So basically he should not have been picked at all then.
Phill Hughes makes more first class runs than most but has proven just averaging 40 plus in sheild cricket puts you in the picture either. Have been a Hughes fan so i am not against him.
You could argue that Clarke and Ponting where pretty good at fishing outside off stump.
I would not have been upset if that was the case. I think the selectors showed a lack of courage by picking Bailey, and I say this because they had over-looked Bailey frequently from the test squad over the previous 12-24 months despite excellent ODI form. I think most people would have picked Bailey over Smith for the Indian tour on the basis of his ODI form. But the selectors went with Smith over Bailey, and did so for the Ashes too. I think they panicked by picking Bailey. He was the safe option (as we discussed here at the time). But it didn't follow the example they had set over the previous 12 months where they over-looked Bailey, and I think they over-looked him because they had doubts over his suitability to test cricket
I wasn't upset when Bailey was picked though. I just didn't really expect great things.
The simple fact is he has not been terrible so far.
Do not even bother bring he who makes the most runs in sheild cricket should get the nod or we will be bringing back North.
Doolen looks good but why does he have to be in the side now ? Bailey will probably get sorted out in SA anyway and a spot will open up.Until he starts making a string of scores under 10 he should be in the side.
So four single digit scores in the first innings, and more importantly just four awful innings which happened to be low scoring, aren't enough to call him terrible so far, or to drop him? This is just crazy to me. You basically admit to thinking he will fail in SA, but that we shouldn't drop Bailey. Why does Doolan have to be in the side now? Cause it makes the team better. It's like saying to yourself "I think this train has faulty brakes and will crash soon, but I'm not gonna switch to this better train". It's just insane to me. You should always be looking to improve the team. There's not much reason to think sticking with Bailey is the way to go. He's not got the numbers, more importantly, he's shown nothing to suggest he has the ability to adapt to test cricket.
I certainly don't think Bailey should be replaced by the top scorer in the shield, or the "in-form player" though. This is also crazy to me. We picked the "in-form George Bailey". It hasn't worked. So we're gonna pick the "in-form Marcus North" or the "in-form Cameron White"? Yeah that will work out perfectly. Form is temporarily. It misleads. Favourable situations (aka luck) plays a huge role in form. Bad bowling attacks, lucky breaks, easy batting conditions etc. It's no way to pick a player. Pick whoever you think comes out on top after considering their game (technique, strong areas, weak areas) and package (age, desire, leadership if required and that sort of stuff). And if they haven't got strong recent form behind them, well just be sensible: Is their technique struggling? That's the only time you let a string of low scores worry you, when their technique has deteriorated, or if it just doesn't look good enough. Ideally the guy you think is the best option available has also got the strongest numbers behind them, but it's not always the case.
If the selectors think Marcus North has the best game and package, then they should pick him. If they think it's Chris Lynn, pick him. There's absolutely no reason to believe George Bailey is the person though.