Who Plays in The Ashes

[JackOutback]

It's not so much the selections but more the inconsistency behind them that's frustrating people imo.

The Geoff Lemon article says as much, and I agree. But at the end of the day, I think the reactions are over the top and we will still account for the Poms pretty handily. The Paine selection is odd, but I can see him doing fine in the role, and while Marsh polarises people, batting in his best position in Australia should suit him.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Not sure about selecting Marsh but generally the batting line up is pretty strong given it's in Australia and not the sub continent, and the bowling is outstanding. Bowlers often made quite a contribution to the runs total too when they play in Australia.

 

[Messenger]

The Mitch bashing is so tiresome. Still has plenty of time left to become a consistent player. Obviously has talent.

He's not good enough to bat 6 and his bowling is not Test standard.

Lol how offended are the prictorians on here , are you supporting the national side because I can't see the Victorian side having test status atm.

Talking of small town provincialism....

yup. that 5th bowling option that the selectors so desperately wanted but Steve Smith didnt...or just didnt know how to use.
at least Smith has got his way now. i prefer it with 6 batsmen but not using everything at your disposal is just dumb.

We need a sixth batsman more than we need a fifth bowler. If you can get both that's wonderful, but we've been looking for our Freddy Flintoff for years now. Not even close.

 

[damochandler]

I

We still have a great attack and a good top five.

I think you’re overselling the top 5. Especially with a debutante in there

Time will tell

 

[Sketi]

I've been following all this pretty closely and agree with lots of what has been said here (I feel for Maxwell etc), but the level of outrage across the board has reached a point where I don't really care anymore. It's like the football season, we debate the selection of fringe players endlessly when in reality it's the established senior core that make the difference in the end.

Just keen to watch some cricket.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

The Geoff Lemon article says as much, and I agree. But at the end of the day, I think the reactions are over the top and we will still account for the Poms pretty handily. The Paine selection is odd, but I can see him doing fine in the role, and while Marsh polarises people, batting in his best position in Australia should suit him.

I get that to an extent but it's basically saying 'all the screw ups and crap processes are ok to be ignored if the team is winning' which is how we got in this mess IMO. If we make no1 in the world it will be by sheer dumb luck rather than good planning and we will just as quickly fall back from it. You don't have a sustained era of success (which is what we should all aspire to) without good planning and processes. A lot of the ex players involved in admin and selection now should remember how they benefited from good stable focused leadership and give us that rather than the 'i will make crap shorted sighted inconsistent decisions because i am more worried about keeping my job year to year than benefiting the good of the game' attitude that we have currently. Marsh Waugh Howard and Hohns in particular are the worst at this.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I mean we could believe that Smith just selects his mates - I believe a Victorian media pundit even claimed this is why Cartwright got games when Smith would have never even met Cartwright before Cartwright made his debut - or we could believe that a bloke who had an extended 18 consecutive test run in the side when in form and while consistently making starts was almost never able to go on with them is considered not up to it by the selectors.

But no bigfooty loves the conspiracy theory.

You clearly missed the IF in my statement i made pretty clear it was hypothetical. And my broader point in it about us getting the egos out of the current setup wasn't about Smith anyway.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

As much as Sean Marsh shits me to tears, I can't mount an argument to pick anyone else. The cupboard is bare. Just thank goodness they didn't pick that shittruck Mitch.

Paine is in because Wade is in dire form with the bat and Nevill isn't good enough to bat seven at Test level.

I agree that Wade isn't the answer and Nevill probably isn't. But Paine is even worse than both of them at FC level. Exactly what problem is he a solution for?

 

[Kram]

Geez it's from left field with Paine but he's getting another opportunity, people need to get over it and just wait until we see how he goes in the first Test.

All the other options available were shite as well.

 

[Messenger]

I agree that Wade isn't the answer and Nevill probably isn't. But Paine is even worse than both of them at FC level. Exactly what problem is he a solution for?

I'd say the problem Paine is seen to solve is batting depth.

 

[ezard15]

neville is a good keeper ffs.

Paine doesn't help out chances of winning because now our tail begins at no 7.

Neville is a good keeper? You are on your own on that one.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I'd say the problem Paine is seen to solve is batting depth.

There are two issues with that. One is hohns is trying to sell us on his selection being due to the best keeper in Australia (opposite of your argument). The more important one is how is he supposed to solve batting depth when he has a FC average of 29 and hasn't made a ton in 10 years? Sounds like not much of a plan to me.

 

[Stopher]

That Lemon article is spot on.

 

[The_Reaper]

My reading on the Paine selection is that they figure if nobody's batting is good enough why not pick the best keeper and pretend/hope desperately that those two 50s indicate that he might be able to hang around with the bat.

They're not going to go out and say yeah we only picked him because all the options were s**t so they've doing all sorts of weird gymnastics to justify it.

 

[thejockey]

There are two issues with that. One is hohns is trying to sell us on his selection being due to the best keeper in Australia (opposite of your argument). The more important one is how is he supposed to solve batting depth when he has a FC average of 29 and hasn't made a ton in 10 years? Sounds like not much of a plan to me.

I think he is being used as the stop gap option

Selectors were hoping Carey would perform enough to pick him and he didn't
They've lost faith in Wade/Neville

Paine now keeps the seat warm for Carey or whoever else pops up in the next 18-24 months
That's just my read on Paines selection

 

[JackOutback]

I get that to an extent but it's basically saying 'all the screw ups and crap processes are ok to be ignored if the team is winning' which is how we got in this mess IMO. If we make no1 in the world it will be by sheer dumb luck rather than good planning and we will just as quickly fall back from it. You don't have a sustained era of success (which is what we should all aspire to) without good planning and processes. A lot of the ex players involved in admin and selection now should remember how they benefited from good stable focused leadership and give us that rather than the 'i will make crap shorted sighted inconsistent decisions because i am more worried about keeping my job year to year than benefiting the good of the game' attitude that we have currently. Marsh Waugh Howard and Hohns in particular are the worst at this.

The thing is, cricket selection isn't a science. While we generally want consistent processes, a consistent selection process wouldn't have unearthed Shane Warne or stuck with Steve Smith or any number of other examples. Now, these are the exceptions rather than the rule and we should generally appeal for consistency in selection, but there will always be room in the game for gut feel selections. In Paine's case, the gut feel is he can outperform Wade and Nevill, neither of whom provided a clear case for selection. I'm willing to wait this one out.

I know Marsh is polarising and I would agree that Maxwell had probably earnt first crack, but I don't think the idea that Marsh offers more stability is that outrageous. These are left field selections, but not ones to really grind my gears.

 

[KennyHuntersBlues]

Some of the critics of Renshaw's average and lack of big scores in his last half dozen or so test innings are forgetting the role he played. A lot of his scores from 15 - 40 were off 80 - 100 plus balls or 20 overs or more doing an important job of not exposing our captain or fragile middle order to the new ball and opening bowlers a bit like Chris Rogers did successfully for a few years that made us a better team. Granted he needs to convert a few of those into big scores but that will come with maturity and the leaders and selectors having faith in him. Bancroft should be in but at 6 or 7 with an eye to establishing himself and moving up the order to replace Warner in a couple of years when he retires or his eye starts to fade and he doesn't get selected anymore

 

[Dez!]

I
I think you’re overselling the top 5. Especially with a debutante in there

Time will tell

You're underselling them in Australian conditions.

 

[Dez!]

Neville is a good keeper? You are on your own on that one.

Neville is a good keeper.

 

[JackOutback]

Some of the critics of Renshaw's average and lack of big scores in his last half dozen or so test innings are forgetting the role he played. A lot of his scores from 15 - 40 were off 80 - 100 plus balls or 20 overs or more doing an important job of not exposing our captain or fragile middle order to the new ball and opening bowlers a bit like Chris Rogers did successfully for a few years that made us a better team. Granted he needs to convert a few of those into big scores but that will come with maturity and the leaders and selectors having faith in him. Bancroft should be in but at 6 or 7 with an eye to establishing himself and moving up the order to replace Warner in a couple of years when he retires or his eye starts to fade and he doesn't get selected anymore

On the flip side, some people are overselling its importance. His failure to rotate the strike is as much an issue as his average; it creates pressure on the batsman at the other end. I have no problem with his low strike rate, but he does need to learn to get an odd single or two.

 

[eddiesmith]

I read somewhere that Marcus Stoinis was actually the preferred option for no6 but is unavailable due to personal reasons...

 

[The_Reaper]

I read somewhere that Marcus Stoinis was actually the preferred option for no6 but is unavailable due to personal reasons...

His form for Victoria in shield last year was rather shocking.

 

[bird_man]

I read somewhere that Marcus Stoinis was actually the preferred option for no6 but is unavailable due to personal reasons...

Not sure how true it is, but that would be even more baffling than the Marsh selection.

 

[The_Reaper]

Not sure how true it is, but that would be even more baffling than the Marsh selection.

Actually thinking about the Marsh selection anymore and it was probably based entirely on his 91 against NSW - admittedly a very strong NSW attack.

 

[bird_man]

Actually thinking about the Marsh selection anymore and it was probably based entirely on his 91 against NSW - admittedly a very strong NSW attack.

Possibly, but he did make 2 in he other innings. We all know he can make runs but it’s his constant failings that is the problem. You could understand if he was a young batsman but the campaigner is 34.