Ongoing Test match XI speculation thread.

[deanc]

Is Harris next in line behind Pucovski? What’s the bet they opt with Shaun Marsh

I reckon Harris is the elephant in the room and IF/IF Warner is ruled out he may well be recalled. According to Rogers they've worked hard with correcting 'a flaw' in his technique and unlike Burns he is currently making runs.
I also suspect, despite being a walking wicket at the moment, Burns is still unlikely to lose his spot as the selectors will try and avoid playing an unknown new opening pair - moreover the best chance for Pucovski to debut would be Warner playing....

Accordingly selectors current options (not specifically mine and some on here) on the whiteboard are likely:
A. Warner and Burns
B. Harris and Burns
C. Warner and Pucovski

 

[JackOutback]

CA probably wishing they played six potential openers in this tour match.

Harris
S.Marsh
Pucovski
Burns
Bancroft
Whiteman

Top two performers, come on down.

 

[Dhoni Dakurri]

Like it or not, the most sensible option to open at the moment is Shaun Marsh. In form, injury free, experienced.

 

[corbies]

Glenn Maxwell averages 135 opening the batting in international cricket and has done it in a test match before.

Just saying.

 

[deanc]

Glenn Maxwell averages 135 opening the batting in international cricket and has done it in a test match before.

Just saying.

And Nathan Lyon is more likely to open the batting for Australia in Adelaide....

Just saying.

 

[eddiesmith]

CA probably wishing they played six potential openers in this tour match.

Harris
S.Marsh
Pucovski
Burns
Bancroft
Whiteman

Top two performers, come one down.

But the blokes who bat 4-6 have a better opportunity to make runs and it’s not really indicative of their ability to face a new ball.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

But the blokes who bat 4-6 have a better opportunity to make runs and it’s not really indicative of their ability to face a new ball.

Blokes who bat 4 - 6 are likely to still be in by the 8th over - so not much different.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

GIven Wade bats 3 for Tassie and Puc/Warner are unlikely to be playing

I think the answer is

Burns
Wade (keeps a L/R combo)
Marnus
Smith
Head
Green
Paine
Pattinson
Cummins
Lyon
Hazelwood

 

[JackOutback]

But the blokes who bat 4-6 have a better opportunity to make runs and it’s not really indicative of their ability to face a new ball.

I may or may not have been joking. I don’t even know any more.

GIven Wade bats 3 for Tassie and Puc/Warner are unlikely to be playing

I think the answer is

Burns
Wade (keeps a L/R combo)
Marnus
Smith
Head
Green
Paine
Pattinson
Cummins
Lyon
Hazelwood

I think this is a distinct possibility. More difficult if Pucovski gets up because I can’t see them opening with Puc and Wade.

 

[theyellowsash]

I reckon Harris is the elephant in the room and IF/IF Warner is ruled out he may well be recalled. According to Rogers they've worked hard with correcting 'a flaw' in his technique and unlike Burns he is currently making runs.
I also suspect, despite being a walking wicket at the moment, Burns is still unlikely to lose his spot as the selectors will try and avoid playing an unknown new opening pair - moreover the best chance for Puchovski to debut would be Warner playing....

Accordingly selectors current options (not specifically mine and some on here) on the whiteboard are likely:
A. Warner and Burns
B. Harris and Burns
C. Warner and Puchovski

burns shouldnt be playing. we know he isnt good enough and his average gets lower every time he plays. hell id give finch another go. you never know, he might come good if he was given the 20+ games of rubbish smith served up to find his feet, rather than 5 games in a demoralised and talent decimated side.

 

[theyellowsash]

GIven Wade bats 3 for Tassie and Puc/Warner are unlikely to be playing

I think the answer is

Burns
Wade (keeps a L/R combo)
Marnus
Smith
Head
Green
Paine
Pattinson
Cummins
Lyon
Hazelwood

are we still pretending head is a test batsman? surely theres other options out there.

 

[eth-dog]

burns shouldnt be playing. we know he isnt good enough and his average gets lower every time he plays. hell id give finch another go. you never know, he might come good if he was given the 20+ games of rubbish smith served up to find his feet, rather than 5 games in a demoralised and talent decimated side.

In his first 16 tests Smith averaged mid-30's with 2 centuries and 5 fifties. Not world beating by any means but hardly 20+ games of rubbish or whatever hyperbolic term you want to use.

 

[corbies]

burns shouldnt be playing. we know he isnt good enough and his average gets lower every time he plays. hell id give finch another go. you never know, he might come good if he was given the 20+ games of rubbish smith served up to find his feet, rather than 5 games in a demoralised and talent decimated side.

Smith had 4 test centuries @ 40 after 20 tests.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

are we still pretending head is a test batsman? surely theres other options out there.

At 26 and averaging 42 - i think he deserves persevering with - he reminds a bit of Watson building an innings. Good at getting starts and then has a brain fade that turns a 150+ potential score into an acceptable 70.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Assuming Pucovski and Warner don't get up surely Harris is the first picked opener. Last 3 seasons at shield level he's made 1985 runs at 68.4 with 5 hundreds and 11 fifties. Burns has made 1257 runs at 38 with 1 hundred and 9 fifties.

Over 700 more runs and averaging over 30 more per innings across 3 seasons is an absolute domination. Why would you pick the guy 5 years older in terrible form and with an ordinary record over the guy who was found out in really tough conditions in the ashes but has gone back and bashed the door down at state level?

 

[Carbine Chaos]

hell id give finch another go.

nicholascagelaughing.gif

 

[Docker82]

Assuming Pucovski and Warner don't get up surely Harris is the first picked opener. Last 3 seasons at shield level he's made 1985 runs at 68.4 with 5 hundreds and 11 fifties. Burns has made 1257 runs at 38 with 1 hundred and 9 fifties.

Over 700 more runs and averaging over 30 more per innings across 3 seasons is an absolute domination. Why would you pick the guy 5 years older in terrible form and with an ordinary record over the guy who was found out in really tough conditions in the ashes but has gone back and bashed the door down at state level?

Some players no matter how they play at first class level aren’t good enough for test cricket. Harris is clearly one of those players. He’s failed in Australia and in England. Shouldn’t even be in the top two openers considered from his state side imo. Pucovski and Maddinson are far more likely than him to succeed at test level - so is Burns based based off history tbh.

As sh*** as Burns is history shows we’ll try a bunch of other options, all of which turn out to be worse than Burns anyway and we ultimately pick Burns again. Pucovski at his age is clearly the one we should hope is finally the solution.

 

[The Passenger]

I reckon the selectors will want to keep on incumbent at the top of the order but this is probably last chance salon for Burns with Warner coming back in. Burns has been OK, but no better than that and he has now had 20+ tests to prove himself. Even if he expects to play on beyond Warner's retirement, by the time that situation arises if Burns hasn't locked down a spot in the XI, I can't see them coming back to him at that stage.

The other opening role will come down to Pucovski's recovery from this concussion. He'll definitely take the second openers role if he is fit with Head and Wade holding their spots in the middle order and Green biding his time. If Puc doesn't come up, then I think the selectors will be keen to blood a debutant and the obvious choice there is Green. The only question then is does every shift up a spot, or does Wade go to opener? I think they'll go the latter. That Labu-Smith 3-4 combo is absolutely deadly at the moment, though I certainly agree with the notion earlier that if you can bat #3 you can open the batting - and that is even more true if it's just for a test match or two as injury cover.

If Wade was to open, struggles, and then loses his spot to Green in the middle order once the openers are back, he'd probably have a right to feeling pretty aggrieved to be honest. Whilst he hasn't dominated since his return, I think Wade has earned at least a couple of tests - if not a whole series - to defend his middle order spot. But there is a definite chance circumstances could go against him here.

EDIT: FTR I don't advocate picking a team based on potential future selection grievances. Just positing a potential scenario. If Puc is unavailable, our best top six IMO is Burns, Wade, Labu, Smith, Head, Green.

 

[Usayed Givashe]

You cannot be serious about dropping Paine.He is still by far the best keeper in the country.By far.
His captaincy has been good, very sound.He has helped rebuild the side from the South Farican disaster.
I am gob smacked that people think he is not world class or the best man for the job for Australia.

I'm picking my best 11 and I don't have Lyon or Paine.

Paine is a good keeper, but Carey is a superstar and needs to play.

 

[Usayed Givashe]

No spinner and you sacked the captain

3 spinners....

Playing against that team would be demoralising for any opposition.

I would love Swepson in the team, kid is awesome.

 

[eth-dog]

I'm picking my best 11 and I don't have Lyon or Paine.

Paine is a good keeper, but Carey is a superstar and needs to play.

Carey is a shit keeper and Lyon is still significantly better than any of the alternative spinners

 

[Carbine Chaos]

I'm picking my best 11 and I don't have Lyon or Paine.

Paine is a good keeper, but Carey is a superstar and needs to play.

An XI without Lyon is just daft. Not even worth suggesting. A balanced XI is the best XI, not simply a list of who you consider the best players.

Superstars don’t average 33 at FC level. The fact that his record is slightly better than Paine’s doesn’t make him a superstar, nor a must have to replace the captain.

Next.

 

[eth-dog]

An XI without Lyon is just daft. Not even worth suggesting. A balanced XI is the best XI, not simply a list of who you consider the best players.

Superstars don’t average 33 at FC level. The fact that his record is slightly better than Paine’s doesn’t make him a superstar, nor a must have to replace the captain.

Next.

As well as Paine being better with the gloves

 

[theyellowsash]

In his first 16 tests Smith averaged mid-30's with 2 centuries and 5 fifties. Not world beating by any means but hardly 20+ games of rubbish or whatever hyperbolic term you want to use.

Smith had 4 test centuries @ 40 after 20 tests.

i meant innings not tests. my bad.
finch first 10 innings: 62, 49, 39, 31, 0, 11, 50, 25, 8, 3
2 50s and a 49 at an average of 27 in the first series after the ball tampering against india. and that average was heavily skewed by the single bad match at the end. This was also while opening, probably the hardest batting position.

smith first 10 innings he averaged 28 (with the same 2 scores over 50), and that only got up to 31 his 20th. He was also protected being able to bat down the order.

smith was given some time to settle into test cricket (4 test series), which im not saying is wrong. its exactly what should be done. finch in comparison was treated like shit being given only 1 series to perform, and did not perform nearly as badly as people make out. he might (probably) wouldnt have made it, but we'll never know because he wasnt given a fair go.

would still try him again over burns though. we know burns isnt really up to it. we dont of finch simply because of the lack of exposure.

 

[eth-dog]

i meant innings not tests. my bad.
finch first 10 innings: 62, 49, 39, 31, 0, 11, 50, 25, 8, 3
2 50s and a 49 at an average of 27 in the first series after the ball tampering against india. and that average was heavily skewed by the single bad match at the end. This was also while opening, probably the hardest batting position.

smith first 10 innings he averaged 28 (with the same 2 scores over 50), and that only got up to 31 his 20th. He was also protected being able to bat down the order.

smith was given some time to settle into test cricket (4 test series), which im not saying is wrong. its exactly what should be done. finch in comparison was treated like sh*t being given only 1 series to perform, and did not perform nearly as badly as people make out. he might (probably) wouldnt have made it, but we'll never know because he wasnt given a fair go.

would still try him again over burns though. we know burns isnt really up to it. we dont of finch simply because of the lack of exposure.

Finch is at best fringe best 11 in Victoria's Shield side. He isn't anywhere near the Aussie side.