Changes for the 3rd Test

[Damon_3388]

I love the idea of a 20yo in the team. If he is a prodigy let's go for him. Is he a young Martyn or Pointing? Talent wise?

Bit of a stodgy grinder usually I think; FC strike rate of 42.55 before today.

Today's innings (hit four sixes) seems kind of uncharacteristic, but I guess getting served up pies on a platter from Adam Zampa will do that.

 

[Carlos Danger]

Surely bird gets a look in?

I dont think so. Why would they rest mennie if he wasn't going to play the test? If he is not going to be picked surely he would get the chance to take wickets & play for his spot like everyone else.

It's not like he's been over bowled, aussies didnt have much bowling to do & sth Aus been knocking trams over quickly so he didn't need a rest.

Not saying I think hes best XI, just can't see him getting dropped based on CAs decisions

 

[Carbine Chaos]

I dont think so. Why would they rest mennie if he wasn't going to play the test? If he is not going to be picked surely he would get the chance to take wickets & play for his spot like everyone else.

It's not like he's been over bowled, aussies didnt have much bowling to do & sth Aus been knocking trams over quickly so he didn't need a rest.

Not saying I think hes best XI, just can't see him getting dropped based on CAs decisions

Gee, surely Mennie doesn't play the second Test. C'mon CA.

 

[The Passenger]

I wouldn't be picking Mennie but Carlos Danger reasoning seems pretty sound. He'd have a right to be pissed off that he didn't play this around of shield if he was going to be dropped anyway.... And he's a long way from express so I don't think he's the sort of bowler who'd be in danger of heading into the infamous "danger zone" (as the sports scientists like to call it).

 

[eth-dog]

Hank plays. Think Patterson will too.

 

[JD Tomahawk]

I'm excited about Renshaw. In excellent form. Made the ton today and only 20. He has to replace Burns.

 

[JackOutback]

So is everyone's though. All the selectors need to think about is if they think the possible alternative/s will do a better job then the incumbent.

Not really, Handscomb, Patterson and Bailey all in good form over more than one game.

 

[carnthemlions]

I've not seen Renshaw bat, but based on the chatter from a few articles and tonning up today I reckon he's going to get picked as a bolter. Peter Handcomb would have to be a shoe-in now you'd think.

Kurtis Patterson would be the next in line. He may even get the nod over Ferguson but I'd be surprised if they pick 3 young guys to debut.

Travis Dean's name would be there abouts but he hasn't got the hype of Renshaw.

I think Bancroft - whom I had as an in for this test - has missed a big opportunity and will have to wait a while longer. He's going to need some runs very soon otherwise he'll find himself a test 6th in the openers pecking order behind.

A 20-year old bolter with a good early start to his career, a 25-year old who's scored plenty of runs at FC level, and a 31-year old in his second test would be seen as a good mix of new faces I reckon.

Yeah, it sounds like Renshaw is being seriously considered. Not sure that's the right call, but talent-wise he wouldn't be at all out of place. His batting looks uncannily like Cook at times. Tall left hander who shuffles across his stumps, will leave balls outside off all day until he gets something to cut, pull, or work off his pads.

Renshaw has batted for long periods too. 250 balls and 390 balls in his two big tons.

If Dean goes even bigger tomorrow it'll be hard to ignore but shield final aside, he had a very poor finish to the shield season, scored 1 run in 3 innings for Australia A and started this season poorly.

We don't have much to go on with these blokes (and I've never seen either bat) but Renshaw's form to finish 15/16, Australia A games and tonning up today is stronger then Dean. Including today he averages about 44 in his last 7 games and has made a start (got to 20) in all bar 3 innings.

Even including his ton today Dean's average in his last 10 games is just over 30, and includes 4 ducks and 4 single figure scores in those games. Prior to today his last 6 FC scores were 0, 26, 17, 0, 0, 1. There's a case that he was lucky to be out there today.

I can't really call as all I've not seen either bat. All I've got is numbers and "chatter" to go on and on that basis if they were to pick a bolter it's hard to see them picking Dean over Renshaw. Maybe neither get picked. And yes, If Dean goes massive tomorrow it'll be hard to ignore.

But we can we please stop pretending that your push for Dean is anything other then state bias. It's getting a bit childish now.

Excluding his debut as an 18 year old, Renshaw's only been dismissed for under 10 four times, and never in the same match. That's probably the main difference between the two statistically.

Bit of a stodgy grinder usually I think; FC strike rate of 42.55 before today.

Today's innings (hit four sixes) seems kind of uncharacteristic, but I guess getting served up pies on a platter from Adam Zampa will do that.

It's not really uncharacteristic, he can hit huge sixes when he gets going (i.e. not until he's faced about 150 balls). He hit seven against SA last season. Hence my Misbah comparison in the match thread, he blocks all day and then will hit a massive six out of nowhere.

 

[Pacman Carney]

Temba Bavuma averaged less than 40 in first class cricket before getting called up for his first test. Didn't set the world on fire in his few tests either but is now doing quite well. Sometimes a little patience and foresight is required in picking the right player. FWIW I'd go with Patterson but Shield performances this round will count for plenty.

Yeah, but, weren't we doing that with Mitchell Marsh ? .... no patience there.
Pick and stick

 

[Taylor]

I thought Marsh got the stick because the top order collapsed and unless we had Hussey or a clone role player there to have a partnership our side has been rubbish for years.

Heaven forbid we expect the dedicated batsmen to score most of the runs, pick bowlers that bat 11 over other bowlers that bat 11 a bit worse, complain that the wicket keeper isnt scoring big runs instead.

 

[to1994]

Dean being the first man to score a century in each innings on Shield debut should give him a little bit of currency?

I don't know about that. Could suggest the bowling sides didn't have much in the way of plans for him in his first game and after the sides were able to watch some footage they worked him out.

I don't know if that was the case but his failures with Aus A ought to count against him in comparison to Renshaw.

 

[Damon_3388]

I know people always point to the trend in the English system being to play less games (yet to see the change actually implemented there, though), but does anyone else feel like the Shield season should be expanded ASAP? I think with a 6-team comp, 15 4-day games is appropriate. It would give batsmen the chance at 25-30 innings a year, as opposed to the 15-20 they get now, and would accelerate their development. Likewise bowlers, who could get another 15-200 overs under their belt.

Yeah, it'll take some re-jigging of the scheduling, but there's plenty of time from October to March to fit in extra Shield games, plus an expanded Matador Cup (12 games), plus BBL (14 games) I reckon.

 

[The Passenger]

Damon_3388 I think the 10 games is the right amount. The unfortunate fact is if they were to change the competition structure it would be to 5 games, not 15.

There is plenty of cricket being played, I don't think the players will benefit from an extra 40 days play in a season.

 

[Damon_3388]

Damon_3388 I think the 10 games is the right amount. The unfortunate fact is if they were to change the competition structure it would be to 5 games, not 15.

There is plenty of cricket being played, I don't think the players will benefit from an extra 40 days play in a season.

Well in that case, I think in the very least we need to tighten up the scheduling and make it have a more logical flow to it, with both the international matches and state and BBL stuff. There's too much flitting between formats and levels going on I reckon.

The international schedule this summer is a bizarre dog's breakfast:

Sept-Oct - 5-match ODI in South Africa
Nov - 3-match Test series vs. South Africa
Dec - 3-match ODI series vs. New Zealand
Dec-Jan - 3-match Test series vs. Pakistan
Jan - 5-match ODI series vs. Pakistan
Jan-Feb - 3-match ODI series in New Zealand
Feb - 3-match T20I series vs. Sri Lanka
Feb-March - 4-match Test series in India

What was the point of the ODI series in SA? Why are the matches with NZ and Sri Lanka there? We should just have two 3-5-3 Test/ODI/T20I home series against SA and Pakistan from Nov-Feb, before heading to India in March.

 

[The Passenger]

Well in that case, I think in the very least we need to tighten up the scheduling and make it have a more logical flow to it, with both the international matches and state and BBL stuff. There's too much flitting between formats and levels going on I reckon.

The international schedule this summer is a bizarre dog's breakfast:

Couldn't agree more, and must admit I didn't know there was a 3 match ODI series against NZ between South Africa and Pakistan.

I know the international schedule is severely restricted by commercial interests and the future tour program, but I'm sure it can be done better. I read that we've signed to play a stack of one-day series against New Zealand over the next few years, and I assume that was part of the deal for them to play the pink ball test last summer. New Zealand are playing home ODI's through the Christmas period which (even against Bangladesh) would be commercially important for them. That's the only logical reason for why we have a random 3 match ODI series in between tests.

As you say that domestic schedule should have more of a flow that suits what the international team is playing, working around the constraint that the BBL has to be in the school holidays. A better schedule for mine would've been shield game up until a week before christmas. Probably play 6 rounds whilst the tests are ongoing. BBL after that till end of January. 2 shield matches starting in the first week of February before the tour of india, then play the Matador Cup over a few weeks as it has been. Then finish the season with the final 2 shield matches and the final which should take us right to the last week of March.

 

[Skipper_]

1. Renshaw
2. Warner
3. Khawaja
4. Smith
5. Handscomb
6. Patterson
7. Wade
8. O'Keefe
9. Starc
10. Hazlewood
11. Sayes

 

[Doodlesweaver]

If Callum Ferguson is dumped, that's bloody rubbish. You can't give a guy one test to prove himself when the whole team screwed up.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Bit of a stodgy grinder usually I think; FC strike rate of 42.55 before today.

Today's innings (hit four sixes) seems kind of uncharacteristic, but I guess getting served up pies on a platter from Adam Zampa will do that.

Why does it matter what his S/R is? Honestly this has to be the number 1 most meaningless stat when talking about test cricket teams. Cook wouldn't have a S/R any better, Pujara wouldn't, doubt Kallis would be that much better either.

You have 5 days to win a test.

 

[The_Reaper]

Yeah, it sounds like Renshaw is being seriously considered. Not sure that's the right call, but talent-wise he wouldn't be at all out of place. His batting looks uncannily like Cook at times. Tall left hander who shuffles across his stumps, will leave balls outside off all day until he gets something to cut, pull, or work off his pads.

Excluding his debut as an 18 year old, Renshaw's only been dismissed for under 10 four times, and never in the same match. That's probably the main difference between the two statistically.

It's not really uncharacteristic, he can hit huge sixes when he gets going (i.e. not until he's faced about 150 balls). He hit seven against SA last season. Hence my Misbah comparison in the match thread, he blocks all day and then will hit a massive six out of nowhere.

He based his batting on Cook

 

[Damon_3388]

Why does it matter what his S/R is? Honestly this has to be the number 1 most meaningless stat when talking about test cricket teams.

It's not necessarily a negative judgement. I was just describing what style of batsman he is.

Cook wouldn't have a S/R any better, Pujara wouldn't, doubt Kallis would be that much better either.

You have 5 days to win a test.

Pujara's FC and Test strike rates are around 50, Cook's FC strike rate is around 50, and Cook and Kallis' Test strike rates are/were around 45.

Sometimes it can be an indicator of patience, sometimes it can be an indicator of having difficulty scoring (eg. Khawaja's early Tests). Have to see the batsman regularly to know, really.

 

[augiewaz]

What was the point of the ODI series in SA?

$$$$$$$$$ - Like most of the series we play, its all about the money

 

[Damon_3388]

I dont think so. Why would they rest mennie if he wasn't going to play the test? If he is not going to be picked surely he would get the chance to take wickets & play for his spot like everyone else.

It's not like he's been over bowled, aussies didnt have much bowling to do & sth Aus been knocking trams over quickly so he didn't need a rest.

Not saying I think hes best XI, just can't see him getting dropped based on CAs decisions

I wouldn't be picking Mennie but Carlos Danger reasoning seems pretty sound. He'd have a right to be pissed off that he didn't play this around of shield if he was going to be dropped anyway.... And he's a long way from express so I don't think he's the sort of bowler who'd be in danger of heading into the infamous "danger zone" (as the sports scientists like to call it).

Mennie has actually bowled just as many overs (93) as Starc (92.4) has across their last three FC matches. Starc did get pulled out of the 2nd innings of the Shield game he played a couple of weeks ago, though. Hazlewood has out-worked them both (119.5).

Honestly, I thought Mennie bowled OK, and if he's considered the next in line, he should be given another Test, especially on his home deck. No point in resting him if he's not going to be playing in the Test, really.

$$$$$$$$$ - Like most of the series we play, its all about the money

Wouldn't it have made more logistical sense for us to host some ODIs and T20Is against them while they're here for a Test series as well? A random, meaningless ODI series in Sept-Oct seems like a weird way for both nations to start their summer, even from a financial perspective.

 

[The Passenger]

I think Mennie would have to bowl about twice as many overs as Starc to put his body under the same of stress.

 

[DanT7]

1. Warner
2. Khawaja
3. Smith
4. Handscomb
5. Dean
6. Maxwell
7. Wade
8. Starc
9. Sayers
10. Hazlewood
11. O'Keefe
12. Bird

 

[Cleavy]

Well in that case, I think in the very least we need to tighten up the scheduling and make it have a more logical flow to it, with both the international matches and state and BBL stuff. There's too much flitting between formats and levels going on I reckon.

The international schedule this summer is a bizarre dog's breakfast:

Sept-Oct - 5-match ODI in South Africa
Nov - 3-match Test series vs. South Africa
Dec - 3-match ODI series vs. New Zealand
Dec-Jan - 3-match Test series vs. Pakistan
Jan - 5-match ODI series vs. Pakistan
Jan-Feb - 3-match ODI series in New Zealand
Feb - 3-match T20I series vs. Sri Lanka
Feb-March - 4-match Test series in India

What was the point of the ODI series in SA? Why are the matches with NZ and Sri Lanka there? We should just have two 3-5-3 Test/ODI/T20I home series against SA and Pakistan from Nov-Feb, before heading to India in March.

They tour here for ODIs/T20s, we owe them back. That's apparently how the FTP works, according to Sutherland. NZ and CA wanted to revive the Chappell-Hadlee series, so that's why those games are crammed in there.