Australia's Test Squad for England and West Indies

[adub]

Burns is the obvious replacement for Buck so I would have liked to see him get some more test experience. It's very likely come the first test next summer it will be Burns walking out with Davey so another 7 tests under his belt would have been a great idea I would have thought. Smarsh's place in the top 6 seems much less a done deal next summer to my mind.

 

[Spikey]

who cares about the west indies or whatever but

 

[JBMAC]

I'm not exactly a keeping technique expert, but he looks the best keeper in state cricket to me (ignoring batting totally). He seems completely comfortable when he keeps up to Trent Copeland; I think I've seen him keep up to Henriques as well.

He's very, very clean. Footwork is generally quite good so he isn't overly-reliant on athleticism like most modern 'keepers, and his glovework is very good as well. When he's behind the stumps, I can't say I've ever really noticed him as such -- he gets in there, does his job to a very high standard, and doesn't require a full-length dive to take a simple chance.

I'd say Hartley is fractionally better with the gloves (there's very little in it though, and its basically at the top of a diminishing marginal utility curve), but Nev blows him away with the bat.

He's been very tidy up to the stumps to the NSW spinners, and though I can't specifically remember him 'keeping up to medium pacers, I imagine he'd be more than capable of doing it to Watson (let's face it, there aren't many Australian quicks around who can have the 'keeper up to the pegs these days).

Thanks guys . It's very much appreciated.

 

[social]

Burns unlucky, Watto very lucky, non-selection of Faulkner in either squad is just ridiculous unless he is injured/still pissed

 

[Spikey]

why would we pick faulkner

 

[social]

why would we pick faulkner

Only because he is one of the best 30 cricketers in Oz

 

[morgieb]

Only because he is one of the best 30 cricketers in Oz

What has he done to suggest he is a better option at Test level than Watson or Marsh? Heck I'd consider even Maxwell over him.

 

[Spikey]

Only because he is one of the best 30 cricketers in Oz

we're only picking like 17 players but

 

[Riggins]

Think he means that he's not in the Aus A squad either.

 

[Spikey]

oh well i dont care about that. there's clearly some sort of reason for him not being there

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah social did say in either squad. It is kind of weird that he's not in A squad. Can't be because of ODI clashes because Maxwell is there.

 

[howardj]

I love being outraged at the selectors

 

[morgieb]

Yeah social did say in either squad. It is kind of weird that he's not in A squad. Can't be because of ODI clashes because Maxwell is there.

Yeah I was confused too. Could be that they want to see what other blokes can do and know what they can get out of Faulkner? Resting? Cos otherwise.....

Certainly he's a better option than Stoinis and Fekete at least.

 

[Antihippy]

What has he done to suggest he is a better option at Test level than Watson or Marsh? Heck I'd consider even Maxwell over him.

He actually bowled pretty well in england on his test debut.

 

[Spikey]

he didnt really get a bowl until it turned into an one dayer on day 5

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think it's probably okay if it's for the right reasons. If they think Voges's proven ability in England vs Burns's mediocrity when he played there is a big factor, or they've spotted something technically with either player that think will help/hinder in WI/England, or they've identified a real change in Voges's game that has resulted in his good 2014-15 season, then I think that's fine.

But to me it just reeks a bit of the selectors looking at the Shield stats for this season and going "Oh wow, Voges had an awesome season! Get him in therrrrre!" ... which just isn't good selection process from any angle.

Yeah, no, it is absolutely the most sensible selection process from every angle

 

[Antihippy]

he didnt really get a bowl until it turned into an one dayer on day 5

He did pretty well in England's first innings.

 

[social]

Faulkner is quality i.e. substance over style

The guy delivers whenever, wherever

I can only assume that a county stint has been lined up for him or else his total exclusion makes no sense whatsoever

Anyway, I really question Watto's inclusion - lack of runs, unreliable fitness and virtually no bowling penetration these days

He and MMarsh (whom I really rate) are carbon copies of each other but only one has potential any more

It should have been one or the other and his selection should not have come at the expense of Burns IMO

 

[adub]

Forkers also contributed with the bat. I've got plenty of time for Forkers, but realistically he needs to become a genuine top 6 bat to get a go with the pace depth we have now. I'm not convinced Marsh is a genuine 6 yet either, but he does look like he has the tools perhaps more than Forkers.

 

[Flem274*]

Not a fan of the Burns exclusion. Australia are crying out for a #3 and he was bedding in and showing a bit (yes I realise he batted at #6 in tests but he's seen as a top order bat). I just think it was unnecessary on the whole. It's something England would do. You've got one too many Marshes in there who he could replace.

It's been years since I last saw Voges bat so I can't comment on where he's suited these days except by seeing he's a #4 on scorecards (batting below Klinger tbf who used to open right?) but he's made a powerful case and guys like Rogers have shown experienced and successful batsmen are useful no matter what their age is.

I think Watson is a spud but his bowling will be handy in England.

What is Fawad like as a spinner? When you tour the Windies, blokes who can put it down the other end in the right area six out of six are the goods because the pitch will do the rest. Inaccurate bowlers get hammered though.