Pippen94
Cancelled
- Jun 12, 2019
- 2,670
- 976
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Scoring against shield bowlers doesn't mean shit. Otherwise Harris & Wade would be averaging over 50 in tests
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Ongoing Test match XI speculation thread.
- Thread starter cricketnut14
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Lol, Harris was Australia’s best batsman last time India toured and he massively out scored Burns in the tour games. But yeah, no way he would have done better
eth-dog
Tier 1 WW Player
Essendon Player Sponsor 2025 - Archie Perkins and Nic Martin
Sweet F.A. Reigning Premiers - East Side Hawks Season 39 - SFA
Werewolf - Town of Salem
Sweet F.A. 300+ Games Played in the SFA
Doctor Who's Tardis
East Side Hawks - Sweet F.A.
Essendon Player Sponsor 2024 - Archie Perkins and Nic Martin
Veteran
So if scoring against Shield bowlers means nothing, then by the same logic, not scoring against Shield bowlers means plenty.
So then what does it say about batsmen who can’t even score runs in the shield? Burns is proof when you can’t make runs In Adelaide against second string shield attacks you’re definitely not going to make runs at test level!
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
eth-dog
Tier 1 WW Player
Essendon Player Sponsor 2025 - Archie Perkins and Nic Martin
Sweet F.A. Reigning Premiers - East Side Hawks Season 39 - SFA
Werewolf - Town of Salem
Sweet F.A. 300+ Games Played in the SFA
Doctor Who's Tardis
East Side Hawks - Sweet F.A.
Essendon Player Sponsor 2024 - Archie Perkins and Nic Martin
Veteran
I think Pippen has had a few too many today.
ah, the classic australian tradition of losing a match and having to drop a bunch of people so everyone feels a sense of justice. and then basing everything around form, which maybe one day people will figure out isn't a particularly good way to select a team, even if it feels good.
and so it goes
and so it goes
- Sep 15, 2011
- 35,683
- 57,948
- AFL Club
- West Coast
What makes you think Smith will make runs. Indians have his number, so far.
Thing is no one is claiming Harris will come in and smash hundreds, but a 30 or 40 is a hell of a lot more than Burns will offer
Yeah you're right, they should keep picking a batsman who has passed 10 once the entire summer, he'll surely come good one day...
Those defending Burns are acting like its Steve Smith out of form, not a plodder who wasn't even good enough to get picked for Australia's toughest assignments in the last few years.
Not sure he mentioned anyone in particular in the previous post.
Clearly dropping Burns isn’t an overreaction. Making any other changes to the side (short of an injury over the next day or two) is over the top imo.
He’s calling out people stating we should pick the team based purely on shield form which tbh I agree with. Whilst it’d be frustrating picking Shaun Marsh or Usman Khawaja again (both have shown consistently they are at worst slightly below test standard) I think everyone here deep down knows they’d more than likely do a better job than Marcus Harris at test level, despite whatever Khawaja’s shield form reads.
If it was as easy as picking a side based off form we wouldn’t have selectors as picking the test side would be based off information the average Joe could obtain from a simple Google search.
I’m also a bit frustrated at people claiming Anti-Vic bias. Honestly Victoria has developed great Shield players over the last few decades, having not produced a consistent test standard batsman since Dean Jones (RIP). New South Wales are the best at developing test cricketers if any state in country. Those that can’t recognise that need to deal with it.
Last edited:
Don't recall saying they should pick Burns (in fact, I'm on the record in here before the first test saying who I would pick). I was observing the wider trend, in here and in the test match thread, which so far has seen Burns & Head on the outer, and a couple of mentions of dropping Green too. ("having to drop a bunch of people")
The goal should be to identify and pick the best team, not the one that makes people feel good because they're reacting to match results and performances. Part of the issue Australia has with the opening spot goes back to the Ashes, when on the back of the disappointing draw at Lord's, they simply had to drop Bancroft. And then after the Ashes, they simply had to drop Harris. And now, they simply have to drop Burns. For Harris. Will Harris simply have to be dropped for Bancroft in 6 months time to complete the circle?
it's quite obvious to me who the best batsman available to open with Warner is. But he's not sufficiently in form, so he simply can't be picked
The goal should be to identify and pick the best team, not the one that makes people feel good because they're reacting to match results and performances. Part of the issue Australia has with the opening spot goes back to the Ashes, when on the back of the disappointing draw at Lord's, they simply had to drop Bancroft. And then after the Ashes, they simply had to drop Harris. And now, they simply have to drop Burns. For Harris. Will Harris simply have to be dropped for Bancroft in 6 months time to complete the circle?
it's quite obvious to me who the best batsman available to open with Warner is. But he's not sufficiently in form, so he simply can't be picked
Burns has already made a fifty hitting the winning runs in the 1st test (Only one other Aussie has made a fifty in this series so far), plus he´s made four tons and several fifties for Australia in the past.
Harris has only hit two fifties for Aus and no tons. Zilch. He had a chance against India A and failed, if hits a couple of forties in that match he probably would've been picked but he couldn't.
Given every other Aussie has failed with the bat, I don't know why you think Harris is the game changer here. It's a strange hill to die on.
If you didn't have selectors you might not end up with Joe Burns being the preferred opener because he and Davey bat well together...
Let's not forget, Joe Burns was always Australia's 2nd choice opener behind Davey, no matter what was happening.
But anyone who is saying you can't pick on form, did you therefore not support the selection of Cameron Green? Was that a bad call by the selectors or it's ok to select a young bloke on form, but no one else?
Burns out for Harris is the obvious selection decision. If he performs and Davey is fit then Wade drops down to 5 and its between Head and Green for no6 in Brisbane.
The bowlers may change as the commentary said Starc was looking a bit sore, they've shown a tendency to rotate when they've got the 4 quicks available and none of them bowled particularly well.
Khawaja hit a ton and was 46 not out in his last shield match, has a great record in Aus and an even better record as an opener. Only 34 as well, given we've been crying out for an opener its odd that he's doesn't even appear to be in the mix.
So you don't think Labs coming in with the score 1/80 after 30 overs instead of 1/4 in the first 5 overs would make any difference at all? Interesting.
Yeah great 50 by Burns, so much pressure to score runs chasing 80 to win, India did well to let him loose and give everyone an excuse to say he's back in form for another 6 months.
On the A series, Harris scored 91 runs for an average of 30, Burns made 5 runs at 1.25...
Fact was Harris could have made 100, but Burns was the chosen one. He would have opened ahead of Puckovski as well if everyone was fit.
A team of highly paid full time selectors should be able to make decisions based on a range of factors. Form should be last in line, since there's not really any indication picking on form itself is a successful idea. (see: any time there's a "bat-off"). In the case of Green and Pucovski, there is clearly enough about them to suggest they're not being picked simply because they're having a hot flash
Says it all really, the fact is Harris has never made a 100 for Australia. None of the Aussie bats have done so in this series, claiming Harris would is land of the fairies stuff. Just bizarre.
Way to take half a sentence and make it mean something completely different...
Australia has had the benefit of being successful for a long time that selection has always been pretty easy, stick with the incumbents as Smith will mask their bad form. Even in the lead up to this series, all the noise was Burns and Warner was the preferred opening combination and Puckovski would have to wait.
The last time they made mass changes was the year they lost to South Africa, refreshed the side and got the win in the dead rubber.
Renshaw was one player dropped on form and he has never recovered. Were they wrong and did that destroy his career or was it a justified move based on what's happened since?
But where they can come unstuck is blokes like Head and Burns can plod along, have ok records feasting on minnows and being protected by Smith and Warner in the tough series, but when the pressure is on them to carry the team, they fall apart.
People point to Burns and Head's averages and say they are fine players, Handscomb has a similar record and no one is calling for him to be recalled. Burns has clear vulnerabilities to any half decent pace bowler, Head has a tendency to throw it away. Wade is a nuggety fighter who you want when the going is tough, but he's never going to smash you match winning scores.
Half the batting lineup is flawed and it's simply being shown up when Smith fails. I don't think its unreasonable for people to question the spot of everyone in the top 6 bar Smith and Labs, none of them have put together a case of being undroppable. It's just now its really shining through.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Green has potential to play at test level, as does Pucovski. It’s about identifying players who can play at test level and picking them when their longer term form warrants it.
Harris is the Siddons/Cox of this era as he scores decent runs at shield level but is so clearly not test standard it’s beyond a joke. He is not in any way, shape or form a valid alternative to Burns therefore Langer and co are forced to select Burns when averaging single figures. If they’d selected a real alternative maybe Burns wouldn’t have played the first two tests.
It is the selectors job to identify who has the ability to perform at test level rather than look at stats exclusively which is all most on here are doing. If they had done their job correctly Harris would never have been selected for the test team.
Yet he walked into the test side and was Australia’s best batsman against the very same team they are all struggling against now...
Did everyone out west hate Chris Rogers as much for leaving and becoming a better player?
You’re also ignoring the part where Langer and Paine wanted Burns selected ahead of Pucovski.
Agreed, when stocks are low we are going to get more value out of blooding some of these guys over recalling people like Harris who are already proven failures and at best might give a 2/10 performance compared to Burns' 1/10.
Steve Smith I believe mentioned the valuable experience he got getting a chance early on, we laughed at it back in 2010 but smart people obviously knew he had potential for great things and the same is hopefully true for Green and Pucovski (when fit).
You realise that one of the top six from the last series (first three tests - Labuschagne played one test) with India is still in the side and it’s only two years later? Hardly an argument.
Don’t even compare Harris to Rogers. They’re not in the same ball park as players. Besides Chris Rogers was test standard before he left WA imo. I can’t deny he became better at Victoria but he was underrated before he moved states. Never had a real chance of playing test cricket at WA as Langer and Hayden were our openers and Jaques was absolutely banging the door down. It might have been one test, but Chris Rogers still managed to play test cricket before leaving WA.
I never hated Rogers for leaving and don’t hate Harris for leaving. Harris just isn’t test standard.
FWIW I said similar things about Cameron Bancroft when he was picked for Australia off form. It’s no different to Harris - I just don’t think either are test standard or even close.
Last edited:
Similar threads
