Australian cricket selection

[Monk]

Has gotten absurd. Our ridiculous quest for all rounders (which has been going on since Flintoff played well ag'in us in the 2005 Ashes) has completely stuffed us up. I get the feeling we have been lucky with Henriques, as his batting is ok and his bowling is a bonus, but surely it's time to pick the best six batsmen, a keeper, three quicks and a spinner?

Maxwell playing a test before Bailey is a ****ing disgrace imo.


- Watson (get consistent or get out)
- Warner
- Hughes (not locked in yet)
- Bailey (can bat)
- Clarke
- Henriques
- Hartley/Wade
- Starc
- Pattinson
- Siddle/Bird
- Lyon

[Howe_zat]

Really think you need to put Clarke at #4 at the lowest. The bloke's been coming in in the first session almost every innings anyway - and the wickets more or less stop at him. Holding him back just to satisfy whatever supposed deity says he must bat at 5 doesn't make sense. Bailey - or whoever else you go for - at #5 looks better to me.

[Marcuss]

Needs more McDonald

[social]

The title of your thread is misleading

If you want to choose a team for the current series, take it to that thread.

If you want to choose a team for future series, take it to those threads

If you want to know what goes through our selectors' heads, take it to the couch of a quack dealing in masochism

[burr]

Why can't Clarke bat at 4? It's ridiculous our best batsman by miles in an incredibly weak batting side is stuck so far down the order. He needs to put his hand up.

As for Watson, I can't stand him but bias aside, he seriously needs to be put on notice. I know he's mediocre amongst an ocean of drivel, but people seem to think he's a class above. He's done nothing to convince me of that fact. He's almost 32, played around 40 matches for an average of 36 with 2 measly hundreds and basically can't bowl. Ugh. No Australian cricketer (and the media's and CA's treatment of said cricketer) has ever gotten on my nerves so much.

And I agree about the fetishization of allrounders in Oz cricket. Need to get over it.

Okay, rant over.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

Really think you need to put Clarke at #4 at the lowest. The bloke's been coming in in the first session almost every innings anyway - and the wickets more or less stop at him. Holding him back just to satisfy whatever supposed deity says he must bat at 5 doesn't make sense. Bailey - or whoever else you go for - at #5 looks better to me.

Clarke should stay at five if we continue to pick four openers. If we do bring in Bailey or someone like that then I do agree it's time to move up to four, but with the side as it stands he should bat where he is. I'm certainly not in favour of dropping one batsman for another who we believe is inferior just in order to bat someone in a position they have a terrible record over 30 innings in either. If the time comes when the idea of who are best six batsmen is changes and it no longer includes so many top order players then picking them anyway for superstition's sake so Clake can bat five isn't a good idea either; we should be going with the flow of it.

The innings just gone aside, he's not getting stranded regularly or being affected by the pressure of coming in at 3 down for nothing, so if he keeps scoring lots of runs there and the rest of Australia's best batsmen are more comfortable in the top order, why shouldn't he bat five? There are very real and logical reasons to keep him there without even touching on the fact that he's played about 30 innings at four for a terrible average.

I do agree that he should be batting four in the OP lineup though.

[the big bambino]

The one position that is clearly going right for Australia is no.5. Lets not begin our overhaul by changing the one thing that is working. I mean we are trying to fix up the eff ups aren't we? Not eff up the fix up.

Clarke has enough on his plate now overseeing a side with many problems. Thankfully his form isn't something he has to think of let alone worry about. So lets leave him there. He's also a gentleman of a certain vintage. An age when batsmen are probably looking to stay in one spot or look lower down the order anyway. Batting him at 4 might make sense in India but he'll be batting in other conditions, suitable to swing and bounce, soon enough. I think Clarke appreciates the cover at 5 and helps him play well in those conditions and thats where he should stay for the rest of his career imo.

Btw I agree with Monk. Lets just get specialists into their proper positions. I'm kind of wryly amused that we've bumbled into the same selection error of picking bits and pieces allrounders that became such a joke after a previous tour to India.

[uvelocity]

**** don't bring up his age, imagine when he starts to decline. we'd be completely ****ed.

[the big bambino]

I replaced reference to his age with a euphemism.

[benchmark00]

No need to go overboard here. They've obviously stuffed up with this test, but they were also hamstrung by the squad they picked.

It's not the selectors fault Lyon has been bowling absolute **** the last season and a half.

The team they picked in match two was more suited to match one and vice versa. Maybe they need to hire a pitch whisperer to let them know what side to pick, as Hyderabad clearly has more in it for the pace bowlers than Dean Jones Land did.

[NUFAN]

I really thought it would improve with the new panel but it hasn't.

When we lost the experienced Hussey and Ponting someone like Voges or Bailey should have come into contention.

I mean ODI performances of Doherty got him into the team, why can't the batting form of the pair get them into the team.

Also the decision to not let Siddle bowl a ball in a game from the end of the Sydney Test in early January has proven to be a nonsensical. He was always going to find the conditions a bit tough, but would have been better prepared with a game or two for Vic unde his belt.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

I really thought it would improve with the new panel but it hasn't.

When we lost the experienced Hussey and Ponting someone like Voges or Bailey should have come into contention.

I mean ODI performances of Doherty got him into the team, why can't the batting form of the pair get them into the team.

Also the decision to not let Siddle bowl a ball in a game from the end of the Sydney Test in early January has proven to be a nonsensical. He was always going to find the conditions a bit tough, but would have been better prepared with a game or two for Vic unde his belt.

I agree, I think now is the perfect time for Bailey to slot in to the test team. Had some great ODI form at the end of the Australian summer, and clearly has the game to succeed at test level (I believe this in spite of the fact his FC record this season is pretty poor).

And the other bonus is if Bailey plays in the test team, he can be VC so Watson never needs to be captain if Clarke is injured.

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

I really thought it would improve with the new panel but it hasn't.

When we lost the experienced Hussey and Ponting someone like Voges or Bailey should have come into contention.

I mean ODI performances of Doherty got him into the team, why can't the batting form of the pair get them into the team.

Also the decision to not let Siddle bowl a ball in a game from the end of the Sydney Test in early January has proven to be a nonsensical. He was always going to find the conditions a bit tough, but would have been better prepared with a game or two for Vic unde his belt.

Nah nah, Siddle bowled plenty of overs in the two warm up games. He had adequate preparation. Don't put his failures as a cricketer and meat eater on the heads of the selection panel.

[Spikey]

Also the decision to not let Siddle bowl a ball in a game from the end of the Sydney Test in early January has proven to be a nonsensical.

he rejected meat, and he rejected those games #dumbman

[NUFAN]

Yeah Siddle has failed to perform at his usual high standard so far this series. I hope he isn't a scapegoat as he should do quite well in Wales and in England.