Changes for the 3rd Test

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Because he's never had a combination of hot form, fitness and an available place in his favour. His best full season, and only one that could be considered "great", was 4 years ago now, too. He's in good form at the moment, but that could even out as the season goes on.

Sayers' Shield record:

2010-11 - 1 match, 2 wickets, 47.50 average, 105.00 strike rate, 2.71 economy rate, 0 5-fers
2011-12 - 2 matches, 9 wickets, 23.44 average, 52.67 strike rate, 2.67 economy rate, 1 5-fers
2012-13 - 9 matches, 48 wickets, 18.52 average, 44.13 strike rate, 2.52 economy rate, 3 5-fers
2013-14 - 10 matches, 36 wickets, 28.06 average, 66.00 strike rate, 2.55 economy rate, 0 5-fers
2014-15 - 5 matches, 12 wickets, 31.50 average, 76.00 strike rate, 2.49 economy rate, 1 5-fer
2015-16 - 8 matches, 32 wickets, 27.78 average, 57.41 strike rate, 2.90 economy rate, 1 5-fer
2016-17 - 2 matches, 17 wickets, 10.82 average, 25.59 strike rate, 2.54 economy rate, 2 5-fers
-----
Career - 37 matches, 156 wickets, 23.44 average, 55.03 strike rate, 2.56 economy rate, 8 5-fers

His record is good without being consistently (year in, year out) outstanding, and like it or not, his lack of pace and versatility presents doubts as to his potential effectiveness at international level. Nevertheless, he's played a number of FC games for Australia A over the years, so the selectors are definitely aware of him, and he's been in the frame for a while if things happen to go his way.

What I find weird is that despite his reputation for line and length combined with swing and movement, he's had no success in limited overs stuff. Hasn't played a List A match in two years, and has never played a state-level or BBL T20. Honestly, I feel like he's just Trent Copeland Mk II (and only about 18 months younger).

Those queries about his pace and effectiveness at higher levels have been there at every level he has played. Juniors to seniors. Third grade to second grade to first grade. Club cricket to state 2nd XI to Redbacks. Always doubts whether he's up to the next grade.

At each level he's eventually taken so many wickets that he just cannot be ignored any longer and has then continued taking them at the next level.

He may not be effective as a test cricketer though we'd be silly not to find out. Dead rubber tests like this one is the perfect opportunity.

 

[The_Reaper]

Read really good things about Marcus Harris in the Hun.
Think he's averaging 89 in Vic

After two games for Victoria and after averaging under 30 over about half a decade for Western Australia

 

[bungwahl]

If we want a winning culture, then we have to look at Victoria.

Last 2 Shields, and on target for a 3 peat. Shaun Graf's the man. Not a household name, but successful, isn't that what we need? Simon Helmot's another.

The usual debate is that other states provide more opportunities for youngsters whilst dads army wins trophies. Vics don't look so old this year though!

 

[Damon_3388]

Read really good things about Marcus Harris in the Hun.
Think he's averaging 89 in Vic

Averaging 31.23 overall. Needs a few big seasons to really even be in the conversation IMO.

Damon_3388 fair call. Maybe not to the exact same age but to a similar age. If you look at Steve Waugh prior to the 89 Ashes (when he was just turned 24 a week or two prior) and to Mitch Marsh now (who is not long after turning 25) then it's a very similar position.

I'm too young too recall so wouldn't know whether it looked like Waugh was about to hit a turning point and that's why they stuck with him. He really came of age in the 89 Ashes, but then subsequently his form dropped off and he got dropped completely in 1991. Or maybe the 89 series was a complete anomaly as when he was dropped he averaged only 30 when excluding the 89 Ashes.

Looking at Mitch Marsh I don't see any signs that he is about to turn some corner and see a sudden spike in his batting. If anything he is finding it tougher and tougher. But like I said the fundamentals are there. I think a season and a half out of the test team could really do him the world of good, the way it did for Waugh between 1991 and the 92/93 West Indies series.

I think part of Waugh's problem at the time (looking at scorecards from 1990 and 1991) was that he was being used as the 4th bowler, while batting at #7, and was ineffective in both roles.

Waugh missed 11 Tests overall in 1991 and 1992. If Marsh stays out through the end of the India series, that's 9 Tests missed already. Will he get enough time in the middle with the bat, and enough overs under his belt with the ball, in Shield to really earn his place back, though? He'll probably be in and around the ODI and T20I squads still, which will likely prevent him from playing a few Shield fixtures for WA.

 

[aussie1st]

Read really good things about Marcus Harris in the Hun.
Think he's averaging 89 in Vic

We'll see how he goes once he loses that purple patch/second year syndrome. Silk has fallen to it, Deans looks to be heading that way.

 

[Big Bryza]

I wish they'd persist with Maxwell. His technique is a bit of a mess but he's probably the most talented batsman we have.

I dont care if he is a tosser or not, get him in the team at 6

His technique is actually quite good. His application is the issue.

 

[Big Bryza]

1. Warner
2. Bancroft
3. Khawaja
4. Smith*
5. Ferguson
6. Handscomb
7. Wade+
8. O'Keefe
9. Starc
10. Hazlewood
11. Bird

Why Bancroft?

 

[The Passenger]

I think part of Waugh's problem at the time (looking at scorecards from 1990 and 1991) was that he was being used as the 4th bowler, while batting at #7, and was ineffective in both roles.

I think he was just struggling with form. He didn't bowl much in the lead up to being dropped. Funnily enough the only match he bowled 20 overs from 1989 to 1991 was the match he got dropped after.

We certainly had an obsession with all rounders at the time in that 1986 to 1992 period. Himself, Mark Waugh, Greg Matthews and Allan Border all found themselves at times switching between a #4 bowler, #5 all rounder bowler, part time bowler or not even bowling at all. All fine crickets but - Border aside - it does seem like there was very little consistency with their roles in the team.

Waugh missed 11 Tests overall in 1991 and 1992. If Marsh stays out through the end of the India series, that's 9 Tests missed already. Will he get enough time in the middle with the bat, and enough overs under his belt with the ball, in Shield to really earn his place back, though? He'll probably be in and around the ODI and T20I squads still, which will likely prevent him from playing a few Shield fixtures for WA.

A definite concern and something that needs addressing around our scheduling of the domestic summer. James Faulkner is a great example. Was doing really well in the shield for a number of years, got called into the ODI/T20 squads and has not had a chance to get any continuity into his first class game.

 

[The_Reaper]

Why Bancroft?

Two very good seasons before this one and a very good A tour of India.

Been bad so far this year but only two games

 

[The_Reaper]

We'll see how he goes once he loses that purple patch/second year syndrome. Silk has fallen to it, Deans looks to be heading that way.

This is Harris 5th or 6th season.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

How has Travis Dean been going? Liked a couple of his innings I saw last season.

 

[Damon_3388]

Two very good seasons before this one and a very good A tour of India.

Been bad so far this year but only two games

Bancroft has a career Shield average of 36.32, after 60 innings.

I don't really see the need to rush him in. Still feel like he could do with all of this season and next in the Shield (another 30-40 innings), to really see whether he's just going to plateau as that 35-40 average Shield batsman, or if he truly has it in him to go beyond.

I don't care if how "patient" and "sensible" he is at the crease. Given his Shield record as it stands, what makes people think he'll magically average 45+ (the minimum that would be acceptable to retain a place in the top 5) at Test level right now?

 

[The_Reaper]

Bancroft has a career Shield average of 36.32, after 60 innings.

I don't really see the need to rush him in. Still feel like he could do with all of this season and next in the Shield (another 30-40 innings), to really see whether he's just going to plateau as that 35-40 average Shield batsman, or if he truly has it in him to go beyond.

I don't care if how "patient" and "sensible" he is at the crease. Given his Shield record as it stands, what makes people think he'll magically average 45+ (the minimum that would be acceptable to retain a place in the top 5) at Test level right now?

Take out the 2013/14 season where he was carried and played on potential for 11 games and averaged 22 and his record is much better.

I don't put much weight in career averages for young players.

 

[Kram]

Selection isn't all about looking a sheet of averages.

 

[Big Bryza]

Two very good seasons before this one and a very good A tour of India.

Been bad so far this year but only two games

Average in the mid 30's. No thanks.

 

[bird_man]

Two very good seasons before this one and a very good A tour of India.

Been bad so far this year but only two games

I know he averaged 40 last year but it was either feast or famine for him. He only made it passed 50 three times in the whole year, we need someone more consistent then that I think.

 

[Marstermind]

Ponting was the most ready player ever to be picked plus being the freak that he was at that age

He was dropped after his 6th Test averaging 33. After that the average didn't get over 40 until his 10th Test which was 2 years after his debut. His first 20 Tests yielded just 2 centuries. I think you misunderstood me. He was ready to be selected because he was a freakish talent, who was performing at Shield level that was worth backing in. But he wasn't ready in terms of coming straight in the side and being the player he became. He had his ups and downs, had to refine his game but he was worth the investment and he got better as Test player by being a Test player. Nowadays, guys are expected to be guns straight away and are left on the shelf until it's believed they can make an immediate impact. By the time they come in they aren't long term prospects anymore

Now of course, there's no young Ponting floating around in Shield cricket today, so the point is probably moot. But IF a Patterson or a Maddinson or a Whiteman or a Bancroft is deemed to be a potential star, get them in, let's see what they have, let them learn, ride the ups and downs. It's not like we can do worse.

 

[Damon_3388]

Take out the 2013/14 season where he was carried and played on potential for 11 games and averaged 22 and his record is much better.

I don't put much weight in career averages for young players.

Neither do I really, until they've played 100+ innings (5-6 seasons). I don't think they should be considered for selection for the Test team until then though, either, unless they're really beating down the door with mountains of runs (a la Phil Hughes), or the Test side is good enough to carry a youngster at #6 (a la Michael Clarke).

Selection isn't all about looking a sheet of averages.

Well, considering that Shield cricket isn't televised, and not everyone has access or ability to sit watching streams on cricket.com.au, at this stage, all most of us have to go on is the numbers.

Even if you do take out Bancroft's first year, his average is still heavily skewed by his big scores. For example, his average in 2015-16 Shield season was 45.80, but he didn't even past 50 in 13 of his 16 innings. Take out his 3 centuries, and he averaged 21.75 in the rest of his innings for the year. He (and guys like Handscomb, Dean, etc.) need to do it more consistently at Shield level over a longer time period to properly be considered "ready" for Test cricket IMO.

 

[TBellicious]

Haddin backs Handscomb Patterson and Bancroft to wear the baggy green. He's a coach of Aus A

 

[bird_man]

Neither do I really, until they've played 100+ innings (5-6 seasons). I don't think they should be considered for selection for the Test team until then though, either, unless they're really beating down the door with mountains of runs (a la Phil Hughes), or the Test side is good enough to carry a youngster at #6 (a la Michael Clarke).



Well, considering that Shield cricket isn't televised, and not everyone has access or ability to sit watching streams on cricket.com.au, at this stage, all most of us have to go on is the numbers.

Even if you do take out Bancroft's first year, his average is still heavily skewed by his big scores. For example, his average in 2015-16 Shield season was 45.80, but he didn't even past 50 in 13 of his 16 innings. Take out his 3 centuries, and he averaged 21.75 in the rest of his innings for the year. He (and guys like Handscomb, Dean, etc.) need to do it more consistently at Shield level over a longer time period to properly be considered "ready" for Test cricket IMO.

Agree with what you are saying, but if we don't pick a young player on potenti what other choices have we got? White? Bailey? None of the guys that have played over 100 innings seem up to it for me.

 

[roscreasl98]

After two games for Victoria and after averaging under 30 over about half a decade for Western Australia

So Victoria can make him into the batsman that WA couldn't. Says something about ur state lacking the ability to develop young players. But you do have Klinger LOL, oh yeah, and old man Voges.

 

[Van_Dyke]

So Victoria can make him into the batsman that WA couldn't. Says something about ur state lacking the ability to develop young players. But you do have Klinger LOL, oh yeah, and old man Voges.

Good day footyman13

 

[roscreasl98]

How has Travis Dean been going? Liked a couple of his innings I saw last season.

Not great this year. But Victoria is persevering with him to it's credit.

 

[Kram]

Good day footyman13

Nicely spotted.

 

[Damon_3388]

Agree with what you are saying, but if we don't pick a young player on potenti what other choices have we got? White? Bailey? None of the guys that have played over 100 innings seem up to it for me.

Well, White and Bailey are in form, probably better form than they were when originally picked. They would at least provide bit more leadership and experience.

I don't really think any of the younger guys are up to it either, and I don't think having a potentially confidence-killing run when the side is down against some of the best bowling attacks in the world is going to help their initiation into Test cricket either.