Ongoing Test match XI speculation thread.

[Belnakor]

lets just hope Warner doesn't "get up" for the game and then play when he is clearly injured. He has form doing that.

 

[Docker82]

This isn't a matter of Vic vs non-vic, this is a matter of who is the better player. Marcus Harris should never see the test side again (I mean unless he averages very consistent high scores) but Pattinson is a better bowler than Starc. One thing that impresses me about Pattinson is that he seems to have a knack of getting wickets at crucial moments. Starc only does damage when the conditions favour him and turns to sh*t when they don't. The one advantage Starc does have over Pattinson is that he is a point of difference being a left armer and is very good at cleaning up the tail.

Talk about inflating figures. Starc did that against a home tour of Sri Lanka and Pakistan and bowled significantly worse against a better side in New Zealand. In the 12 month period between Sri Lanka & New Zealand, Starc took 43% of his wickets against tail batsmen (8-11) where they only account for 36% of the wickets so over that period if anything, Starc has an inflated average.

Also, amazing using one test match to judge someone who has bowled well in pretty much every other game he has played in. Oh yeah, andI'm not sure how a 2nd innings return of 6 overs for 8 runs is bad in the slightest.

I do think we have to start Starc because as you said, Pattinson hasn't played any Shield Cricket (which mind you, Starc was also abysmal with by ball) but if he fails in this Pink ball test which is his strong suit, Pattinson comes in for the Boxing Day test.

Funny you say that about cleaning up the tail.

Whilst the tail aren’t exactly the best batsmen in opposition teams, Starc at his best is probably just about the best in the world at cleaning them up. It’s a genuine weapon that can wipe a good 50-100 runs off the opposition score. Complements the team well if Cummins and Hazlewood continue to do what they do.

Must admit I disagree that Pattinson is as good as Starc. As I’ve said, I don’t even think it’s remotely close especially if it’s about team balance as well.

 

[Docker82]

It would be the perfect time for an u/22 left arm quick to emerge in the Shield tbh. Starc hasn't had a lot of competition for a long long time.

Brett Lee was a frustrating bowler during his test career, who I rank on the rung below Gillespie, Harris, Johnson etc.

Starc makes Brett Lee seem like McGrath at times though. He's probably my least favourite Australian bowler with 35+ tests to his name since that 80's period with the likes of Lawson getting about. He's above Hilfenhaus and Kaspa, but even below someone like Stu Clark for me.

He's got an incredible strike rate (Better than McGrath's) and averages 27 with the ball in test cricket. But has one of the worst economy rates of any bowler in history with 200+ test wickets. I think his strike rate is as good as it is in part because of how erratic he is, he gets a ball under the batsman's guard because they are literally going everywhere during an over.

Mitchell Johnson has a similar record, but his was even worse during his "hiatus" when he turned to complete sh*t. Then he churned out probably the best back to back series in the last 30 years by an Australian bowler, which elevates him.

Lee and Starc would make a best ODI team of the last 20 years easily but I’d be picking McGrath, Gillespie, Johnson, Harris, Cummins and Hazlewood ahead of him in test cricket, especially if it’s based on nothing but these guys best cricket.

 

[Docker82]

I'm not forgetting anything.

The fact he has one of the best strike rates in history and yet averages in the high 20's says it all about his economy rate and his general skill as a bowler.

Cummins and Rabada have equally impressive SR's, but can actually control the ball, hence average 21 and 22 respectively in test cricket with the ball.

I already qualified why I think Starc's strike rate is so good. It's because he's so god damn erratic ball to ball, not because he's a fantastically skilled test bowler like the previous two players. He catches batsmen out with the unpredictability of his pitch groupings.

He's a decent third POD option in a test cricket side, but that's it.

He probably had the physical potential to be one of the best quicks of all time. Left arm, 6"6, 150kph, bounce, swing when he gets it right, extremely durable and a low order bat averaging 22 to boot. Put Cummins skill into Starc's physical gifts and durability and you have a 600+ modern wicket taker.

He just doesn't have the skill to make the most of those physical gifts. Which is strange for an Australian quick really, most that reach this level are quality line and length bowlers.

You’ve basically summed up why Cummins and Rabada are the sort of bowlers we get 2-3 of each generation.

Starc is blessed with more height than Lee and Johnson were but is similar in that he’s raw pace, can go for plenty but his best is amazing. Starc has a better record in tests than both.

 

[Scratchy05]

Funny you say that about cleaning up the tail.

Whilst the tail aren’t exactly the best batsmen in opposition teams, Starc at his best is probably just about the best in the world at cleaning them up. It’s a genuine weapon that can wipe a good 50-100 runs off the opposition score. Complements the team well if Cummins and Hazlewood continue to do what they do.

Must admit I disagree that Pattinson is as good as Starc. As I’ve said, I don’t even think it’s remotely close especially if it’s about team balance as well.

Yeah the one thing I will say is that team balance suits Starc which is why I'm 100% sure he has to start, especially as it is a pink ball test. I do think Pattinson is a marginally better bowler as he gets good movement with speed and has accuracy (Starc only has the first 2 but a touch more pace) while Pattinson is also the better batsmen and fielder.

 

[dogs105]

He was Australia’s best batsman against India last time

He and Head were the only 2 reasonable performers weren't they?

 

[eddiesmith]

He and Head were the only 2 reasonable performers weren't they?

Yep

Following Labs promotion to opener in the ODI side, there was suggestion he could open in Davey spot and Puck at 3. Labs did debut for QLD opening with Burns

 

[Leeda]

lets just hope Warner doesn't "get up" for the game and then play when he is clearly injured. He has form doing that.

what? He lies about his injuries and his bad sciatica.. hmm.. or is it his knees that are travelling south..
get on it.. the dude is obviously being a lying cheat... get rid of him immediately...

 

[eth-dog]

So, what about the Indians?

Agarwal
Gill/Shaw/Vihari
Pujara
Kohli
Rahane
Vihari/Pant/Saha
Ashwin/Jadeja/Pant/Saha
Ashwin/Jadeja/Kuldeep
Shami
Umesh
Bumrah

 

[GoodesStuff]

If Starc is still on personal leave for the first test could Green play as the third quick?

Would strengthen the batting with Green at 7, Paine 8.

 

[Heisenberg_]

If Starc is still on personal leave for the first test could Green play as the third quick?

Would strengthen the batting with Green at 7, Paine 8.

No, he’s only just started bowling again recently in no way is he up for being the third fast bowler

 

[Doashuey]

If Starc is still on personal leave for the first test could Green play as the third quick?

Would strengthen the batting with Green at 7, Paine 8.

No. Still on managed overs. For a 3 fast/1 spinner attack, each bowler must be capable of bowling 25 overs a day. Green is on 8 overs/day max.
Love to see himin but certainly not as a full tiem bowler at this stage.

 

[GoodesStuff]

Yeah fair enough thought that might be the case and looks like unless Wade or Head are injured he will have to bide his time then.

Langer has confirmed that he won’t play ahead of them, to start the series anyway.

 

[eth-dog]

Pattinson is a monty if Starc misses

 

[magpiemaniac44]

Has it been confirmed that Pucovski and Burns will open if Warner doesn’t get up.

 

[Golumless]

If Starc is still on personal leave for the first test could Green play as the third quick?

Would strengthen the batting with Green at 7, Paine 8.

The other question would be is it worthwhile to consider Green as a specialist bat for this series, and then let him have a couple of overs throughout the day when we need something other than our mainline bowlers?

 

[Ducky Tie]

As referenced above, Langer has said that Green won't play ahead of Wade or Head but he is certainly banging down the door. Head and Wade have done nothing wrong and give good stability but they'd have to be tempted to bring Green in. He's had a fair bit of luck with the dropped catches but he's looked very comfortable for the most part. His composure is terrific and he is so technically sound. A great situation to have. It's just a matter of time until that number 6 position is his.

 

[Golumless]

As referenced above, Langer has said that Green won't play ahead of Wade or Head but he is certainly banging down the door. Head and Wade have done nothing wrong and give good stability but they'd have to be tempted to bring Green in. He's had a fair bit of luck with the dropped catches but he's looked very comfortable for the most part. His composure is terrific and he is so technically sound. A great situation to have. It's just a matter of time until that number 6 position is his.

Making the most of lucky breaks is a key part of any sport.

Sometimes shit goes your way at a pivotal moment, the shot selection that usually means you chop onto the stumps misses, outfielder dropping an easy catch etc. Still need a good degree of quality to absolutely punish a team for it which it seems like Green has done seeing 95* is a pretty big score when both teams only have a tick over 500 runs combined.

 

[Ducky Tie]

Making the most of lucky breaks is a key part of any sport.

Sometimes sh*t goes your way at a pivotal moment, the shot selection that usually means you chop onto the stumps misses, outfielder dropping an easy catch etc. Still need a good degree of quality to absolutely punish a team for it which it seems like Green has done seeing 95* is a pretty big score when both teams only have a tick over 500 runs combined.

Yeah of course. My post was very positive towards him.

 

[eddiesmith]

The other option is slot Green in at 6 and move everyone up a spot

Labs started his career as an opener alongside Burns, Smith has an exceptional record at 3.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

The other option is slot Green in at 6 and move everyone up a spot

Labs started his career as an opener alongside Burns, Smith has an exceptional record at 3.

Smith should be batting 3 IMO anyway

 

[anchor man]

Why would they mess about with Labourschagne!!He is going well batting where he has been.
Open with Burns and Pukovski.The latter had to fail in one inning sooner or later.Burns has been reasonable.Give them both a shot first up.
I would love to see Green play, he is a player of the future.If he is good enough, why not play him.
Who goes out!!! Had my way it would be Wade.He is 32 Head is 26 and in the running for captaincy.
Green has been good prior to this season.

 

[Usayed Givashe]

1.Warner
2.Pucovski
3.Labuschagne
4.Smith
5.Green
6.Head
7.Carey
8.Cummins
9.Starc
10.Pattinson
11.Hazlewood

 

[Bob Neil]

1. Warner (Harris)
2. Pucovski
3. Labuschagne
4. Smith
5. Head
6. Green
7. Paine
8. Cummins
9. Starc
10. Lyon
11. Hazlewood

 

[kenneje]

We've been searching for a world class number three and prodigal all rounder for over a decade.

Finally, it looks like we've found the both of them.

Please selectors, I beg, keep Labuschagne at number three and if they do decide to debut Green, bat him at six.

I believe Warner will be absolutely fine for the first test, and as a result that means 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6 are all absolutely locked.

The question then becomes, outside of Warner, Labuschagne, Smith, Head and Green, who is our next best batsman?

You've got two options - the mercurially talented Pucovski or a tried and tested Wade/Burns/Harris.

I'd go Pucovski, but I understand not wanting to debut him at the same time as Green.

1. Warner
2. Burns
3. Labuschagne
4. Smith
5. Head
6. Green
7. Paine
8. Cummins
9. Starc
10. Hazlewood
11. Lyon