Team for the 1st test Australia vs Sri lanka (Hobart)

DrVanNostrand

Premiership Player
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Posts
4,062
Likes
2,990
Location
129 West 81st
AFL Club
Gold Coast
#51
What's with all the hate for Hastings? Finally a fast bowler with an excellent first class record is given a debut, and the knives are out after one Test :eek:

Selectors are trolling if Bird doesn't play in Hobart. Massive lols if Johnson is back for good.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Carbine Chaos

Jubilant Masto
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Posts
47,003
Likes
53,419
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Everton, Delhi, Perth
#52
What's with all the hate for Hastings? Finally a fast bowler with an excellent first class record is given a debut, and the knives are out after one Test :eek:

Selectors are trolling if Bird doesn't play in Hobart. Massive lols if Johnson is back for good.
If Bird takes 0/100 on debut, I bet nobody will hold back on the 'He's not Test quality' calls.

I'm with you on Hastings.
 

matty p

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Posts
2,662
Likes
1,449
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
#53
Who is to say he was/is never going to be a Test cricketer? I bet that has been said about heaps of FC and one Test players who go on to prove lots of people wrong.

People bitched when Andrew McDonald was selected, citing the fact he just wasn't a Test cricketer. I think if he was fit he wouldn't look out of place now at all.
McDonald did look out of place though. It was clear he wasn't a test standard batsman and it showed. Just like nearly everyone outside of the selectors knew that Hastings wasn't a test standard bowler. Low and behold, everyone was right. Hastings is too pedestrian and doesn't have any special quality to his bowling to make up for it eg. extreme line/swing/whatever else.

I find it funny how nearly everyone else except for the selectors could see it. In fact Quiney was the same scenario. Not a test standard batsman, which was obvious before he even faced a ball.
 

Phone

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Posts
26,571
Likes
8,381
Location
La Capanna Restaurant.
AFL Club
Essendon
#56
What's with all the hate for Hastings? Finally a fast bowler with an excellent first class record is given a debut, and the knives are out after one Test :eek:

Selectors are trolling if Bird doesn't play in Hobart. Massive lols if Johnson is back for good.
seems like we should probably go back to the way we picked lyon, pattinson & cummins then. seemed to be working pretty fine. in the current climate of shit shield batsmen and bowler friendly shield pitches everywhere (bar sa, whose batsmen are even shitter than the rest), it pays to look deeper than the shield stats (and tbf, they did with hastings. they probably considered his OD stats. you'll note his OD stats are similar to his FC stats, despite OD pitches being flat as ****. cutting, butterworth and bird's od stats are not similar.) and yes consider things as vague as "looks a test bowler". and "looks a test bowler" has never been said about hastings. and well...

like no offence to hastings, but he was never really considered a test prospect (even jesse hogan, noted passionate vic journo thought that way), and he displayed why. he was mostly ineffective, bowled one good spell, bowled a couple of awful spells. Oh well. For as long as sport has been around, there's been guys in the level below putting up awesome stats, but not quite being able to make the step up, hastings is probably just one of those. like many people had kinda expected.

that's not to say the door is over. if he can work on his game, add pace, improve batting etc he could come in. but the knives are out so much as "i told you so" is in effect.
 

The_Reaper

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Posts
40,121
Likes
30,969
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Fremantle
#58
What's with all the hate for Hastings? Finally a fast bowler with an excellent first class record is given a debut, and the knives are out after one Test :eek:

Selectors are trolling if Bird doesn't play in Hobart. Massive lols if Johnson is back for good.
In my view at least Hastings is just lacking that yard of pace to succeed at test level. A military medium bowler won't trouble quality batsman outside of favourable conditions.
 

Ill Chicken

Premiership Player
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Posts
3,696
Likes
166
Location
Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Browns, Redlegs, Eagles, Strike
#59
Test bowlers rarely dominate in their first few matches. Steyn took 8 wickets in his first three tests. Glenn McGrath similar. Very few do what Philander has done and he had a serious amount of first class cricket already behind him before he got that chance. The issue with Hastings is that he got gifted a test cap, he really should not have been in the side nor did he come into a side with any quick bowlers with test form. Just poor selection policy and Hastings will cop it and potentially could have an adverse affect on his career but he looks a stronger man than Mick Lewis.
 

lewigie

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Posts
15,622
Likes
7,594
Location
Bunbury
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Tottenham
#60
He was an opener for 10 years and 10,000 first class runs @ 50. He's spent a fair bit of his test career at 4. He'd certainly be better than Watson.
He is 37 however and I'm not sure how well he would play against the new ball anymore.

I could be/am probably wrong though.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Carbine Chaos

Jubilant Masto
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Posts
47,003
Likes
53,419
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Everton, Delhi, Perth
#62
He is 37 however and I'm not sure how well he would play against the new ball anymore.

I could be/am probably wrong though.
In theory he just needs to hold the spot long enough for Khawaja or Hughes to cement 6 and feel like they belong at that level long term.
 

Phone

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Posts
26,571
Likes
8,381
Location
La Capanna Restaurant.
AFL Club
Essendon
#63
it's not like hussey doesn't face the new ball anymore...

i think for fairly obvious reasons we have to be careful about messing around with our only two in-form players right on the eve of two ashes series.
 

The_Reaper

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Posts
40,121
Likes
30,969
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Fremantle
#64
it's not like hussey doesn't face the new ball anymore...

i think for fairly obvious reasons we have to be careful about messing around with our only two in-form players right on the eve of two ashes series.
On the other hand we have to sort out this top order. We can't go into two ashes series with concerns about our top four batsman.
 

BluesMan

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Posts
17,063
Likes
7,066
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Chelsea, B.Celtics
#65
Who is to say he was/is never going to be a Test cricketer? I bet that has been said about heaps of FC and one Test players who go on to prove lots of people wrong.

People bitched when Andrew McDonald was selected, citing the fact he just wasn't a Test cricketer. I think if he was fit he wouldn't look out of place now at all.
It's just he fits the short format better. Theres nothing wrong with being a player who suits this format. At his pace and skill as a bowler, he isn't worthy (maybe not yet) of being a 3rd seemer in a test match.
 

Carbine Chaos

Jubilant Masto
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Posts
47,003
Likes
53,419
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Everton, Delhi, Perth
#66
It's just he fits the short format better. Theres nothing wrong with being a player who suits this format. At his pace and skill as a bowler, he isn't worthy (maybe not yet) of being a 3rd seemer in a test match.
He was actually pretty good on the first day. Beat the bat a bit and kept it tight.

Much like Lyon, he stunk it up in the second. Won't be the first to do so when inexperienced and facing an unstoppable Amla.
 

big_e

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Posts
4,367
Likes
10,796
Location
Your Wi-Fi
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Wycombe Wanderers, 76ers
#67
Cowan
Warner
Watson
Khawaja
Clarke
Hussey
Wade
Siddle
Starc
Lyon
-
Hifenhaus

Not convinced by anyone other than Clarke, Hussey and Siddle, to be honest. Probably Lyon, as well - does a role and that's fine.

Starc did enough in Perth to hold his spot over Hilfenhaus and hopefully Khawaja can come back in and be the decent number four we've been missing for a while. I'd like Cowan and Warner to work as an opening partnership but it's just not happening.

I started watching cricket in the mid-80s, after the Chappell, Lillee and Marsh retirements and this feels the same. There are plenty of players out there doing OK but very few have risen to the challenge.
 

The 747

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 19, 2008
Posts
12,346
Likes
14,269
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
#68
Test bowlers rarely dominate in their first few matches. Steyn took 8 wickets in his first three tests. Glenn McGrath similar. Very few do what Philander has done and he had a serious amount of first class cricket already behind him before he got that chance. The issue with Hastings is that he got gifted a test cap, he really should not have been in the side nor did he come into a side with any quick bowlers with test form. Just poor selection policy and Hastings will cop it and potentially could have an adverse affect on his career but he looks a stronger man than Mick Lewis.
Errr, no he didn't. He actually earnt his selection on form. It didnt work but he certainly wasnt gifted it.

Starc/Pattinson/Cummins were gifted Test caps. Johnson was gifted this Test cap far more than Hastings. Are you sure you have this the right way around?

Agree with the poster above that suggests we should go back to handing out spots on look and feel, because we have selected blokes based on form lately and it hasnt worked at all, they have looked out of their depth (Hastings, Quiney, Cowan). If our stocks are that bad then we need the 80's way, pick some blokes with potential and stick with them.
 

Pykie

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Posts
14,385
Likes
25,538
Location
Lord's
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Leeds United
#69
Starc reminds me of Morkel 4 years ago.

Great height, fantastic bounce and good pace, seams and swings it on occasion. Lengths all over the place, bowls trash 50% of the time, but also capable of bowling a jaffer that could get out any batsman, no matter how set.

Morkel's now imo arguably the best quick in the world, he bowls to plans, sets up batsmen, and shows how important experience and time out in the middle is to developing a young quick.

There's not too many quicks in the world with Starc's bounce, especially a left armer, I think he could be a nightmare in England if he starts to get some consistency. What worries me though, he will be back in 20/20 $$$ mode in less than a few months, and that development will be up the creek as he tries to bowl wide yorkers every ball.........

Starc stays, there's not much difference between Johnson's trash, and Starcs at times, but at least with Starc, he's 22, and there's light at the end of the tunnel.



As for the batsmen: I'm kind of in the Watson down the order thinking. He has good technique but tends to get his front leg crossed ALOT for my liking. He's a good player of spin, can dominate a side when needed, and can still face the second new ball, he's perfect for 6 imo.

Personally I'd drop Watson down to 6, move Hussey to 5, Clarke to 4 and it's a toss of the coin as to play Hughes at 3 or open up with him, I'd personally like to see how he does at 3, as I think he could be quite good there....
 

Howard Littlejohn

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 30, 2006
Posts
13,359
Likes
6,753
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
North Melbourne
#70
I don't get talk of Cowan to #3. His main attribute is his leaving of the the new ball.
To be fair to everyone else, as far as I can tell I'm the only one who has suggested this. Its predicated on two main things - Hughes is the form batsman of the Shield and reports are he seems to be over, or at least reduced, the major flaw exposed against NZ that saw him dropped; and that Cowan seems the most mentally adaptable of the Warner, Hughes, Cowan trio.

  • Hughes is the form batsman, he has to come in - but leaves the side with three openers. If there was a genuine #3 in form warranting a call-up they may well get the nod.
  • All three like to open, very rarely does a batsman do anything in that spot that don't like it. It is a different position, as you bat straight away. Cowan seems most likely to be adaptable to waiting in the sheds, and to be able to adapt his game to play defensively at 1/5, or play himself in and then expand coming in at 1/150.
  • When Warner/Hughes comes off it could be a great platform, when it doesn't it brings in a player who has the mentality to dig in (although it is still questionable whether he has the ability to do so often enough.)
  • Hughes isn't Warner, his natural game is sensible attacking, not all-out aggression; in that manner its not as risky as it might first appear - remember, Hughes prior to being found out showed himself to be more than capable. If he has reduced that one issue in his game, opening is his position.
  • Who goes to #3 if not one of these three? Khawaja straight in at #3 seems a big risk, Watson needs to drop down the order as he has not produced in recent times (and needs to do so by summer's end or his position must be in question). thorne89 has suggested Hussey, that might work but risks reducing the output of one of the two players producing results. Clarke up to 4, Hussey to 5, Watson (for now, possibly Khawaja soon) to 6 is what I would do; Hussey to 4 and Clarke staying at 5 is another option.
  • Warner to #3 is asking for trouble. If one of Hughes/Cowan was to go early, could Warner be relied on to play an anchor role until the ship was steadied.
  • Hughes to #3 is possible, but he did have quite some early success opening - and his selction has to be on the presumption that he is over that flaw (if he isn't, Test attacks will find him out quickly - but even Shield attacks should have been able to expose that one and they haven't)
  • Its not ideal, but I think its reasonable to at least suggest it as possibly the best way to go with the players at hand - until somebody stands up and claims #3 for their own (I do not expect it is what the selectors will do)
  • Warner to #6 is another possibility, one I and others floated before the South Africa series and were shot down for, but has gained a few more people raising as a viable option more recently - that would still leave the #3 question unanswered as on form I don't think Watson can be sustained there (I'm obviously including pre-injury form in that, one game is hardly overwhelming evidence one way or another for a batsman)
 

stevemac

Cancelled
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Posts
107
Likes
31
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
#72
Playing SL might give us a chance to find a gem amongst some recent discards.

2nd Chance XI, Hobart.

Hughes
Marsh
Quiney
Khawaja
Clarke*
Smith
Paine+
Doherty
Copeland
McKay
George

12th Beer
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Posts
32,536
Likes
22,699
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
#73
People complain when we don't pick people in form, they complain when we pick Hastings.

Mind boggling.
Aside from the fact that there is better 'form' in the shield at the moment.

Hastings isn't a test cricketer's areshole. And this is not retrospect, i stated as much prior to the test.

He bowls a handy line for ODI cricket and can be effective there when batsmen try and force the run rate. In test cricket they don't need to - they can just pick him off at will and with patience.

Adam Dale was exactly the same, adequate ODI bowler, not a test cricketer.

Clint McKay would be another.

To be a test bowler, you have to be able to bowl wicket taking balls, not just a dry line hoping that batsmen make mistakes. Because against the best in the world, they don't make many,
 

Pykie

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Posts
14,385
Likes
25,538
Location
Lord's
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Leeds United
#74
To be fair to everyone else, as far as I can tell I'm the only one who has suggested this. Its predicated on two main things - Hughes is the form batsman of the Shield and reports are he seems to be over, or at least reduced, the major flaw exposed against NZ that saw him dropped; and that Cowan seems the most mentally adaptable of the Warner, Hughes, Cowan trio.

  • Hughes is the form batsman, he has to come in - but leaves the side with three openers. If there was a genuine #3 in form warranting a call-up they may well get the nod.
  • All three like to open, very rarely does a batsman do anything in that spot that don't like it. It is a different position, as you bat straight away. Cowan seems most likely to be adaptable to waiting in the sheds, and to be able to adapt his game to play defensively at 1/5, or play himself in and then expand coming in at 1/150.
  • When Warner/Hughes comes off it could be a great platform, when it doesn't it brings in a player who has the mentality to dig in (although it is still questionable whether he has the ability to do so often enough.)
  • Hughes isn't Warner, his natural game is sensible attacking, not all-out aggression; in that manner its not as risky as it might first appear - remember, Hughes prior to being found out showed himself to be more than capable. If he has reduced that one issue in his game, opening is his position.
  • Who goes to #3 if not one of these three? Khawaja straight in at #3 seems a big risk, Watson needs to drop down the order as he has not produced in recent times (and needs to do so by summer's end or his position must be in question). thorne89 has suggested Hussey, that might work but risks reducing the output of one of the two players producing results. Clarke up to 4, Hussey to 5, Watson (for now, possibly Khawaja soon) to 6 is what I would do; Hussey to 4 and Clarke staying at 5 is another option.
  • Warner to #3 is asking for trouble. If one of Hughes/Cowan was to go early, could Warner be relied on to play an anchor role until the ship was steadied.
  • Hughes to #3 is possible, but he did have quite some early success opening - and his selction has to be on the presumption that he is over that flaw (if he isn't, Test attacks will find him out quickly - but even Shield attacks should have been able to expose that one and they haven't)
  • Its not ideal, but I think its reasonable to at least suggest it as possibly the best way to go with the players at hand - until somebody stands up and claims #3 for their own (I do not expect it is what the selectors will do)
  • Warner to #6 is another possibility, one I and others floated before the South Africa series and were shot down for, but has gained a few more people raising as a viable option more recently - that would still leave the #3 question unanswered as on form I don't think Watson can be sustained there (I'm obviously including pre-injury form in that, one game is hardly overwhelming evidence one way or another for a batsman)

In days gone by, with the current form of the side, it would of been simple.

Clarke would be promoted to 3, Hussey 4, Drop Watson to 5, bring the new batsmen in at 6 to give him some experience until we're ready to gauge at what number he should be playing at.

Clarke's inability to bat consistently anywhere other than 5 is partly the problem here, there's very few times in the past where Australia has brought in a "specialist #3", to bat at #3 straight away.

Usually it's a natural progression..........
 

Yidaki

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Posts
26,299
Likes
25,681
Location
Gubbi Gubbi
AFL Club
Collingwood
#75
(A repeat of a post I made in another thread)

I decided to go with this lineup for the 1st SL Test - I believe that it is probably less likely to fall in a heap than any other batting lineup we can muster ATM:

1) Warner (He's not exactly consistent, but I'm not exactly convinced he'll do the job at #6 because he arguably plays spin worse than pace - at least before he gets set)
2) Cowan (He's done enough to justify his place over the short-term)
3) Khawaja (His last stint in Test cricket was unconvincing, but he has been batting adequately in the SS, plus he at least values his wicket)
4) Hussey (Has done pretty well at #4 in the past)
5) Clarke (He's at his most prolific here)
6) Watson (He's not a Test-class #3 - he stays in over the short-term but he really needs to score more runs)
7) Wade (Deserves more time)
8) Johnson (Needs to be monitored closely, but he was probably our best bowler - and fielder - at Perth)
9) Siddle (A given)
10) Hilfenhaus (Well, it's between him, Mitchell Starc, Jackson Bird, Gary Putland or Josh Hazelwood - Starc is IMO not a better option; Bird could be worth a shot but many of his wickets have come in bowler-friendly Hobart conditions; Putland has been taking wickets on the Adelaide Oval so he could be worth a look; Josh Hazelwood has potential but I'm not sure if this makes him a better option than Hilfenhaus)
11) Lyon (The best of Australia's spinners)

Other potential batsmen:
Phil Hughes: He could come in at #1 or #6 should Cowan or Watson underperform, but an opening partnership with Warner would be quite volatile, while I'm not sure how good he is against spin bowling before he's set.
Alex Doolan: Good season, mediocre FC average, not a better option than Khawaja IMO
Agree with all of this bar P.Hughes. I would however, change the order around a little:

1)Warner
2)Cowan
3)Clarke (Has to play here at the moment as he has the form and skill to be a number 3)
4)Khawaja
5)Watson
6)Hussey
.....The rest like yours.
 
Top Bottom