I'm not sure if they were all behind the wicket). My only gripe with your analysis is that caught behind doesn't always indicate a ball being bowled short of a length, but could be a fuller ball that gets some movement.

To be honest, I think this selection is a risky move, but it's a bold one. No one really doubts his ability to bowl at Test level, but the potential for injury is definitely a concern. You'd think that with such a long recovery, it would've been monitored very closely and they think it's a calculated risk and like others have pointed out, he won't need to do workhorse spells on these pitches. Bird was obviously on tour as a potential third seamer if the pitch required, or as a replacement if Hazelwood got injured, but isn't the strike bowler that Starc/Cummins provides.

My XI:

Warner
Rensha
Khawaja
Smith
S. Marsh
Handscombe
Wade
Cummins
O'Keefe
Hazelwood
Lyon

I think with Cummins coming in though, Khawaja would be even less likely to move back into the lineup. They'll definitely go for an all-rounder as back-up ... which completely waters down the bold move to pick Cummins in the first place. But we can't really be expecting consistency with selectors, can we?

Well Cummins plays shield cricket so rarely its kind of pointless drawing anything from his shield performance.

 

[MC Bad Genius]

Well Cummins plays shield cricket so rarely its kind of pointless drawing anything from his shield performance.

Haha. I forgot that bit!

 

[Scotland]

That's an interesting analysis - thanks for posting. This is why I love Bigfooty! I'd be interested to see what his stats are in the shield for mode of dismissal. In the match just finished, 3 of his 8 wickets were bowled and the others all caught (I'm not sure if they were all behind the wicket). My only gripe with your analysis is that caught behind doesn't always indicate a ball being bowled short of a length, but could be a fuller ball that gets some movement.

It's a very basic analysis from what is available on the internets. It'd be nice a breakdown of wickets by position in batting order, caught in slips or in deep etc. but I'm not Tubby and Slats with their Windows 10 Analyser. Caught behind the wicket in general is hard to gauge from basic stats. Someone like Warner slashes at balls well outside off regardless of length so is likely to get out caught at gully or third man, while Shaun Marsh will poke at balls just outside off and is more likely to feather one to the keeper or first slip.

Starc in tests is 28% bowled, 18% LBW, 24% caught behind, 30% caught. In ODIs he's got higher percentages of bowled and caught, which is common as limited overs cricket is more attacking so you tend to see more catches in the deep and balls on the stumps have the willow swung at them. A lot of guys who are good limited overs bowlers don't do well in test cricket and vice versa.

Assuming Cummins plays, how to we use him? Do we wanting him bowling full and looking for swing? Relying on pace? Bowling line and length and hoping for variable bounce?

 

[Seagrave_Holmes]

It might just be me but Cummins has rarely impressed me in any of the games I've watched. Gets a lot of cheap wickets with the white ball when the batsmen go the tonk at the back end of the innings. Also bowls a lot of pies. Pattinson would have been a better gamble IMO

 

[ROOTA#6]

It might just be me but Cummins has rarely impressed me in any of the games I've watched. Gets a lot of cheap wickets with the white ball when the batsmen go the tonk at the back end of the innings. Also bowls a lot of pies. Pattinson would have been a better gamble IMO

To be fair no one really knows exactly how he goes coz he's play f**k all red ball cricket ever

 

[MC Bad Genius]

It's a very basic analysis from what is available on the internets. It'd be nice a breakdown of wickets by position in batting order, caught in slips or in deep etc. but I'm not Tubby and Slats with their Windows 10 Analyser. Caught behind the wicket in general is hard to gauge from basic stats. Someone like Warner slashes at balls well outside off regardless of length so is likely to get out caught at gully or third man, while Shaun Marsh will poke at balls just outside off and is more likely to feather one to the keeper or first slip.

Starc in tests is 28% bowled, 18% LBW, 24% caught behind, 30% caught. In ODIs he's got higher percentages of bowled and caught, which is common as limited overs cricket is more attacking so you tend to see more catches in the deep and balls on the stumps have the willow swung at them. A lot of guys who are good limited overs bowlers don't do well in test cricket and vice versa.

Assuming Cummins plays, how to we use him? Do we wanting him bowling full and looking for swing? Relying on pace? Bowling line and length and hoping for variable bounce?

He's gotta be searching for wickets, because he'll only be used in short burst spells. He's fast enough to bowl full at the stumps and look for some swing, but if he's lacking in consistency, the instruction should be to pull the length back and aim for a 5th stump line. There will be a lot of pressure after the South Africa heroics and a recent MOTM performance in the shield, so it will be very interesting to see how he goes.

And your other points get to the heart of the matter that for a sport that relies so much on a few stats to compare careers at a glance, the actual level of deeper analysis on stats in cricket is incredibly poor. Would love for there to be more varied stats available - particularly batting medians (a much better guide to consistency, in my opinion).

 

[Carlos Danger]

It's a risky selection. But I think they need to take a risk to win this series. Get your "match winners" in there and hope they come off.

I think he will play ahead of bird, Bird is very much a 3rd seamer. He doesn't take bags of wickets all that often, fairly certain he hasn't got a 5WI all summer.

That's not a criticism just not our best "match winner" & not the type of bowler needed when only playing 2 quicks.

 

[getgaff]

Maxwell in for Marsh, Bird in for Starc

With Starc gone for the series I think that 5th bowler becomes a requirement again. Hence why I've picked Maxwell.

Bird in for Starc should be expected. Cummins not near enough long format cricket behind him to be selected imo

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Bird in for Starc should be expected. Cummins not near enough long format cricket behind him to be selected imo

Given he's been called into the squad, I'd say Cummins in for Starc should be expected.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

The cummins selection isn't horrible if they are just going to back him and let him bowl but if they keep up this insurance policy crap of playing out of their depth cricketer at 6 just in case a quick gets injured then cummins is a bad pick.

Two bowlers who you would always need insurance picks for: Cummins and Pattinson.

So that's Stoinis in the team. I can't say he's any worse a pick than Mitch Marsh. Smith may not bowl him at all either.

I reckon he can play spin though, so that's in his favour I guess.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Well Cummins plays shield cricket so rarely its kind of pointless drawing anything from his shield performance.

Not many of the Indian players would have played against him so that might be a point in his favour.