Australian Test Selection 2016/2017

[morgieb]

Hastings makes far more sense than Boland IMO. Yes he was terrible on Test debut but his FC record is excellent - far better than Boland - and (unlike Boland) he's done well in ODI's too. Would hardly be the first person to turn a terrible debut around. I'd still prefer Behrendorff, but it remains to be seen how he comes back. I'd also think twice about Tremain or Sayers.

Realistically though I'd wait until the start of the Shield season. But surely the first Test is too early for Cummins (the next best fit quick IMO) given his lack of red ball experience?

 

[honestbharani]

It is interesting that physically very 'mature' young men are constantly dealing with injuries... Wonder what could possibly cause being stronger than most of your peer group as well as making someone more susceptible to injury?

subtle

 

[TheJediBrah]

It is interesting that physically very 'mature' young men are constantly dealing with injuries... Wonder what could possibly cause being stronger than most of your peer group as well as making someone more susceptible to injury?

This doesn't make any sense. It's always been the case. Of course very 'mature' young men are at a high risk of injuries, especially when being out through such stresses as lots of fast bowling. How is this not common knowledge. Susceptibility to acute injury has absolutely nothing to do with physical strength.

 

[NUFAN]

Hastings makes far more sense than Boland IMO. Yes he was terrible on Test debut but his FC record is excellent - far better than Boland - and (unlike Boland) he's done well in ODI's too. Would hardly be the first person to turn a terrible debut around. I'd still prefer Behrendorff, but it remains to be seen how he comes back. I'd also think twice about Tremain or Sayers.

Realistically though I'd wait until the start of the Shield season. But surely the first Test is too early for Cummins (the next best fit quick IMO) given his lack of red ball experience?

If Cummins gets through the Matador and is bowling close to his best I would love it if we played him at Perth even if had a restriction on the number of overs he could bowl.

With Hastings vs. Boland i don't think it is wise judging Boland purely on his ODI performances, he has taken some impressive first class hauls and his most notable performance of 7/31 took place at Perth.

 

[91Jmay]

This doesn't make any sense. It's always been the case. Of course very 'mature' young men are at a high risk of injuries, especially when being out through such stresses as lots of fast bowling. How is this not common knowledge. Susceptibility to acute injury has absolutely nothing to do with physical strength.

 

[TheJediBrah]

View attachment 22895

What was your point?

It seemed as though you were implying it's a mystery that physically strong young men undergoing unnaturally stressful exercise are at a high risk of injury, which I found quite strange. As if the fact that they are tall, athletic and fit somehow will protect their joints, tendons and anatomy in general from fast bowling-related injury .

 

[91Jmay]

My point was people who take PEDs are more susceptible to injury.

 

[TheJediBrah]

My point was people who take PEDs are more susceptible to injury.

well **** that's even stupider than the point I thought you were making

Not only is it absurd to think young fast bowlers would be taking PEDs at all, let alone get away with it if they were (though I'd give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you were joking), but it's not even remotely true that to say that taking PEDs would enhance your risk of injury. In fact quite the opposite in most cases.

 

[NUFAN]

Was also thinking how tough it is to pick a pecking order for your top 7. It's so competitive but not many clear candidates. Your next few sets are probably equal strength.

1. S.Marsh
2. Warner
3. Khawaja
4. Smith
5. Voges
6. M.Marsh
7. Nevill

1. Bancroft
2. Burns
3. Patterson
4. Handscomb
5. Head
6. Henriques
7. Wade

1. Renshaw
2. Dean
3. Stoinis
4. Maddinson
5. Heazlett
6. Cartwright
7. Whiteman

1. Cowan
2. Dunk
3. Doolan
4. Ferguson
5. Lynn
6. Webster
7. Paine

I was just looking back at this list. There is exactly half (14) who have never played Test Cricket.

Out of those 14, which 4 do you get the feeling will never get a baggy green and will have to settle on hopefully a productive state career and which 4 are going to have longish Test careers 52+ games?

 

[Gnske]

Webster, Dunk, Ferguson and Stoinis probably won't

Heazlett, Whiteman, Renshaw, Bancroft have good chances at semi-long careers, was gonna say Wade over Whiteman/Renshaw but I sort of hope he doesn't.

 

[Julian87]

I definitely wouldn't be calling Lyon a certainty for Perth after the fall out from the Sri Lanka tour.

 

[NUFAN]

For me.

No Tests for You

• Dean
• Dunk
• Cartwright
• Ferguson

I'm pretty confident about the first 3 not playing Test Cricket, not so much Ferguson. I looked at the 3 QLDers and doubt all 3 will play but have greater upside. Ferguson should be quite high on the current pecking order really, I just don't see him as a batsman who would become the ultimate pro in his later years like a Hussey, Rogers or Voges.

I have just bought some Webster stock at a bargin and i have an investment in Stoinis too, so naturally a little high on them.

 

[NZTailender]

Time to get a good vintage and crack it open.

 

[NUFAN]

I think SeamUp has a done good with the Aussie A batting lineup as I have picked Handscomb, Bancroft, Patterson and Head as my 4 who are likely to play 50 plus Tests.

I just think they are the classiest bats with the most talent to be able to bat in varying conditions. I did consider Renshaw (need to see if he kicks on from a great first season) and Maddinson and Lynn who I have previously predicted that they'd be successful test cricketers in the past, oh and Stoinis especially if the MMarsh experiment ever ends.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm seriously impressed that SeamUp actually knows that much about Australian domestic cricket. There's no way I'd be able to name even 2 or 3 teams worth of players from any other country let alone in some coherent order.

Genuine cricket fan

 

[91Jmay]

well **** that's even stupider than the point I thought you were making

Not only is it absurd to think young fast bowlers would be taking PEDs at all, let alone get away with it if they were (though I'd give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you were joking), but it's not even remotely true that to say that taking PEDs would enhance your risk of injury. In fact quite the opposite in most cases.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4026349/

All the academic research on this subject disagrees with you.

 

[NUFAN]

I definitely wouldn't be calling Lyon a certainty for Perth after the fall out from the Sri Lanka tour.

What fallout are you referring to? I can't see how we'd exclude him.

 

[TheJediBrah]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4026349/

All the academic research on this subject disagrees with you.

Did you even read any of that? It doesn't even begin to support anything that even remotely resembles what you're saying.

The closest it comes is this:

"PEDs, especially when used in combination with other analgesics such as opiates and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, may allow the athletes to engage in extremely intensive training exercises even in the face of previous injury, thus greatly increasing the risk of musculoskeletal injury."

Which is absolutely meaningless in the context of young fast bowlers whose workload is so thoroughly managed, and is barely even science, it's common sense. It's basically just saying "If you train too hard you're more likely to get injured".

 

[91Jmay]

wide variety of cardiovascular, psychiatric, metabolic, endocrine, neurologic, infectious, hepatic, renal, and musculoskeletal disorders

PED use is rife in all sports, particularly at youth level.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/news-blog/nfl-players-who-use-steroids-have-m-2009-02-20/

Also this research.

 

[TheJediBrah]

PED use is rife in all sports, particularly at youth level.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/news-blog/nfl-players-who-use-steroids-have-m-2009-02-20/

Also this research.

vvv

Did you even read any of that? It doesn't even begin to support anything that even remotely resembles what you're saying.

The closest it comes is this:

"PEDs, especially when used in combination with other analgesics such as opiates and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, may allow the athletes to engage in extremely intensive training exercises even in the face of previous injury, thus greatly increasing the risk of musculoskeletal injury."

Which is absolutely meaningless in the context of young fast bowlers whose workload is so thoroughly managed, and is barely even science, it's common sense. It's basically just saying "If you train too hard you're more likely to get injured".