Doing the same thing again and expecting a different result is...

[Kyptastic]

Australia to name team for the Gabba on November 12th

For the record, that occurs after the Australia A game, but before the final round of the Shield matches prior to the Test starting, which means that some players will only get one game to impress.

As long as they don't select 17 players again, that was the biggest problem with the announcement last time.

 

[Phone]

Honestly, if they need 1-2 shield games to decide who to pick at 6 we're basically doomed. They should be able to make that decision now, based on the knowledge they've acquired of each player's technique, of their strengths and weaknesses, of the areas they're working to improve in and on their history and just whether they think that player has the tools to be a test player. The possibility of one game deciding who plays is bewildering.

 

[Cleavy]

CA are run by morons. What's wrong with naming a squad just days out from the Test? Who really cares about the unveiling of the CoE upgrade?

 

[The_Reaper]

Honestly, if they need 1-2 shield games to decide who to pick at 6 we're basically doomed. They should be able to make that decision now, based on the knowledge they've acquired of each player's technique, of their strengths and weaknesses, of the areas they're working to improve in and on their history and just whether they think that player has the tools to be a test player. The possibility of one game deciding who plays is bewildering.

Not so sure about that. For instance batting wise Hughes, Warner and Bailey are on about the same level.

 

[King Elvis]

Hughes should play.

 

[Phone]

Not so sure about that. For instance batting wise Hughes, Warner and Bailey are on about the same level.

I'd be stunned, and saying we're doomed, if a 4 man panel (with input from a 5th person) came to that same view. I would have thought a pecking order would exist from all the knowledge they've gathered on those players. They should know how to rank them. One game should not be making a difference.

 

[The_Reaper]

I'd be stunned, and saying we're doomed, if a 4 man panel (with input from a 5th person) came to that same view. I would have thought a pecking order would exist from all the knowledge they've gathered on those players. They should know how to rank them. One game should not be making a difference.

Warner is in poor form but he is considered in our best team.

I don't see why we wouldn't give him an extra match to try and regain form.

Likewise an extra match to see how Johnson is bowling is an advantage.

Given the difference between us and England selecting in form players is important. I don't see why we're eliminating options just for the sake of a small PR exercise.

 

[Phone]

Warner is in poor form but he is considered in our best team.

I don't see why we wouldn't give him an extra match to try and regain form.

Likewise an extra match to see how Johnson is bowling is an advantage.

Given the difference between us and England selecting in form players is important. I don't see why we're eliminating options just for the sake of a small PR exercise.

Selecting players in form is a recipe for disaster over the long run. Form is volatile. It will change. A player could be in form because he played against rubbish attacks or in 'easy' situations. Ed Cowan showed that (not that I agreed with Cowan being dropped when he was). You pick the guy you think has the best tools for the job. And with batsman, the people I'm using as examples given the bowlers seem to have been ranked already, one more game shouldn't change who you think the best equipped person is. You're just looking to avoid 'out-of-form' players (players whose technique is out of shape at that moment)

But in your example of MJ (who is pretty likely to not be affected given he's a near certainly to be picked in the squad imo) it's important to note the bolded. I have no problem with that. It's important to note how he's bowling, but his overall performance should be fairly meaningless. We should be looking to see how consistent he is, whether his lengths are inconsistent, but whether he takes 0/80 or 6/80 is meaningless.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Honestly, if they need 1-2 shield games to decide who to pick at 6 we're basically doomed. They should be able to make that decision now, based on the knowledge they've acquired of each player's technique, of their strengths and weaknesses, of the areas they're working to improve in and on their history and just whether they think that player has the tools to be a test player. The possibility of one game deciding who plays is bewildering.

Well, for most it will be two games. But if a few players are more or less level, why not pick a guy who shows the best form? Right now, hardly anybody has any recent (say, last two months) First Class form. They should be waiting until after the last possible game though in my opinion.
Three games gives a bit of a form line in my opinion, whereas one or two could just be horribly bad luck or one hot innings skewing things.

 

[Showbags]

Plus us naming the squad so early allows the Poms to plan and prepare for the team we put out on the park. Say for instance we pick a smokey like Maddinson or something, the Poms can then get a dossier on him and figure out some plans of where to bowl to him. But if we leave the naming of the team till late then they won't have that luxury.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Plus us naming the squad so early allows the Poms to plan and prepare for the team we put out on the park. Say for instance we pick a smokey like Maddinson or something, the Poms can then get a dossier on him and figure out some plans of where to bowl to him. But if we leave the naming of the team till late then they won't have that luxury.

We should leak a fake squad to the press. So while Clarke and Rogers etc. avoid the press re: their dumping and prepare in silence...Marcus North, Dan Christian and Luke Towers can revel in the English spotlight.

 

[STFU Donnie]

Whatever happened to the old philosophy of picking the best in-form players?

England insisted on three first class matches before the 1st test in 2010. They treated all three as match practice, not just batting and bowling practice.

They are doing the same thing this time.

Meanwhile, the Aussies are playing an utterly pointless 7 match (7 match!) ODI series in India.

Australian cricket's structure used to be the envy of the world. Not these days!

 

[Partridge]

Whatever happened to the old philosophy of picking the best in-form players?

England insisted on three first class matches before the 1st test in 2010. They treated all three as match practice, not just batting and bowling practice.

They are doing the same thing this time.

Meanwhile, the Aussies are playing an utterly pointless 7 match (7 match!) ODI series in India.

Australian cricket's structure used to be the envy of the world. Not these days!

It continues to amaze me how much England and Australia have basically completely changed roles the last 4 years.

 

[STFU Donnie]

It continues to amaze me how much England and Australia have basically completely changed roles the last 4 years.

The major difference to me is the quality of the coaching. Not just Andy Flower, but especially Graham Gooch. Four years ago both Cook and Bell were at the crossroads, but since he got involved they have both been amazing! Meanwhile we had Langer palling around with his old chums.

OT: In the unlikely records thread on the Footy forum, you posted about Geelong's 23 'consecutive wins'. Shouldn't it be 'unbeaten streak', as there was a draw involved?

 

[Partridge]

The major difference to me is the quality of the coaching. Not just Andy Flower, but especially Graham Gooch. Four years ago both Cook and Bell were at the crossroads, but since he got involved they have both been amazing! Meanwhile we had Langer palling around with his old chums.

OT: In the unlikely records thread on the Footy forum, you posted about Geelong's 23 'consecutive wins'. Shouldn't it be 'unbeaten streak', as there was a draw involved?

Almost. There were 2 wins, then a draw, then the 23 wins. So it was 26 unbeaten, but 23 consecutive wins.

I am the Walrus...

 

[STFU Donnie]

Almost. There were 2 wins, then a draw, then the 23 wins. So it was 26 unbeaten, but 23 consecutive wins.

I am the Walrus...

God, that's even better.

No, Lenin, as in Vladimir Ilyich Ulianov!