Fourth Test team

[bluespooner]

Wade is a poor wicket-keeper and not a number 4 in an Australian team.
Patterson is not exactly setting the world on fire, he has one hundred and a couple of 50s which is less form than Shaun Marsh has in the Shield this year (dreadful ACB scheduling hasn't helped). I wouldn't be debuting Patterson based on what he has presented to the Australian selectors to date.
Glenn Maxwell has talent but it hasn't translated in the sporadic opportunities he has been given at Test level to date. Should come under consideration given the dire state of the Australian top 6 and the fact that he has some Test experience.
Burns has a dreadful technique and shouldn't be anywhere near an Australian squad.
Renshaw was picked too soon for Australia and hasn't scored runs recently. I cannot see how he would be an improvement on Harris and Khawaja as openers.

 

[eth-dog]

What’s seriously pissing me off about not just the current team but people posting here is that they don’t have the courage to put the axe permanently through the underperforming Marsh brothers, and start picking based off performance.

What has Kurtis Patterson done wrong? Nothing. What has Glenn Maxwell done wrong? Nothing. What has Wade done wrong? Nothing. So are Burns & Renshaw just shelved now? We are throwing the towel in? The Finch selection was left field.

Patterson has scored 1 century in his past 26 games

 

[Len Nicodemo]

Patterson has scored 1 century in his past 26 games

He possess one of the better shield averages since 2015. Surprised he has only made one ton in that long.

 

[Dav]

 

[Blackhawk42]

On a similar note, didn't Faulkner get told to turn down a county contract as CA had big plans for him in the national side, then promptly cancelled his central contract for the season? Yeah the guy cricket went backwards pretty rapidly, but still struck me as a massive dick move.

He was 12th man for that infamous Ashes series where Mitchell Johnson took 37 wickets. Was out best ODI player around that time as well.
Played 1 test where he took 6 wickets and made two scores of 22 with the bat.
I know form fluctuates and guys don't always return to their best, but it's pretty remarkable to watch this team persist with Mitch Marsh when 6 wickets and 44 runs in a game seems a pipe dream for him.

 

[wolmeister]

Patterson has scored 1 century in his past 26 games

Based on what I heard on the radio, Maxwell scores a 100+ every 26 innings.

 

[eth-dog]

Based on what I heard on the radio, Maxwell scores a 100+ every 26 innings.

Every 14.8, Patterson 17.2 innings.

 

[Cleavy]

another story on the 'great' communication of CA
https://www.cricket.com.au/news/nat...7BX5CLxVESezTbn9Tp5N4_sdIgyclBFa2Eevqn8E6RcSY

tldr;, Coulter-Nile rested from ODI squad with 'back soreness', yet can bowl 4 overs for Scorchers in BBL.

 

[Chaisa]

Something I wrote during the Melbourne Test, probably most relevant here but could do in a number of threads:

BATSMEN

This is obviously where 95% of the concerns are. As said in the tour thread too many batsmen seem happy to average high-30's at a strike rate of around 60 at Shield level, which suggests they have the required talent for Test cricket but lack the game sense/ability to build an innings to become top-class. As Spark said Greg Chappell has a lot to answer here - the types of players who would once be of the standard of a Martyn or a Hussey are now becoming more like a Clinton Perren or a Greg Mail. This rot will take a while to change. At the very least they have to admit that the Futures League is a failure and that the old Second XI should return and performances rather than talent should be rewarded. Of course the rise of T20 doesn't help here either, but a pathway for the best players no matter their age has to be utilised to keep Shield cricket of a good quality. Ideally also pitches should be close to Test conditions as possible, as well as a variety of conditions (i.e. Perth with exaggerated bounce, Brisbane as a hard bouncy wicket, Sydney spinners deck, Hobart greentop, Melbourne road, etc.) that can replicate different overseas conditions.

I wonder if adding an extra team or two might help. It probably means a reduction in quality, but it could also help the talented but underperforming players learn how to build innings better. The Ranji is no-one's idea of great cricket, but it does mean that the best will score runs and lots of it.

As for the current Top 6, here's what I would do:

Khawaja I will give a pass to - he's still probably the only batsman in the side (with Warner and Smith banned) that can score big consistent runs, and his form has to be impacted by the **** with his brother and his knee injury in the UAE.

The others....not so much. Long-term I can see a path for Head or Harris, but they aren't anywhere near as promising as Hughes, Khawaja and Smith were around the 2010/11 Ashes, and ideally need a season at Shield level where they can take what they've learned at Test level about building an innings and ironing out their technical flaws. The problem is that Smith and Hughes were 22 at the end of the 2010/11 Ashes. Head is 25 and Harris is 26. A significant difference and I think the best we can hope for is for them to get to a Nicholls/Karunatne level. (FTR as things stand I can support giving Harris an extended run at it [and he seems close to getting a big ton to justify his place], but Head really needs a score against Sri Lanka to justify the faith, and given his footwork he really worries me as an Ashes prospect)

Finch cannot open. That was clear at Shield level, and it's clear as day here. As a 5/6 he could be valuable, but the problem is the decks this series aren't as flat as they have been for the last 15 years, and even then he may struggle a bit. Very poor man's Warner at this level, and he should be dropped.

Mitch Marsh has to go. He simply isn't a Top 6 batsmen at this level and at 27 it's getting harder to see him becoming one. And while he's a good bowler, he's not going to be in our best 4 bowlers. The only time I can see value for him is on uber-roads, and even then I'd pick Patto to bat 7/8 with Cummins first.

Handscomb's game is just a mess. It's similar to Hughes's problem but he's nowhere near as good. If he can sort his problems out I think he'll be a good player, but he needs at least a season at Shield/county level first and time with coaches without his mind being muddled.

Shaun Marsh is a conundrum. Unlike several others he at least knows how to build an innings, and has played plenty of great knocks for Australia before. The problem is what's between it - a failure rate of 40-45% is unacceptable. Realistically any Top 6 batsman having a failure rate of over 1/3 of their innings isn't worth it unless you have 3-4 ATG's in the side already. And he's not even kicking on with his starts now. Unless he scores runs in the second innings it's time to move on.

Labuschagne is someone that symbolises the problems with Australian selection policies fairly well - he looks OK but just doesn't score enough runs. Frankly we should be awarding performances rather than taking risks on players with upside but little performance. While part of me wants to give players a proper chance before casting them off (and unlike Finch he hasn't looked completely at sea in Tests), he needs to go back to Shield level and score some runs before returning. Perhaps he might get an extended chance if he scores runs in the second innings.

But who to replace them? I admit, the alternatives aren't great. I've even seen plenty of people call for Pucovski or Sangha, which is ridiculous to me given the lack of cricket behind them. But here are a few names:

Out of the banned trio, Warner and Smith have to return. I understand the dressing room/off-field concerns with Warner, and if we had two decent openers in the side I'd have no problems with KP-ing him and letting him become a T20 renegade. The problem is we don't, and too many of our Top 6 aren't of the standard. So I think we have to pick him, with the caveat that he is on a quite short leash. Smith is obvious - he was on his way to becoming the best batsman since Bradman before the ban, and his problem was more of pathetically weak leadership rather than being of a very short fuse and a character that looks bad for the team.

Bancroft is an interesting one. I found the excuse he gave for ball-tampering a very bad look towards his personality - what 25 year old decides to pull that kind of stunt because he wanted to fit in? It's the **** that happens when we're 15. He also is nowhere near as good, while he has the ability to build an innings and the temperament for Test cricket, he seems a little bit short of requirements too. He's certainly not better than Renshaw IMO, let alone Warner. Comes down to how he does at Shield level to see whether he can book a ticket to England next summer.

For those not banned:

* Burns - I admit I don't really rate him - basically all of his runs came on roads and his domestic record isn't fantastic, but he at least knows how to build an innings. As a middle order player he's definitely ahead of Marsh, and him being a right-hander gives him a point of difference to Head and Marsh. Should be picked.
* Maxwell - in theory he probably isn't significantly better than Head or Marsh, and his ability to build an innings is debatable, but there's little doubt he's been harshly treated. And his other skills (amazing fielding, tight bowling) makes him a very attractive package. Sadly it's looks like he's been blacklisted at Test level.
* Renshaw - form is a worry, especially given it looks like he loses form whenever a Test spot is on offer which suggest mental issues. But simply put - out of all Australian batsman born after 1989 (not counting Puko/Sangha due to lack of exposure) he is the one that I think is the most likely to succeed at Test level. He knows how to bat time. He knows how to go big. He has gears so isn't purely a blocker. He doesn't have too many glaring technique flaws. He has the requisite talent for the level. If given a crack I genuinely reckon he can get to Hayden's/Smith's level. Has to be picked for the Ashes as he's one of the few cricketers I have faith in scoring runs in England, so should be shunted in regardless of form.
* Patterson - does average more than the rest at Shield level, but given his conversion rate and a few technical flaws, I don't have a lot of confidence of being great at Tests. He's slightly better than the Head's of the world, but a lot of the same issues still apply IMO.
* Wade - he's another left-hander and has struggled at Tests before. Against that, he is better at building an innings than many of our middle-order, and is in hot form. Should be considered.
* Stoinis - no thanks. In OK form this season but his overall record still isn't great, and offers little as a specialist. Marsh has generally outperformed him at Shield level too.
* Hughes - not enough performances outside of this season.
* Pucovski/Sangha - give them at least another season at Shield level, come on.

There's a couple of cricketers that I liked what they were building for a couple of seasons (Doran, Turner) but they simply haven't done enough recently.

One left-field call I'm tempted to shrill for is Jordan Silk. Two OK-ish seasons in a row, on a greentop. Can bat time. Solid game. I think in England he might be an interesting call if he finishes this season on song. In fact I'd be interested to see what everyone's Duke ball average is (I know Renshaw's for example would have to be really good) as it might give a good idea of who can handle swing the best in the side.

So for the next Test/Sri Lanka series all of Burns, Maxwell, Renshaw and Wade should be considered and at least a couple should be picked.

As for Paine, I think I'm happy enough with him...for now. At the very least, there are far bigger questions in the side and I have no idea who else can captain.

BOWLING

I don't think the bowling has that much to be concerned about. Could it be doing better? I guess. But I don't think it's bowled too badly this series and had we been bowling to our batting lineup we'd be doing much better.. Both Cummins and Lyon have been superb. Starc and Hazlewood though...a little bit worrying. Especially Starc. Hazlewood seems to go missing away from home in friendly conditions (England, South Africa), and there's simply not enough friendly conditions in Australia for him to exploit. He may be a victim of high expectations, though - I remember in 2016/17 I thought he was going to be the premier bowler worldwide given how well he bowled that summer. Frankly he's been disappointing since then. Similar case with Starc - his bowling in Sri Lanka was amazing (ditto the New Zealand 2015/16 series) that I thought he was going to be the best bowler in the world in all formats. He's regressed since then and while is still very awkward to face is kinda like a Johnson 2009/10 in that he bowls poorly but still takes wickets. And that is getting harder to do as he isn't getting much reverse right now. The problem is who might be better simply can't stay fit long enough (Pattinson, Behrendorff, Stanlake) and the Tremain and Bird's of the world simply don't seem as special. Richardson might be an exception though....should be in the squad now (or Tremain) instead of Siddle.[/INDENT]

With that said, I do think it might be worthwhile to rest/drop at least Starc, and put Hazlewood on notice. Simply put, they should be doing better, and they seem tired, both physically and mentally. I'd like to see Richardson get a crack for the SL Tests (sadly no FC matches makes it hard to justify picking Pattinson, even though I think he'd be our best quick if he was fit)