New Australian coach Justin Langer

Scotland

Hall of Famer
Joined
May 5, 2006
Posts
45,202
Likes
46,167
AFL Club
West Coast
Rogers & Voges are exceptions, they were hardened shield players who had patience and great techniques for long form cricket. I am not so focused on our bowling stocks as we are failing to post respectable totals.

The pressing issue is we appear to have minimal depth yet promote players with awful shield averages in front of players that are a lot better in the long form.
You're missing the point. It's not about specific players but the approach to selection.

No one complains about the selection of Rogers, but Voges is a dud who only made runs when it didn't matter and wasted 20 tests that could've gone into a younger player. Apparently.

There's no one size fits all to selection. David Warner did next to nothing in the Shield before making his test debut and has 6,000 runs @ 48. Matthew Wade could be Michael Hussey 2.0, or he could be Rob Quiney 2.0. Whatever happens, if it doesn't work there will be a chorus of critics saying we made the wrong call.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Blue1980

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Posts
8,504
Likes
7,711
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
You're missing the point. It's not about specific players but the approach to selection.

No one complains about the selection of Rogers, but Voges is a dud who only made runs when it didn't matter and wasted 20 tests that could've gone into a younger player. Apparently.

There's no one size fits all to selection. David Warner did next to nothing in the Shield before making his test debut and has 6,000 runs @ 48. Matthew Wade could be Michael Hussey 2.0, or he could be Rob Quiney 2.0. Whatever happens, if it doesn't work there will be a chorus of critics saying we made the wrong call.
I would consider Voges a success overall. Obviously he cashed in against the terrible Windies, but he made good runs against a decent NZ side as well. He was failing towards the end against SA and was rightly dropped.

I know selectors have to trust their gut instinct, I think the selectors are trying a core of 15 or so and using them trying to build a team. Thing is some of the key planks in their plans (the March brothers) have both been terrible the last 10 months, and their respective ashes series seem more an anomaly with each passing test.
 

Sproj

Senior List
Joined
Oct 18, 2017
Posts
281
Likes
336
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
You're missing the point. It's not about specific players but the approach to selection.

No one complains about the selection of Rogers, but Voges is a dud who only made runs when it didn't matter and wasted 20 tests that could've gone into a younger player. Apparently.

There's no one size fits all to selection. David Warner did next to nothing in the Shield before making his test debut and has 6,000 runs @ 48. Matthew Wade could be Michael Hussey 2.0, or he could be Rob Quiney 2.0. Whatever happens, if it doesn't work there will be a chorus of critics saying we made the wrong call.
You aren't wrong. Though it makes far more sense to give the better performers in Shield the go in the test side over the speculative guys. In any side, you could probably forgive one speculative selection but in a hopelessly outclassed side with no one actually good enough (except maybe Khawaja), you can't be throwing out five speculators around him. Especially so when you factor in the two other experienced guys in the line up totally suck (in Marsh squared).

If the selectors went: 1. Burns, 2. Khawaja, 3. Patterson, 4. Maxwell, 5. Wade (in other words rewarding the best performers out of a shockingly bad bunch)

Then you could understand a speculator at 6 in terms of Labushagne/Head/Pucovski/Sanggha

This also avoids rewarding a month or two of good form in terms of Harris (I know he hasn't been THAT bad but he hasn't been great either) and although all batsmen available are no world beaters, at least you are not gifting caps to players who have done absolutely nothing to earn it, at least not several of them anyway.
 

JackOutback

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Posts
16,366
Likes
19,964
AFL Club
West Coast
I would consider Voges a success overall. Obviously he cashed in against the terrible Windies, but he made good runs against a decent NZ side as well. He was failing towards the end against SA and was rightly dropped.

I know selectors have to trust their gut instinct, I think the selectors are trying a core of 15 or so and using them trying to build a team. Thing is some of the key planks in their plans (the March brothers) have both been terrible the last 10 months, and their respective ashes series seem more an anomaly with each passing test.
Shaun Marsh has never been a key plank, his whole career has been filling in the gaps for injured or suspended players. And as one of the best performed Shield players, it makes sense and ticks the box of rewarding performance. He only looks a key plank this summer because he and Khawaja are the senior players, but he will still be the first dropped when Smith returns (he likely won't make it to the SL series unless he tons up today).
 

Scorpus

Rubber Stamper
Joined
Apr 16, 2014
Posts
27,835
Likes
58,581
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Adelaide
You're missing the point. It's not about specific players but the approach to selection.

No one complains about the selection of Rogers, but Voges is a dud who only made runs when it didn't matter and wasted 20 tests that could've gone into a younger player. Apparently.

There's no one size fits all to selection. David Warner did next to nothing in the Shield before making his test debut and has 6,000 runs @ 48. Matthew Wade could be Michael Hussey 2.0, or he could be Rob Quiney 2.0. Whatever happens, if it doesn't work there will be a chorus of critics saying we made the wrong call.
There are wrong calls with prior justification, and wrong calls with no justification.

Selecting Voges who was averaging 100 at FC level might have been a "wrong call" in the end, but it was justified at the time. He was in superb form. He deserved a shot.

Selecting Mitch Marsh who averages 25 at Test level, and had zero form at FC level, is a wrong call with no justification.

Sure, in the end people may complain about both. But at least with selecting Voges and bowlers like Mennie and Sayers, we based those selections on clear, logical criteria. Right now we are making calls that have ended up wrong, with no logic or reason behind them

With "right calls" with no/little justification like Warner you definitely look like a genius. But realistically how often does that happen, as opposed to the opposite where the player selected on nothing is a fail?
 

frankrizzo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 6, 2004
Posts
7,896
Likes
5,161
Location
jfgjgfj
I understand why they backed s marsh with senior men out but he has been a spectacular failure when given his chance to step up as a experienced veteran.

In an era where older players are squeezed out early at shield and test level he was given backing few others were afforded and he failed to repay that faith, an average of just 18 with one score over 50 over ten tests would be hard to survive for a top rated young batsman for a 35 year old it is the end of the line.
 

Scotland

Hall of Famer
Joined
May 5, 2006
Posts
45,202
Likes
46,167
AFL Club
West Coast
People carry on like Mitch Marsh is some kid picked off the street and given a cricket bat for Christmas. He was the captain of the World Cup winning U/19 Australian side, debuted young for his state and also has a very good ODI record. He was fast tracked under the CA all rounder directive but the bloke can play. Made his debut against Pakistan in a series where we were easily beaten and top scored in his second test finishing as our third highest run scorer. Obviously it's been mostly downhill since but let's not pretend there was zero justification for picking him early.

I think people need to be careful what they wish for. The late Phil Hughes had over 9,000 FC runs at age 25 and was hit and miss at test level. Overall pretty comparable to Shaun Marsh on paper. Michael Bevan's Shield record is almost too good to believe and he never really translated that to test level. Given the lack of guys in the Shield with genuinely good career records I'm comfortable with the approach of picking young ish guys like Bancroft and Harris who have at least 1 or 2 very good seasons of form under their belt.
 

to1994

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Posts
1,203
Likes
955
AFL Club
Essendon
Selecting Voges was not a bad call and I don't remember anyone at the time critising it. He was in incredible form and he repaid the faith with a ton in his first game in a match we could've potentially lost if he didn't deliver.

The blunder was not dropping him after England where he was shown to be out of his depth and wasn't going to be a benefit for us like Rogers was. They persisted with him in series where it was the perfect time to rebuild and then panicked overnight when we lost a series at home like that had never been on the cards to begin with.

I think we've seen enough of Burns and Wade at Test level to know they're not going to walk back into the Team and do much more then they did last time. Burns really looked in trouble against competent bowling and Wade couldn't even make it as a keeper/bat over nearly 30 Test matches. To suggest he's going to walk back in after a couple of decent seasons and be a success as a specialist bat is quite laughable. It's easy to say we don't know until we try but its an experiment that isn't worth bothering with IMO. I think his only chance of a recall is he's still the only in form keeper when Paine retires. Carey averages in the 20s so he's no guarantee to walk in.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Posts
258
Likes
135
AFL Club
Melbourne
You're missing the point. It's not about specific players but the approach to selection.

No one complains about the selection of Rogers, but Voges is a dud who only made runs when it didn't matter and wasted 20 tests that could've gone into a younger player. Apparently.

There's no one size fits all to selection. David Warner did next to nothing in the Shield before making his test debut and has 6,000 runs @ 48. Matthew Wade could be Michael Hussey 2.0, or he could be Rob Quiney 2.0. Whatever happens, if it doesn't work there will be a chorus of critics saying we made the wrong call.
Well Rob Quiney wasn't given much of a chance was he? The same as how Maxwell has only played 7 tests yet continues to plunder Shield runs. I don't know how Voges wasted 20 tests? I mean he averaged 61 and could obviously play. Do you drop someone with an average of 61 because you need to put time into a 'younger player'. The issue is this obsession with youth, it cracks me up. What exactly is a youth policy? I mean when you're putting together your best eleven to win a game why would you select a young player (Travis Head or previously Mitchell Marsh) and forgo someone who is older but making runs? Cameron White, Matthew Wade, Glenn Maxwell. Your national eleven isn't a development squad for god's sake, the Shield competition is. And then there is this Edwards guy that has been promoted through grade cricket that all of a sudden everyone is flopping over. How does Labuschagne even come into national selection? Seriously?

On your point re the approach to selection, well i can't really understand how Head, and both Marsh brothers get a game in front of so many other better in form options. Finch i get as he does have a decent shield average at 6, but then they open him? The issue is, and i heard Gideon Haigh say something grossly unintelligent just before, is that the form players seem to be identified in the BBL. That has become the new benchmark for selection, i mean Shane Warne floated the idea of Darcy Short being a test call up option? Haigh has just said he feels Weatherald is a good option given his 'technique looks good playing BBL', i mean come on, this is all wrong.

The reason there is so much criticism is that players are getting picked who've done next to nothing and players that have great shield history are being overlooked. This is blatantly obvious when watching technique against good test bowling, it's BBL technique. It's a joke.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Posts
258
Likes
135
AFL Club
Melbourne
People carry on like Mitch Marsh is some kid picked off the street and given a cricket bat for Christmas. He was the captain of the World Cup winning U/19 Australian side, debuted young for his state and also has a very good ODI record. He was fast tracked under the CA all rounder directive but the bloke can play. Made his debut against Pakistan in a series where we were easily beaten and top scored in his second test finishing as our third highest run scorer. Obviously it's been mostly downhill since but let's not pretend there was zero justification for picking him early.

I think people need to be careful what they wish for. The late Phil Hughes had over 9,000 FC runs at age 25 and was hit and miss at test level. Overall pretty comparable to Shaun Marsh on paper. Michael Bevan's Shield record is almost too good to believe and he never really translated that to test level. Given the lack of guys in the Shield with genuinely good career records I'm comfortable with the approach of picking young ish guys like Bancroft and Harris who have at least 1 or 2 very good seasons of form under their belt.
Completely irrelevant. ODI cricket and U/19 cricket is not Test Cricket. His last 13 tests he has averaged 9.9 with the bat. I am sorry, but that is laughable. If you're going to fawn over M Marsh then he has to have something to show for his record, he actually doesn't. Also why do we need an all rounder? We don't.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Posts
258
Likes
135
AFL Club
Melbourne
There are wrong calls with prior justification, and wrong calls with no justification.

Selecting Voges who was averaging 100 at FC level might have been a "wrong call" in the end, but it was justified at the time. He was in superb form. He deserved a shot.

Selecting Mitch Marsh who averages 25 at Test level, and had zero form at FC level, is a wrong call with no justification.

Sure, in the end people may complain about both. But at least with selecting Voges and bowlers like Mennie and Sayers, we based those selections on clear, logical criteria. Right now we are making calls that have ended up wrong, with no logic or reason behind them

With "right calls" with no/little justification like Warner you definitely look like a genius. But realistically how often does that happen, as opposed to the opposite where the player selected on nothing is a fail?
Exactly. This nails it. It's so easy to simply be a critic when all is said and done, but when you have to make decisions in a performance based industry like sport, you need to pick players performing in the tier below. The current selection process lacks order and logic. It's a random humdrum process where BBL or ODI form is seen to be the benchmark for form.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Agent93

Ninety Three
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Posts
11,035
Likes
11,744
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Toronto Maple Leafs
You're missing the point. It's not about specific players but the approach to selection.
The approach to selection of 1-7 has barely changed since Waugh's Untouchables. Pick 5 guys who are anchored in the side, pick a keeper, pick one guy to develop. It's why there were a tonne of guys who couldn't get a test although dominating the Shield.

Fast forward two decades and it's still harder for some blokes to get out of the squad, and the ones that get in are the development players. None of this is a refleciton on Langer though.

Side note, as great as cricinfo is for a stats site, it'd be really nice to have a season by season (or year by year) breakdown of a player's stats like they do in pretty much every other major sport.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Posts
258
Likes
135
AFL Club
Melbourne
If and when Burns, Wade and whoever else is performing in the Shield comes in and doesn't perform - who/what will people target next?
At least you’ve put in your best performing second tier players rather than rewarding short form players with bad long game techniques. There’s nothing logical about saying Burns and Wade are done because of a not great test career thus far, but it’s fair to say that re the Marsh sisters.
 

JackOutback

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Posts
16,366
Likes
19,964
AFL Club
West Coast
Exactly. This nails it. It's so easy to simply be a critic when all is said and done, but when you have to make decisions in a performance based industry like sport, you need to pick players performing in the tier below. The current selection process lacks order and logic. It's a random humdrum process where BBL or ODI form is seen to be the benchmark for form.
Under that policy, Warne never would have been picked when he was. Might have lost a year or two waiting for 'runs on the board'. In a talent based industry, there is always scope for picking the talent most likely to succeed. Stats never tell the whole story.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Posts
258
Likes
135
AFL Club
Melbourne
The reality is we're picking iffy FC batsmen whether they are 21 or 35. We're giving youngish guys like Harris and Bancroft a go based on ordinary records but one or two good seasons, and the guys with good records average in the low 40s at best.

Michael Klinger for example (now retired from FC cricket) has 11,000 runs @ 39. A good record but no better than plenty of former players. In his prime he had a couple of 1,000 run Shield seasons but never got a chance at higher honours. If he was 28 and scoring 1,000 runs @ 70 now rather than 10 years ago he'd be the first picked.

We don't have guys like Rogers, Love, Cox, Hussey, SIddons, Hodge etc. plundering runs year after year waiting for a call up. The top 3 career run scorers in the Shield right now are George Bailey, Callum Ferguson and Cameron White - none of whom average 40 after a decade in the caper.
Ferguson was dropped after 1-2 tests. Not really given a chance was he? White is averaging 45+ this year and last in shield cricket. In form? Yes. What’s Head averaging? 36.....

So tell me, if the top 3 run scorers right now aren’t selected, who is a better proposition given what we’ve seen from both Marsh brothers and Travis Head who has an obvious ODI technique?

What we do know is that it’s failed against India so now against SL and England we pick our best performing state players.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Posts
258
Likes
135
AFL Club
Melbourne
Under that policy, Warne never would have been picked when he was. Might have lost a year or two waiting for 'runs on the board'. In a talent based industry, there is always scope for picking the talent most likely to succeed. Stats never tell the whole story.
Warner was a diamond in the rough, but you can’t base your primary selection decisions on that when you get bowled out for 150.
 

Agent93

Ninety Three
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Posts
11,035
Likes
11,744
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Toronto Maple Leafs
We are crying out for runs. We need a beat top 6 of specialist batsman. Ill forgo an all rounder unless it’s a kallis clone right now.
You could probably do that if you replaced Starc for a bit and let him find form. There's plenty of blokes bowling more overs (per 4 day match) than Starc is in tests, and taking wickets in the Shield thus far.

The other side of the coin is that half the time we don't use the bloody all-rounder as a bowler anyway, so just pick Lemonmeringue and let him bowl a couple every innings.
 

Sproj

Senior List
Joined
Oct 18, 2017
Posts
281
Likes
336
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Warner was a diamond in the rough, but you can’t base your primary selection decisions on that when you get bowled out for 150.
Warne was also surrounded a pretty settled team for the most part. You can’t pick 2 or 3 ‘gut-feel’ batsmen who are just not ready, particularly if the other three members are mediocre at best. You aren’t giving them a chance, you are throwing them in the deep end with very little prospect to swim when they are out of the side one test later.

And for every Warne, there’s a Casson or Cullen.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Posts
258
Likes
135
AFL Club
Melbourne
You could probably do that if you replaced Starc for a bit and let him find form. There's plenty of blokes bowling more overs (per 4 day match) than Starc is in tests, and taking wickets in the Shield thus far.

The other side of the coin is that half the time we don't use the bloody all-rounder as a bowler anyway, so just pick Lemonmeringue and let him bowl a couple every innings.
I do believe we need a bowler able to bowl genuine heat. Starc can bowl 150 and rattle any batsman. I think if you're going to step up into test cricket and be a premier striker, you've got to be able to throw smoke. But right now that's all Starc has going for him. How's Tremain's pace? Is Coulter-Nile worth a look?
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Posts
258
Likes
135
AFL Club
Melbourne
Warne was also surrounded a pretty settled team for the most part. You can’t pick 2 or 3 ‘gut-feel’ batsmen who are just not ready, particularly if the other three members are mediocre at best. You aren’t giving them a chance, you are throwing them in the deep end with very little prospect to swim when they are out of the side one test later.

And for every Warne, there’s a Casson or Cullen.
Ferguson was absolutely shafted in my opinion. Excellent shield form then dropped after that run out, mind you he did get stitched up by Rabada but Jesus, who hasn't since he debuted?
 

JackOutback

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Posts
16,366
Likes
19,964
AFL Club
West Coast
Warner was a diamond in the rough, but you can’t base your primary selection decisions on that when you get bowled out for 150.
I was referring to Shane Warne, not Warner, but there's also McGrath, Clarke, Warner etc to show that there is room for 'gut-feel' selections. You never want a whole team of them, but Australia finds itself in an unusual position given the lack of established players. Do you want to stack the team with tried and tested, but suspect, players like Maxwell, Burns, Wade and Handscomb who might grind out an honorable loss, or do you take the opportunity to find which player with the technique and temperament is likely to stand up, even if it means a few big losses? Selectors certainly haven't got it right this summer (Harris and Head have shown potential, MMarsh and Handscomb haven't really stepped up) but everyone's an expert and there's probably no right answers to this mess.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Posts
258
Likes
135
AFL Club
Melbourne
I was referring to Shane Warne, not Warner, but there's also McGrath, Clarke, Warner etc to show that there is room for 'gut-feel' selections. You never want a whole team of them, but Australia finds itself in an unusual position given the lack of established players. Do you want to stack the team with tried and tested, but suspect, players like Maxwell, Burns, Wade and Handscomb who might grind out an honorable loss, or do you take the opportunity to find which player with the technique and temperament is likely to stand up, even if it means a few big losses? Selectors certainly haven't got it right this summer (Harris and Head have shown potential, MMarsh and Handscomb haven't really stepped up) but everyone's an expert and there's probably no right answers to this mess.
When you look at technique and temperament we have seriously failed picking Head, M Marsh and Finch, so i don’t think the selectors have even picked the right types at all. Yeah I’d go back to Burns, Wade and Maxwell. At least they’ve got the runs. I mean we only lost Adelaide by 30 runs, picking a more established type might have been able to turn 20 into 60 and got us home.

What are your thoughts on White?
 
Top Bottom