Yeah. We won the Ashes in spite of Langer, not because of him.Yeah Langer turned Smith into a run machine, the best since Bradman. He also turned Cummings into a gun.
Facts are our top order has not fired, only 2 of the batsman have and Laubs only got a game due to Smiths concussion.
You could have coached this team and they still would have won.
Warner is one of the absolute greats of Australian cricket. Averages 46 and has 21 tons. We stick by him, like we did Chappell and Mark Waugh when they also had bad trots.Lol, he has opened before but let's stick with the guy on 3 consecutive ducks & bring in someone who has been a proven poor performer...
The fact you think Langer is a legend coach is a far more stupid post lol.
I probably agree with this.The coaches and selectors have got a lot right but this is a stuff up
If we need fresh bowlers then Siddle and Pattinson have played two tests, Starc one test.
The opening issue is far more pressing than the need for a 5th bowler, especially given that we haven't really used Labuschagne as a bowler much and he's quite capable.
The issue is Langer's coaching, and player selections - not his record during his playing years. His record as a batsman was outstanding. His record as coach of the Australian team is dismal. They've won The Ashes in spite of him, not because of him.Warner is one of the absolute greats of Australian cricket. Averages 46 and has 21 tons. We stick by him, like we did Chappell and Mark Waugh when they also had bad trots.
Marsh is the 2nd worst #6 batsman in the history of test match cricket. That's world's 2nd worst, not just Australia's 2nd worst. We're talking about the worst in history - since the first Test Match in 1877.Marsh has a couple of test tons - and probably shouldn't be brought in, but I'm happy for him to be cannon fodder at the end of a long tour.
Neser is a number 9 batsman. He's still more likely to make runs than Warner is at present.Neser is a number 9 batsman.
Who is the worst #6 out of curiosity?The issue is Langer's coaching, and player selections - not his record during his playing years. His record as a batsman was outstanding. His record as coach of the Australian team is dismal. They've won The Ashes in spite of him, not because of him.
Marsh is the 2nd worst #6 batsman in the history of test match cricket. That's world's 2nd worst, not just Australia's 2nd worst. We're talking about the worst in history - since the first Test Match in 1877.
Marsh had one brief purple patch, where he shocked the world by displaying a degree of competence in the summer of 2017/18. He had scores of 181, 101, and 96 in a 4 month period. Prior to that purple patch he held the title as the world's worst #6 test batsman. That brief purple patch blew out his average, and he's been working his way back to #1 since then. He currently stands at #2 on the list, but he's only 1 failed test match away from regaining his crown.
And you want to see him brought back in, even if it's as "cannon fodder"? He is the definition of a proven failure.
Neser is a number 9 batsman. He's still more likely to make runs than Warner is at present.
Chappell and Waugh didn't spend a year out of the game.Warner is one of the absolute greats of Australian cricket. Averages 46 and has 21 tons. We stick by him, like we did Chappell and Mark Waugh when they also had bad trots.
Marsh has a couple of test tons - and probably shouldn't be brought in, but I'm happy for him to be cannon fodder at the end of a long tour.
Neser is a number 9 batsman.
JP Duminy, followed closely by Dwayne Bravo. My apologies - MMarsh is currently 3rd on the list. That's for all players having played 20+ matches, batting at #6.Who is the worst #6 out of curiosity?
Warner has had 7x single-digit scores this series. That's more than any other top-7 batsman in the last 40 years.Chappell and Waugh didn't spend a year out of the game.
Not just a year out with injury, but for cheating.
1) So - why are the Poms still calling Smith a cheat?
2) Surely the worst he did was not actively discover and prevent a teammate breaking the rules
1) well, they're booing him now because they're trying to put him off his game (which won't work) and because he's making so many runs. It's dumb, childish and after 4 Tests now, tiresome. Smith did his time; if anything, the booing is making him try harder which is the last thing the Poms need.3) He was captain so he had to have known in some capacity what was going on
Agree strongly. (John Who , plz read below)Warner has failed in 7 of 8 innings, consistently getting out in the same way, to the same bowler. We're now going into a 5th test, and there's nothing to indicate that his fate will be any different to his previous 6 innings.
That clip's 44 years old.Totally agree. The first time I saw him I thought this kids got a massive future.
BTW there is a great video on Youtube of how the powerhouse west indies team of the 80's was built from the destruction caused by Lillee and Thompson on the 75-76 tour. The Windies had the last laugh.
This isn't the one I mentioned above bit it's a great snippet.
Yep, can't argue with much of that at all.Moving away from Australia's bizarre team selections for the 5th Test, which seem designed to ensure a 2-2 drawn series, I thought I'd take a look at a "Combined XI" team.
1. Rory Burns
2. Joe Denly
3. Joe Root
4. Steve Smith (c)
5. Marnus Labuschagne
6. Ben Stokes
7. Jon Bairstow
8. Patrick Cummins
9. Josh Hazlewood
10. Stuart Broad
11. Nathan Lyon
Some of these selections are absolute no-brainers. Smith, Stokes, Cummins, Broad & Hazlewood would be the first 5 players picked - and in that order. Anyone who even contemplates excluding these players would need to have their head read.
Lyon is picked as the team's spinner, ahead of Leach and Ali (in that order). Lyon is picked on the basis of his 4th innings performance in the 1st Test, where he picked up 6/49. Lyon has done little since then, but neither has Leach (and Ali was dropped).
Bairstow gets the nod as keeper, just ahead of Paine. Both have scored 1x 50, but Bairstow has scored 178 runs to Paine's 158, so Bairstow comes out just in front. This is one of the few selections which could be reversed after the 5th Test - and I wouldn't argue vociferously against anyone who wanted to select Paine on the basis of his Captaincy.
Labuschagne & Burns have been the two biggest revelations of the series. Neither came into The Ashes as proven players, and the Lampshade wasn't even in the team. Burns has been by far the best opener of the series. He's the 3rd highest run scorer (behind Smith & Stokes), with 2x 50s and 1x 100. Labuschagne came into the series after Smith was concussed, and is now the 4th highest scorer, with an average of 58.20.
That leaves positions #2 and #3. There are no standout candidates for these positions.
Warner, Bancroft & Harris have all failed, with averages of 11.50 or lower. Roy was demoted from opener to #5, and then dropped completely. With 2x 50s to his credit, Denly gets the nod as the second opener, despite averaging only 25.50 and having only opened in the 4th Test.
I've picked Labuschagne at #5, despite the fact that he hasn't actually batted at that position in this series. Doing so allowed me to select Joe Root at #3. Root has easily outperformed Khawaja at #3, and Head & Buttler at #5, so picking the Root & Labuschagne combination in this way allowed me to pick the best overall team.
I've named Steve Smith as Captain, despite the fact that he's not actually Australia's Captain. Root's captaincy has been terrible, and Paine hasn't been selected, so that left Smith as the only viable candidate.
My team contains 6x poms and only 5x Australians, despite Australia having dominated the series. The batting is dominated by the poms, with 4 of the top-6 being English players. Conversely, the bowling is dominated by Australia, with 3 of the 4 bowlers selected being Aussies. My selections reflect the way in which Australia's batting has been carried by Smith and the Lampshade, while England's bowling attack has been carried by Broad.
This![MMarsh] is the definition of a proven failure.