• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Australian Test Selection Thread 2017 - 2018

TheJediBrah

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Maxwell playing in Aust only makes sense if you play all four quicks. I think you definitely need a seem bowling alrounder in Aust and given how poorly the front line spinners tend to perform in Aust, a part timer ala Maxwell would be next to pointless.

Picking him would be equal to going in with six bats and in that case there are better specialist bats. I do like Maxwell btw
Exactly, which they should be doing unless the pitch is a real turner. Having someone like James Pattinson sit out while Nathan Lyon plays is insane. If your best 4 bowlers are quicks, play 4 quicks. Especially if you've got a top 6 bat in Maxwell who can do a decent spin job (admittedly not as good as Lyon, but definitely serviceable).

Having Lyon in the team in this scenario just seems like a wasted spot. He offers nothing with the bat and not much more with the ball than Maxwell does. If you've got Starc, Cummins, Haze, Pattinson on a quick wicket then you don't need Lyon.

Cummins is just so natural at bowling isn't he. I mean you can toss the ball and trust him to be right on the mark (may it be vicious bouncer or perfect outswinger) even after six months without cricket
given that he's been injured most his career I'm gonna say . . . no?
 

Gob

Cricketer Of The Year
Exactly, which they should be doing unless the pitch is a real turner. Having someone like James Pattinson sit out while Nathan Lyon plays is insane. If your best 4 bowlers are quicks, play 4 quicks. Especially if you've got a top 6 bat in Maxwell who can do a decent spin job (admittedly not as good as Lyon, but definitely serviceable).

Having Lyon in the team in this scenario just seems like a wasted spot. He offers nothing with the bat and not much more with the ball than Maxwell does. If you've got Starc, Cummins, Haze, Pattinson on a quick wicket then you don't need Lyon.
Well you need a spinner for Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney. Lyon has a good record at the Gabba but its the sort of a venue where you won't necessarily miss him. I always want a spinner in the side but i just like to see the quartet for the **** of it. Garry will be straight back for Adelaide replacing the least performing quick.

given that he's been injured most his career I'm gonna say . . . no?
By bowling i mean actual bowling you know the process of hurling down a spherical object at a batsman. Not what happens afterwards
 

Gob

Cricketer Of The Year
Renshaw
Warner
Khawaja
Smith
Handscomb
Maxwell
Wade
Pattinson
Cummins
Starc
Hazlewood

Should be fun
 

Compton

International Debutant
What a ****ing nuisance line-up to bowl out as well.

Renshaw, Khawaja, Smith, and Handscomb grind you into the dirt, then you need to deal with a tail that has Starc at 10 :laugh:
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Really don't see the sense in picking a team without a specialist spinner unless a) you don't have a decent spinning option, like occasionally happens with England or SA (or Australia between Warne and Lyon), or b) the pitch is just one you're totally sure won't take spin. Lyon has had a significant hand in winning a lot of tests for Australia in the past 50 or so tests. The home series vs India would have been dicey without him, and he was big in the last home Ashes series. He's also bowling well right now, just had his best international tour by far, albeit after a weaker summer.

If you're picking Starc, Pattinson and Cummins in the same team you need a reliable all-rounder in the top 6 who can bowl a fair number of overs. If someone breaks down, the strain on the rest of the attack is significant. If your attack was full of McGrath, Anderson type workhorses it might be a bit different, but you're playing three injury prone, short spell oriented fast bowlers, and opening yourself up to a situation like Marcus North bowling 44 overs at The Oval in 2009. I just don't get why people want to do that.
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
A strategy for camp Nev..

Australia goes 4 quicks at the gabba and make Wade captain. Wade gets done because of slow overrates and the quick who gets injured gets replaced by Lyon for the second Test. Smith returns as captain.

Or I guess camp Nev would rather just pick Nev.
 

Compton

International Debutant
Really don't see the sense in picking a team without a specialist spinner unless a) you don't have a decent spinning option, like occasionally happens with England or SA (or Australia between Warne and Lyon), or b) the pitch is just one you're totally sure won't take spin. Lyon has had a significant hand in winning a lot of tests for Australia in the past 50 or so tests. The home series vs India would have been dicey without him, and he was big in the last home Ashes series. He's also bowling well right now, just had his best international tour by far, albeit after a weaker summer.

If you're picking Starc, Pattinson and Cummins in the same team you need a reliable all-rounder in the top 6 who can bowl a fair number of overs. If someone breaks down, the strain on the rest of the attack is significant. If your attack was full of McGrath, Anderson type workhorses it might be a bit different, but you're playing three injury prone, short spell oriented fast bowlers, and opening yourself up to a situation like Marcus North bowling 44 overs at The Oval in 2009. I just don't get why people want to do that.
I don't disagree with much of your post, but in the absence of a viable all-rounder to play at 6, what do you do?

Australia either need to leave one of Starc/Cummins/Patto on the bench, or play a number 6 who isn't good enough.

I'd just leave Patto benched for the time being.
 

TheJediBrah

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Why is everyone so intent on playing a specialist spinner when we don't have one who is anywhere as good as our 4th best quick and one of our top 6 should be Maxwell anyway

I just don't get it
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Because the question isn't about the strength of the individual bowlers. The question is about which attack is better: Haze/Starc/Cummins/Pattinson or Haze/Starc/Cummins/Lyon (or Pattinson in there for someone if you prefer). Maxwell is a handy bowler but he's no replacement for Lyon, and the ability to bowl a lot of overs, keep the runs down, exploit varying conditions etc is hugely important. Like I said, consider the 2009 Ashes. Australia dropped Hauritz for Stuart Clark for Headingley. Is Clark a better bowler than Hauritz? No question. So were Johnson, Siddle and Hilf at the time. That's a pretty damn good 4 man pace attack. But it still arguably cost Australia the series that they didn't pick a spinner for the 5th test. They ended up bowling Marcus North from one end anyway, and much like in that situation, in any situation where Maxwell is bowling a lot of overs you're going to want to have Lyon in the side instead. Saying "well if there's turn we have Maxwell" is like saying "if it seams we have Henriques" or something, it's ignoring the massive gulf between a quality specialist and a decent fill-in bowler.

An all pace attack works fine when there's no other option, or when there's life for the bowlers and they can knock a side over before the second new ball gets old consistently. If there's turn, the pitch is flat, there's a partnership to be broken etc you want options. As long as you have a quality spinner and the pitch is anything other than a straight up seamer, it's a no brainer to pick one IMO, and Lyon has been incredibly useful year after year. It's crazy to me to suggest Australia would have been better off without him in previous summers. I don't see why this year would be any different.

edit: That said I do think there might be occasions when you'd want to leave out a spinner, but it's a rare event predicated on very specific conditions. The vast majority of home pitches, anywhere in the subcontinent or the West Indies etc you're going to want Lyon.
 
Last edited:

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Faaip spot on once more.

I could only see Lyon being left out of a WACA test or a Bellerive greentop. And only for the fab 4 bowling lineup (or possibly three of the fab 4 plus Bird/Sayers pending injuries).

Australia's fast bowling stocks right now appear to have the same depth that our batting did between 95 and 07. Potentially great players are going to go to waste but at least they're all in with a sniff because fast bowlers are the most likely players to get injured or fall off a cliff (see Gillespie in 04 - 05).

Sayers must cry himself to sleep at night with the season he's had, knowing he's no better than 6th in line right now.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Sayers I could see getting a go in the next Ashes tour maybe, if he's still fit and bowling well in a couple of years. Or obviously if there's a bunch of injuries he could come in any time. A lot of Australia's express pace spearhead type bowlers have underperformed in English conditions compared to guys like Siddle and Hilfenhaus that can exploit friendly conditions and are harder to score off. Obviously someone like Ryan Harris is ideal, but assuming everyone was fit and in form I can imagine Sayers being potentially better than one of the Starc/Cummins/Pattinson group in England. Especially for attack variety.

But yeah there's a reasonable chance he'll never play a test which is certainly unusual for someone putting up the numbers he has the last few seasons.
 

burr

State Vice-Captain
You're all going to put the mockers on Patto and Cummins with this talk of their availability.
 

Tangles

International Vice-Captain
I think Nev is as far away from a recall now as when he was dropped. He shouldn't be based in his Shield batting and glove work but the selectors don't value glove work. Someone in the team really likes Wade. Might be even be Smith or Boof. Wade didn't do much to return anyway. They wanted Wade in the team. So it's going to take some epic level **** for him to get dropped. Have a bang average series will be enough for Wade with having the inside running. His keeping was still poor with some important drops but team management dgaf.

The best way to get him out is for a young guy to gun it. Carey had a good season stat wise. How does he look behind the stumps?
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
I honestly think what Nevill needs to do to get recalled is score quickly. They want aggressive lower-order batting from keepers, so they can counter-attack when the team is in trouble, since there was so much success with that from Gilchrist and Haddin. I think Nevill had too many innings where he batted for a fair while and did pretty well but didn't make a century where someone like Wade would have, batting for the same period. There's a concern about running out of partners which is vaguely legitimate, like Wade's issue in his most recent innings, but mostly it's just a theoretical worry. He had an innings really early on where he made 60 off 150 or something when Australia were setting a target in the Ashes, and I think it was always an issue from there. His career SR is the lowest of any Australian I can remember.

Not entirely fair but I think it's that combined with maybe some personal issues that led to Wade being back in the team. He's also older than Wade so I can see them looking elsewhere if Wade gets dropped again, though weight of runs might make the difference for Nevill if it's soon enough.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Once again I think you're right Faaip.

It's even more of a shame that Hartley wasn't picked when Nevill was dropped. Doing so would have given the selectors a year or two to determine who the next in line was going to be.
 

TheJediBrah

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Nevill genuinely didn't seem to be able to make that step up to Test cricket, batting wise. He's dominated the Shield before and after his Test stint though. He might just be one of those guys who doesn't handle the higher quality bowling/pressure of international cricket, whereas there are other guys who thrive on it and manage to do just as well or even better as they did in domestic cricket.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Nevill genuinely didn't seem to be able to make that step up to Test cricket, batting wise. He's dominated the Shield before and after his Test stint though. He might just be one of those guys who doesn't handle the higher quality bowling/pressure of international cricket, whereas there are other guys who thrive on it and manage to do just as well or even better as they did in domestic cricket.
He wasn't exactly given a long run though and was batting behind the worst #6 batsman Australia has ever had for that entire time.
 

Top