Australia's Test Squad for England and West Indies

[NUFAN]

Could someone enlighten me on Peter Nevill. I have never seen him keep.How clean is he behind the stumps? Is he prepared to stand up at the stumps for a medium pacer? etc etc etc. NOT interested in stats just on what you have seen.

Clean as a whistle.. A rusty whistle.

Definitey below the SACA keeper Ludeman, but a better bat.

 

[Riggins]

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.

I think Smitty is locked in at 3 now so I can understand it, especially if they see him as the next opener and the pretty short term mindset of Ashes selections.

 

[Riggins]

Clean as a whistle.. A rusty whistle.

Definitey below the SACA keeper Ludeman, but a better bat.

It's time to end this nonsense n00fers.

 

[NUFAN]

From the squad it looks like Burns and Bancroft will open unless the selectors decide Maddinson should open again.

Usman Khawaja (c) QLD

Matthew Wade (vc) VIC

Ashton Agar WA

Cameron Bancroft WA

Joe Burns QLD

Patrick Cummins NSW

Andrew Fekete TAS

Peter Handscomb VIC

Travis Head SA

Nic Maddinson NSW

Glenn Maxwell VIC

Stephen O'Keefe NSW

Gurinder Sandhu NSW

Marcus Stoinis VIC

Bancroft and Stoinis yesss

 

[social]

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.

Maybe I'm wrong (and I have been many, many times) but I reckon Marsh could develop into a high quality 5/6.

IMO, Forkers is a winner and one of Australia's most valuable players

Can he fit in?

No idea but he should be in every squad ATM

 

[Flem274*]

I think Smitty is locked in at 3 now so I can understand it, especially if they see him as the next opener and the pretty short term mindset of Ashes selections.

Yeah I can see that logic. I want the puppy at #4 or #5 though and no Shaun Marsh.

 

[Flem274*]

Australia don't really need Faulkner when they have Johnson as their bowling allrounder and Marsh or Twatto as the batting one.

Faulkner is a #7 at most and the only way he would play is if Haddin spudded it away from home as per usual and a paceman went down, but even then the simplest solution is Nevill.

 

[NUFAN]

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..

Interesting. Davey did have a good World Cup but it would be quite the story see him go from Scotland opening bower to Aussie opening bat in the space of 12 months.

 

[NUFAN]

It's time to end this nonsense n00fers.

Slight exaggeration, Nev is good behind the stumps. I do feel Ludes is cleaner and more spectacular but the batting difference with the red ball is huge. Peter Nevill deserves selection.

 

[Spikey]

He did pretty well in England's first innings.

england were 4 down in their first innings going into their last day. it's tough on Forkers Faulkner but he barely got a ball (12 overs out of 125 odd) and then England started having a dip on day 5 and he got his wickets.

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.

You know, I was actually gonna say this could be a case where the guys who had excellent seasons and got picked were guys that should have been considered anyway (Voges/Nevill/Ahmed), but that Australia A squad reeks of the bolded.

 

[Spikey]

It's time to end this nonsense n00fers.

l00ders deserves praise for his consistency tbf. FC average of 25 and in 3 of his 6 FC seasons he's averaged 25. that 13 is a stain on his record

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

Fawad's usually pretty accurate; I just don't think he turns his leg break enough.. which probably means he'll do really well in the West Indies to be fair, for the reasons you just said. Some days he rocks up and just bowls pump though.

 

[Riggins]

Slight exaggeration, Nev is good behind the stumps. I do feel Ludes is cleaner and more spectacular but the batting difference with the red ball is huge. Peter Nevill deserves selection.

spectacular is often a case of being out of position though.

 

[Spikey]

I was gonna say Michael Clarke's ODI retirement was overshadowing the squad announcement but actually

Daniel Cherny ‏@DanielCherny
Unfortunately, the Essendon decision overshadows the wonderful news of Fawad Ahmed's inclusion in the Windies and Ashes squads.

 

[dermo]

i've come round to faulkers a lot but socials point that he always delivers is non existent in red ball cricket

back of the hand slower balls in the powerplay and an uncanny ability to slog balls over midwicket for 6 in clutch situations have absolutely no correlation to away ashes or subcontinent cricket, the two kinds we still have a long way to go on

imo he's behind mmarsh, watson and henriques as a fast bowling all rounder

 

[Dan]

You know, I was actually gonna say this could be a case where the guys who had excellent seasons and got picked were guys that should have been considered anyway (Voges/Nevill/Ahmed), but that Australia A squad reeks of the bolded.

tbf I don't think it's so much an issue with the Australia A squad. I mean, if you've done really well in a Shield season you can obviously play a bit, so the selectors might as well test you out in a higher level of cricket that is still, at the end of the day, rather meaningless. Then they can separate the short-term form players from the actual quality ones at the end of the tour.

They'll continue to let Stoinis spud it up for the next sixteen Australia A series though, undoubtedly.

 

[Antihippy]

It's not as if faulkner has been terrible at red ball cricket. Much better than MMarsh in fact.

I honestly don't see anything useful about MMarsh's bowling unless he's tying one end up because the batsman doesn't want to get out to a part-timer.

 

[Spark]

It's not as if faulkner has been terrible at red ball cricket. Much better than MMarsh in fact.

I honestly don't see anything useful about MMarsh's bowling unless he's tying one end up because the batsman doesn't want to get out to a part-timer.

That's all we need though.

 

[Antihippy]

I feel like faulkner can do that and provide a lot more though.

I dunno, it's just that I've never been impressed at marsh's bowling. 135 kph with decent bounce at a length is serviceable I guess, but in every match I've seen him bowl he never seems to have the bowling nous to actually work out how to get a batsman out. Just very honest banging it length/back-of-length medium-fast bowling, and I think his figures do reflect that.

His batting seems a lot more solid for red ball cricket than faulkner's, but man I am just really unimpressed whenever I've seen him bowl.

 

[Justo]

The problem is that Faulkner doesn't really deserve a place over any of the current bowlers nor is he good enough to bat in the top 6. Marsh's bowling may not be worth much but all we really need is someone to try jam some wickets at the back end of a session and bowl a few overs before the second new ball to keep everyone fresh. Marsh does this while potentially being a solid enough number 6 (still to be proven of course).

Faulkner would probably suit if we had a keeper who could bat 6 so that he could bat at 7 but even then his FC batting hasn't impressed much at all and he's got no hope of being selected as a front line bowler over Johnson, Harris, Haze, Starc, Siddle, Pattinson etc. etc.