Australian Test Selection Thread 2017 - 2018

[The Battlers Prince]

Holland has been tearing up the shield in recent years and he's certainly not old.

For how long has this tearing up been happening? I thought, SOk was the only one outside Fawad who had?

 

[Midwinter]

Last season

Spinners Holland (3rd) 42@ 21, Somerville (5th)37@23, Zampa (11th) 27@32, Agar (25th) 16@27- only 4 games but took 10 in one game.

Holland 3rd overall wicket taker. He had a good finish to the previous year as well.

 

[Tangles]

Holland is 2 years younger and has played Tests so Sok isn't hindering his progress. He isn't in the squad so it's a moot point anyway.

I don't agree with axing Sok for off field stuff. That's what fines are for. The selectors then didn't replace him with the next best spinner. They picked Agar for reasons we are all guessing at. He's a project like Mmarsh was.

 

[honestbharani]

Will this be a likely starting XI for the first Ashes test?


Renshaw
Warner
Khawaja
Smith (c)
Handscomb
Maxwell
Wade (wk)
Cummins
Starc
Pattinson
Hazlewood

 

[Tangles]

I would expect Lyon to be playing and one of the quicks sitting out.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Come on.

No they can't because he's not good enough to take advantage of conditions on offer. Barely gets bowled even in ODIs any more.

I'm just stating the facts here tbh, not my opinion. If you disagree with that it's not my concern. You can only disregard statistics to a certain degree to maintain any accuracy to your statements.

Edit: I mean come on man, if Agar is such a better batsman than O'Keefe why does he have an outright lower FC batting average. Same story with Maxwell's bowling. Him not being bowled in ODIs has no relevance whatsoever, and is it's own issue.

I'm not saying he's better or even an absolute equal of Agar as a bowler (even though they have equivalent FC bowling averages), but the difference is no where near enough to warrant Agar's selection over him. Unlike their batting where they are not even in the same discussion.

You really need to revisit the facts

 

[Top_Cat]

Here's a couple of facts, Agar has almost as many 50's, more FC tons and most of O'Keefes runs in just over half the number of games. Their averages being similar is the only thing you can hang your hat on but besides which, just need to watch them both set-up at the crease to see who's a better bat. As for the bowling, clearly there are outside factors at play. I'm no fan of Agar but I can see what is a look to the future, notwithstanding The Mac's point about picking a tweaker on potential.

The point with Maxwell is that just because a deck is spinning, doesn't mean he's instantly a wicket-taker. The idea that a turner will compensate for a part-timer's deficiencies as a reason to pick them is a myth that needs to die.

 

[Burgey]

I would expect Lyon to be playing and one of the quicks sitting out.

Yeah, I'm hoping they might have finally realised the funky early series dropping of Lyon for a makeshift replacement has never worked.

 

[vcs]

Teams fall into the trap of seeing a greenish, pace bowling friendly wicket and thinking they need four seamers to blast the opposition out for <150 inside 40 overs.

On a pitch where 250-300 or so is a good score, 4 quicks are unlikely to accomplish what 3 can't. Often bringing on a spin change-up on such tracks can buy wickets with batsmen thinking they've finally got a reprieve.

 

[Shady Slim]

while agar could be a look to the future or whatever i just... don't see it y'know, almost certain that if it weren't for the absurd innings he wouldn't be picked...has struck me as a "fad" name that they always throw up when they want to get edgy and change ****

 

[TheJediBrah]

Here's a couple of facts, Agar has almost as many 50's, more FC tons and most of O'Keefes runs in just over half the number of games. Their averages being similar is the only thing you can hang your hat on but besides which, just need to watch them both set-up at the crease to see who's a better bat. As for the bowling, clearly there are outside factors at play. I'm no fan of Agar but I can see what is a look to the future, notwithstanding The Mac's point about picking a tweaker on potential.

The point with Maxwell is that just because a deck is spinning, doesn't mean he's instantly a wicket-taker. The idea that a turner will compensate for a part-timer's deficiencies as a reason to pick them is a myth that needs to die.

You say that like it's a bad thing. What else matters other than how many runs they make? How they "set up at the crease"? Laughable. I'm not saying that O'Keefe is a better bat than Agar. But even if Agar is a better batsman (which is very debatable), the difference between their batting ability is nowhere near as much as the difference between their bowling.

And you can say the exact same thing about Maxwell v Agar re. bowling. The "only thing you can hang your hat on" if selecting Agar ahead of either of those guys is potential. Because you're trying to set up for the future. Which is fine, but let's not pretend for a second that Agar being selected on merit ahead of either of those guys would be anything but pure idiocy.

while agar could be a look to the future or whatever i just... don't see it y'know, almost certain that if it weren't for the absurd innings he wouldn't be picked...has struck me as a "fad" name that they always throw up when they want to get edgy and change ****

I see things similarly. He's done nothing to warrant being elevated above many other players in the Shield, let alone making the Test side.

 

[Tangles]

The lack of consistency is the big thing we see from the selectors. Cartwright gets a dayboo, gets dropped, then Stoinis goes to India as a replacement, then Cartwright is back in the squad. I hope he knows what they want from him because it's not clear to us outside the team.

 

[Red]

Cartright's selection and dropping was weird. Was selected, didn't do much wrong, and was dropped.

Forget the all-rounder thing, Cartwight is a top order batman, and probably the best young batsman in the country.

IMO he should play another season in the Shield, batting at #3, before batting there for Aus.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Cartright's selection and dropping was weird. Was selected, didn't do much wrong, and was dropped.

Forget the all-rounder thing, Cartwight is a top order batman, and probably the best young batsman in the country.

IMO he should play another season in the Shield, batting at #3, before batting there for Aus.

Aus selectors have a habit of picking players in unnatural roles. Steve Smith, Cameron White as specialist spinners come to mind.

Cartwright is not going to be a great bowler, he'll be handy for a few tight overs at best.

 

[NUFAN]

Red Hill, are you deliberately taking the piss with the way you spell Hilton Cartwright?

 

[Dan]

I could kind of understand leaving Cartwright out of the India tour on the basis that he's not great vs spin...but then they pick him for Bangladesh.

 

[Tangles]

Maybe they don't expect the tour to happen so squad is more of an indicator of what they're think for the Ashes.

 

[Starfighter]

So would you reckon they might pick Cartwright in the allrounder role and only play three specialist quicks for the Ashes?

 

[social]

Maybe they don't expect the tour to happen so squad is more of an indicator of what they're think for the Ashes.

I'd say so

I'll believe the tour to Bangladesh is happening when I see them playing there

 

[TheJediBrah]

So would you reckon they might pick Cartwright in the allrounder role and only play three specialist quicks for the Ashes?

Can we just not have an "allrounder role"? It really hasn't worked out for us, like, ever.

6 bats, 1 wk, 4 bowlers. If one of the 6 bats can bowl a bit (Maxwell, maybe even Cartwright) then great.