Fourth Test team

[The Casey Cat]

Agree Burns should be in the side. Disagree Labuschagne should play in place of a front line bowler. That would be madness.

Meh. Perhaps. Just saying if they want a spinner in that's the way to go. Hazelwood has been ordinary. Playing Lab as a 6 in the worst batting line-up this country has ever had is even more madness.

Sent from my XT1572 using Tapatalk

 

[Achilles Heel]

Did you not see the BBL game where he got forward to everything, rather than playing back like a goose?

Yeah I watched it but I’m not sure playing slog cricket prepares you for a test match

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

Yeah I watched it but I’m not sure playing slog cricket prepares you for a test match

More about finding confidence. He’s shown he can make runs at test level, just needs the confidence to do it.

 

[Cleavy]

Yeah I watched it but I’m not sure playing slog cricket prepares you for a test match

Agree, but form is form according to the selectors.

 

[bluespooner]

Agree Burns should be in the side. Disagree Labuschagne should play in place of a front line bowler. That would be madness.

Labuschagne hasn't even played and you are saying it is madness. Yet, were no doubt were ecstatic with blokes that were selected repeatedly and failed repeatedly such as Finch and Handscombe, now that is madness.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Pretty much this. Flintoff killed us on 05, and we’ve been shoe-horning ‘allrounders’ in to try and replicate it for us.
The beauty of a great all rounder is they are bloody rare and make your side so so much better, problem is, if you play average allrounders, you weaken your side a fair bit.

Makes you realise how decent Watson was despite not being amazing at test level. We’d kill for an AR like Watto right now

 

[SportsCentre]

Australia to pull SCG Test shock with Labuschagne set to be new No.3

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/cri...hagne-set-to-be-new-no-3-20190102-p50p9d.html

Welcome to the Marnus era!

Tom Moody likes this

 

[Achilles Heel]

They dropped him because they needed an all rounder in case they lost the toss and the bowlers bowled Pies which they did. Now they need someone who can play spin

It would be novel idea to play players in the position they are suited for you know round pegs , round holes , rather than trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

But I guess that would mean someone like M Marsh misses out

The Brown Nose Toad will become the Danny Frawley of cricket , stickfat , cherry ripe.......

 

[LukeParkerno1]

So we drop Handscomb because he needs to fix his technique, so when did he fix it between tests? Or is he a good bloke too?

The alternative is Mitch Marsh..

Just no

 

[Achilles Heel]

Meh. Perhaps. Just saying if they want a spinner in that's the way to go. Hazelwood has been ordinary. Playing Lab as a 6 in the worst batting line-up this country has ever had is even more madness.

Sent from my XT1572 using Tapatalk

How about playing him at first drop, you know the position ussually reserved for your best batsman!

 

[Scotland]

So what you are saying is that we don't have a capable all rounder...so why do our halfwit selectors think they have to keep picking one

We've never really had one. For a brief period Shane Watson looked like living up to his potential but most of the time he was just a guy averaging 20s or low 30s with the bat who bowled a bit. 4 100s and 24 50s and two of the 100s and 14 of the 50s came in 2009/10 and the rest were spread over 7 nothing years either side.

Andrew Symonds at 40.6 / 37.3 is the best we've had on paper, and he was never going to last because he only bowled medium pace and off spin which is what our selectors demand.

The selectors have had a hard on for an all rounder since the 2005 Ashes. Never mind that we managed to win 16 tests in a row without one, Andrew Flintoff had a good series therefore we NEED an all rounder batting at 6. In a career series for him, Flintoff averaged 40 with the bat and 27 with the ball. He was the third highest run scorer for England and their #1 wicket taker, bowling about 30 more overs than anyone else in their squad. Over 79 tests he averaged 32 with the bat and 33 with the ball. Good numbers, but the 2005 Ashes were a standout.

Most of the great all rounders that have tormented us in the past were great bowlers who were handy with the bat.

Ian Botham 33.5 / 28.4
Kapil Dev 31 / 29.6
Richard Hadlee 27.2 / 22.3
Imran Khan 37.7 / 22.8

Really it's only Jacques Kallis who was a genuine world class batsman who also bowled pace and I'll be surprised if his test record is replicated again by a player from any country.

The reality is we're battling to find anyone who can average 40 with the bat without bowling at all, so the idea that we're going to find some 40 / 30 guy from the current crop is laughable. I had hopes that Mitch Marsh could be a a 40 / 40 player given how infrequently he bowls but his performances with the bat have been very disappointing.

 

[Gavin Excell]

If there's anything this last series has shown, is that the selectors still choose players they personally like in positions they hope they can play, instead of players in form in positions they play, to the significant detriment of the side.

Yes

And Labuschagne at 3?
There used to be a time when the best batsman came in at 3.

 

[bird_man]

Labuschagne hasn't even played and you are saying it is madness. Yet, were no doubt were ecstatic with blokes that were selected repeatedly and failed repeatedly such as Finch and Handscombe, now that is madness.

Yeah right, think you'll find that I've never been a Finch backer old mate,.especially opening.

Handscomb earnt his place through making runs. I've got my doubts about him and wouldn't have him in the squad for England. So I'm not sure how you call it Vic bias.

If you read the thread properly you'll see me continually back Labuschagne's team mate Joe Burns.

What's the point of having the thread if we all wait to see how they go before staring our opinion on the selection?

Not sure if you are a relation to Marnus or not, I apogise if you are but you probably should come on here if you are going to take offense to that.

I said playing Labuschagne as a front line bowler would be madness because he's averaged half a wicket a match in his FC career. I don't think it's such an outrageous call.

Hopefully he bowls and bats well and proves me wrong mate.

 

[eddiesmith]

Labuschagne hasn't even played and you are saying it is madness. Yet, were no doubt were ecstatic with blokes that were selected repeatedly and failed repeatedly such as Finch and Handscombe, now that is madness.

Finch and Labuschagne both played in UAE, Finch averaged 45, Marnus 20...

Finch earns a couple of chances, Marnus not so much especially given he hasn’t even made runs at shield level. Something Finch wasn’t even given the chance to bar 1 game...

 

[bluespooner]

Yeah right, think you'll find that I've never been a Finch backer old mate,.especially opening.

What's the point of having the thread if we all wait to see how they go before staring our opinion on the selection?

Not sure if you are a relation to Marnus or not, I apogise if you are but you probably should come on here if you are going to take offense to that.

I said playing Labuschagne as a front line bowler would be madness because he's averaged half a wicket a match in his FC career. I don't think it's such an outrageous call.

Hopefully he bowls and bats well and proves me wrong mate.

All he has to do is exceed the pitiful performances of Finch and Handscombe and he has proved you wrong.

As for his bowling, he hasn't be selected as an all-rounder but rather as a batsman who can provide a handy wrist spin option - 7 wickets in two Test in the UAE was a good start. He will, however, need to score runs to justify his selection but this needs to be over a block of Test matches as they have provided Finch and Handscombe. One thing Labuschagne has over both those two named is that he applies himself and has an excellent batting technique.

 

[bird_man]

All he has to do is exceed the pitiful performances of Finch and Handscombe and he has proved you wrong.

As for his bowling, he hasn't be selected as an all-rounder but rather as a batsman who can provide a handy wrist spin option - 7 wickets in two Test in the UAE was a good start. He will, however, need to score runs to justify his selection but this needs to be over a block of Test matches as they have provided Finch and Handscombe. One thing Labuschagne has over both those two named is that he applies himself and has an excellent batting technique.

Well when you look at his FC record it's not that hard to understand why I think it's unlikely he will do any better. I struggle to see how a kid with such an amazing technique that applies himself so well has a FC average of 30 and averaging 28 this year.

Not sure how him outperforming Finch will prove me wrong when I've been calling for Joe Burns to take Finch's spot but okay...

 

[Blackhawk42]

Stoinis' FC record is ordinary.

53 matches for a batting average of 33.6 and a bowling average of 42.4. At Shield level he is basically Mitch Marsh scoring fewer runs and taking fewer wickets. He's been great in ODIs but anyone who thinks Mitch Marsh doesn't belong at test level can't keep a straight face if they think Stoinis has any runs on the board with the red ball.

I honestly believe Stoinis has way more potential at test level than Marsh though. He needs to be given a decent shot at it. Not saying he needs the endless chances Marsh has received, but he should at least be given the 2 matches against Sri Lanka. Perform well there and MAYBE he is in the squad for the Ashes. I still find it quite remarkable how quickly guys like James Faulkner and Hilton Cartwright were cast aside despite not doing much wrong, while Mitch Marsh is STILL getting games despite far worse records than most in both first class and test cricket. Stoinis deserves a go and he deserves a far better shot at it than those two aforementioned players.

 

[ROOTA#6]

We've never really had one. For a brief period Shane Watson looked like living up to his potential but most of the time he was just a guy averaging 20s or low 30s with the bat who bowled a bit. 4 100s and 24 50s and two of the 100s and 14 of the 50s came in 2009/10 and the rest were spread over 7 nothing years either side.

Andrew Symonds at 40.6 / 37.3 is the best we've had on paper, and he was never going to last because he only bowled medium pace and off spin which is what our selectors demand.

The selectors have had a hard on for an all rounder since the 2005 Ashes. Never mind that we managed to win 16 tests in a row without one, Andrew Flintoff had a good series therefore we NEED an all rounder batting at 6. In a career series for him, Flintoff averaged 40 with the bat and 27 with the ball. He was the third highest run scorer for England and their #1 wicket taker, bowling about 30 more overs than anyone else in their squad. Over 79 tests he averaged 32 with the bat and 33 with the ball. Good numbers, but the 2005 Ashes were a standout.

Most of the great all rounders that have tormented us in the past were great bowlers who were handy with the bat.

Ian Botham 33.5 / 28.4
Kapil Dev 31 / 29.6
Richard Hadlee 27.2 / 22.3
Imran Khan 37.7 / 22.8

Really it's only Jacques Kallis who was a genuine world class batsman who also bowled pace and I'll be surprised if his test record is replicated again by a player from any country.

The reality is we're battling to find anyone who can average 40 with the bat without bowling at all, so the idea that we're going to find some 40 / 30 guy from the current crop is laughable. I had hopes that Mitch Marsh could be a a 40 / 40 player given how infrequently he bowls but his performances with the bat have been very disappointing.

Best post I've ever read mate

 

[hoopla]

All he has to do is exceed the pitiful performances of Finch and Handscombe and he has proved you wrong.

As for his bowling, he hasn't be selected as an all-rounder but rather as a batsman who can provide a handy wrist spin option - 7 wickets in two Test in the UAE was a good start. He will, however, need to score runs to justify his selection but this needs to be over a block of Test matches as they have provided Finch and Handscombe. One thing Labuschagne has over both those two named is that he applies himself and has an excellent batting technique.

Good luck to ML. But remember he’ll be playing against the number 1 test team on a spinning deck...so I’d be totally surprised if he does any better than the “pitiful” Handscomb and Finch. Let’s face it, the Aussie batting lineup are shite no matter who you put in these days.

 

[Scotland]

I honestly believe Stoinis has way more potential at test level than Marsh though. He needs to be given a decent shot at it. Not saying he needs the endless chances Marsh has received, but he should at least be given the 2 matches against Sri Lanka. Perform well there and MAYBE he is in the squad for the Ashes. I still find it quite remarkable how quickly guys like James Faulkner and Hilton Cartwright were cast aside despite not doing much wrong, while Mitch Marsh is STILL getting games despite far worse records than most in both first class and test cricket. Stoinis deserves a go and he deserves a far better shot at it than those two aforementioned players.

If Stoinis has potential in red ball cricket why hasn't he shown it at FC level? His T20 and List A records are good so it's not surprising he has done well in T20I and ODI cricket.

He hasn't had to deal with any of the pressure of Mitch Marsh and has an inferior record. Averaged 17 with the bat and 40 with the ball last year in the Shield, 18 and 44 the year before that. This year he's at 43 and 25 from the first 4 matches which is excellent, so if he keeps that up will rocket into calculations - but to date he hasn't done a lot. He does strike me as the sort of guy who excels going up a level so I'm hopeful he can keep up his FC form and get a go.

Faulkner had his papers stamped a couple of years ago despite and insanely good ODI record. He's also played 1 Shield game in a season and a half. His bowling was always good enough for a 4th seamer but he regularly bats at 7 for Tasmania. To bat in the top 6 for Australia you at least need to be batting 4-6 for your state. The Cartwright selection was bizarre. Was making plenty of runs at Shield level and bowling as a 5th/6th option and didn't look out of place in his one test at the SCG. Played one test in Bangladesh and hasn't been seen since.

 

[theyellowsash]

Yes

And Labuschagne at 3?
There used to be a time when the best batsman came in at 3.

I don't feel like the selectors will be happy until the whole side is khawaja and middling all rounders

 

[Underarm]

Was interesting listening to Peter Lalor on TGC. Stated he had information that Hilton Cartwright was only picked in the test side a couple of years ago to 'Give Mitch a kick up the backside' and they had always planned to go back to Mitch regardless of how well Cartwright did.

So basically screwing with someones career to motivate someone they were desperate to succeed.

It's not new. Rob Quiney was only chosen to shield Phil Hughes from South Africa's quicks back in 2011.

 

[Consistently Knowing All]

I don't feel like the selectors will be happy until the whole side is khawaja and middling all rounders

Like, Marnus is so shit. He must even know he is shit.

The Aussie batting lineup is similar to AFLW season 1, almost like an athletic form of welfare just because

 

[sherb]

How about playing him at first drop, you know the position ussually reserved for your best batsman!

Do we even currently have a "best batsman"?

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Do we even currently have a "best batsman"?

Cummins ... bats at #8