Next generation Test batsmen

[chargers 09]

What generation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PerfectFooty]

 

[Damon_3388]

Handscomb might be next in line but I feel that he is being overrated a tad. Think it's due to a lack of other options. Lehmann would have to be seriously close if he continued his form for at least the rest of this Shield season, he's only 3 FC centuries behind Handscomb who has played 42 more matches.

Handscomb and Bancroft are ridiculously overrated on here.

I don't care how good their temperament supposedly is. If they can barely manage to average 40 at Shield level, I have no faith that they could average 45-50 at Test level that would be expected/acceptable for them to keep a place long-term.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

What do we want from the Shield players?

If all our batters are averaging 40 or 50 that probably means our bowlers SUCK

If all our bowlers are taking wickets that probably means our batters SUCK

 

[Number37]

What do we want from the Shield players?

If all our batters are averaging 40 or 50 that probably means our bowlers SUCK

If all our bowlers are taking wickets that probably means our batters SUCK

Not all, just the good ones.
McGrath and co had good averages at the same time as the good batsman also had 50+ averages.

 

[bird_man]

Handscomb and Bancroft are ridiculously overrated on here.

I don't care how good their temperament supposedly is. If they can barely manage to average 40 at Shield level, I have no faith that they could average 45-50 at Test level that would be expected/acceptable for them to keep a place long-term.

Over all averages are overrated if you ask me. Handscomb started playing shield cricket young and probably before he was ready, but was blooded by Victoria. His average sat around 30 for his first few years but he has averaged 50 since the start of the 2014/15 season.

So really, what does his form from 2013 have to do with anything?

 

[Kram]

Over all averages are overrated if you ask me.

So much this, the way people go on about them on here is ridiculous.

 

[Number37]

Over all averages are overrated if you ask me. Handscomb started playing shield cricket young and probably before he was ready, but was blooded by Victoria. His average sat around 30 for his first few years but he has averaged 50 since the start of the 2014/15 season.

So really, what does his form from 2013 have to do with anything?

Whilst I somewhat agree, the fact that those that average 45+ in shield cricket are the ones that make it at test level is no coincidence.

 

[G Mus]

Handscomb and Bancroft are ridiculously overrated on here.

I don't care how good their temperament supposedly is. If they can barely manage to average 40 at Shield level, I have no faith that they could average 45-50 at Test level that would be expected/acceptable for them to keep a place long-term.

You get to play tests on roads though, shield wickets are produced for results more

 

[PhatBoy]

So much this, the way people go on about them on here is ridiculous.

There's a reason they are highly valued.

Name me a match winning batsman in Test cricket that doesn't average 40

Stokes and Brathwaite are the only two I can think of and even then, Brathwaote has done it once and Stokes' primary value is still as an all rounder.

I guess you could argue Duminy .

 

[Kram]

There's a reason they are highly valued.

Name me a match winning batsman in Test cricket that doesn't average 40

Stokes and Brathwaite are the only two I can think of and even then, Brathwaote has done it once and Stokes' primary value is still as an all rounder.

I guess you could argue Duminy .

I'm talking mainly about players coming through at Shield.

 

[PhatBoy]

I'm talking mainly about players coming through at Shield.

I know you are, I'm just saying the idea that averages don't correlate to quality doesn't really hold up.

 

[chargers 09]

So much this, the way people go on about them on here is ridiculous.

Yes- stats always need to be put into context. A "match winning" innings is hard to quantify. I.e Ponting's average is just above 50, similar to other batting greats. However no one- Except maybe Lara made more "match winning innings". When Ponting went big he could take the game away from the opposition and turn the game on its head.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JackOutback]

Over all averages are overrated if you ask me. Handscomb started playing shield cricket young and probably before he was ready, but was blooded by Victoria. His average sat around 30 for his first few years but he has averaged 50 since the start of the 2014/15 season.

So really, what does his form from 2013 have to do with anything?

Exactly; the same holds true for Bancroft, who has averaged 45 plus for the past two seasons. Overall averages probably mean more in Test cricket because players are expected to pull their weight immediately but Shield is as much about development.

 

[bird_man]

Whilst I somewhat agree, the fact that those that average 45+ in shield cricket are the ones that make it at test level is no coincidence.

Michael Clarke did not average in the mid 40's at Shield level when he was selected.

Bancrofts and Handscombs' averages are rising as their careers go on.

 

[Damon_3388]

Michael Clarke did not average in the mid 40's at Shield level when he was selected.

Clarke's FC batting average at the time of his first Test for Australia was 37.84 (3,065 runs, 86 innings, 5 not outs, 11 hundreds, 11 fifties). Not outstanding, but better than Handscomb and Bancroft, and he had some obvious attacking flair and style and potential that they both lack IMO. We also had a strong, stable veteran line-up around him, so could afford to take a bit of a flyer on a young guy at #6 at the time.

 

[PhatBoy]

Clarke's FC batting average at the time of his first Test for Australia was 37.84 (3,065 runs, 86 innings, 5 not outs, 11 hundreds, 11 fifties). Not outstanding, but better than Handscomb and Bancroft, and he had some obvious attacking flair and style and potential that they both lack IMO. We also had a strong, stable veteran line-up around him, so could afford to take a bit of a flyer on a young guy at #6 at the time.

Not to mention the fact that Clarke's lack of overall development was still not where it should have been, resulting in him being dropped from.Test cricket for a while, a point at which his test record was decidedly mediocre

 

[Cleavy]

so (if the media is to be believed) Ferguson might have jumped over all the candidates for the India tour. Is he a good player of spin?

 

[carnthemlions]

In 5 years time I hope we see something like:

Bancroft
Labuschagne (optimistic, I know)
Smith (c)
Patterson
Handscomb
Head
Whiteman

As our top 7.

Interesting that you've gone with Labuschagne over Renshaw. Labuschagne has made some strides, but I'm still pretty confident that Renshaw and Heazlett would both be more likely to make it to test level.

 

[eth-dog]

Labuschagne would have to be the least likely of the three young qlders at this point to get a gig in the future, surely.

Possibly. Forgot about Renshaw, he'd probably be ahead.

 

[Number37]

Michael Clarke did not average in the mid 40's at Shield level when he was selected.

Bancrofts and Handscombs' averages are rising as their careers go on.

That was the point re averages, to a large extent they are meaningless because noone can say for sure what average in FC cricket = test player. Unless you're talking 45+ there is no evidence to make a call either way. Clarke being a good example. From memory, Michael Slater/Mark Taylor/David Boon all also averaged high 30's.

Personally I think Handscomb is massively overrated & most likely will get found out at test level...but have no issue with him getting picked because he has put himself near the top of the list with performances.

 

[Aussie_boy]

Hilton Cartwright is as good as any batsman coming through, I wouldn't be against picking him for a couple of ODI's this summer.

 

[Cleavy]

Hilton Cartwright is as good as any batsman coming through, I wouldn't be against picking him for a couple of ODI's this summer.

If we're basing selection on his Matador stats, he might need to wait a bit longer.

 

[bird_man]

Clarke's FC batting average at the time of his first Test for Australia was 37.84 (3,065 runs, 86 innings, 5 not outs, 11 hundreds, 11 fifties). Not outstanding, but better than Handscomb and Bancroft.

What do you think Handscombs average is?

 

[Torz]

Possibly. Forgot about Renshaw, he'd probably be ahead.

And Heazlett is the best of the lot.