• 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

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The thing about Nevill is that he had an ok Ashes with a couple of half centuries, was OK at home vs NZ with a half century, didn't get a chance to cash in vs the west indies, had a couple of starts against NZ in NZ, was dire vs Sri Lanka on his first tour to the sub continent and then made a valuable, gritty half century vs South Africa.

If he'd been allowed to cash in against the Windies like every other batsman in the team his average would look much better.

Given the small sample size (23 innings) and the fact that he was never really in a position to downhill ski for his runs (he made 7* in his one innings vs the WI) I don't think you can make too much of his overall average. You can say that he was awful in Sri Lanka but not much else.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Looking more at Nevill's record I wonder if the selectors dropped him due to his perceived lack of ability to play spin. Certainly the Sri Lankan experience must have played into their minds. Of his 20 dismissals, 9 were to spin bowlers (Herath got him 3 times out of 6).
 

TheJediBrah

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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.
He was given plenty of a run, and he consistently underwhelmed. And if anything having a **** no.6 gave him more of an opportunity to build innings' which he largely failed to do.

First half of his run he didn't get a lot of opportunity with Aus declaring all the time but the last half he came in in tough situations with plenty of time to build a reputation and simply didn't.

The thing about Nevill is that he had an ok Ashes with a couple of half centuries, was OK at home vs NZ with a half century, didn't get a chance to cash in vs the west indies, had a couple of starts against NZ in NZ, was dire vs Sri Lanka on his first tour to the sub continent and then made a valuable, gritty half century vs South Africa.

If he'd been allowed to cash in against the Windies like every other batsman in the team his average would look much better.

Given the small sample size (23 innings) and the fact that he was never really in a position to downhill ski for his runs (he made 7* in his one innings vs the WI) I don't think you can make too much of his overall average. You can say that he was awful in Sri Lanka but not much else.
you can't just pick out his best performances as if it's proof that he did well. He had a lot of **** performances in between and his average of low-20s is about right for how he performed and the effect he had on the team's results
 
Last edited:

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
He was given plenty of a run, and he consistently underwhelmed. And if anything having a **** no.6 gave him more of an opportunity to build innings' which he largely failed to do.

First half of his run he didn't get a lot of opportunity with Aus declaring all the time but the last half he came in in tough situations with plenty of time to build a reputation and simply didn't.



you can't just pick out his best performances as if it's proof that he did well. He had a lot of **** performances in between and his average of low-20s is about right for how he performed and the effect he had on the team's results
He was not given a long enough run to prove anything. He was consistently not the worst batsman in Australia's lineup statistically except in Sri Lanka. He didn't set the world on fire but he wasn't awful except in Sri Lanka (which made up over 1/4 of his innings). Take Sri Lanka out of his record and he averages close to 30.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Honestly, look at Wade's record. He has filled his boots only against the West Indies and Sri Lanka at home. Nevill has a better record than he does against South Africa and Wade's average of 15 vs Pakistan and 25 vs India is nothing at all to write home about. Nevill never had an easy home series to pad his stats.

The only reason to consider Wade's batting to be better than Nevill's is if you consider Nevill to be overly weak against spin.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
And the fact is that Nevill is the better keeper by far. If every dropped catch is valued at roughly 30 runs, Nevill would be miles ahead of Wade. It could be argued that Wade's drop off Pujara cost Australia the series.
 

TheJediBrah

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Honestly, look at Wade's record. He has filled his boots only against the West Indies and Sri Lanka at home. Nevill has a better record than he does against South Africa and Wade's average of 15 vs Pakistan and 25 vs India is nothing at all to write home about. Nevill never had an easy home series to pad his stats.

The only reason to consider Wade's batting to be better than Nevill's is if you consider Nevill to be overly weak against spin.
I'm not advocating Wade, not anymore. But going back to Nevill might not be the best option.

If only Hartley was recognised a bit earlier and/or hadn't just had enough this year
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
He was given plenty of a run, and he consistently underwhelmed. And if anything having a **** no.6 gave him more of an opportunity to build innings' which he largely failed to do.
That wasn't the point though, especially at the time he was dropped.

If they were dropping players to strengthen the batting, MMarsh should've been the absolute first to go. Plus Voges was floundering as was Burns. Nevill would rightly feel aggrieved that the selectors didn't try to get the top six sorted before dropping the number 7 for lack of runs.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yes, Hartley should have been picked when Nevill was dropped. I'd he'd been picked it would have given the selectors a couple of years to decide on who they wanted long term. Wade is awful and will lose us more games than he wins.

I kind of view Nevill a bit like Saha. Very good with the gloves but not great with the bat. Still the best guy for the job in tests.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
That wasn't the point though, especially at the time he was dropped.

If they were dropping players to strengthen the batting, MMarsh should've been the absolute first to go. Plus Voges was floundering as was Burns. Nevill would rightly feel aggrieved that the selectors didn't try to get the top six sorted before dropping the number 7 for lack of runs.
They had 3 batsmen who weren't making enough runs who they dropped. They shouldn't have dropped the keeper as well.
 

TheJediBrah

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
That wasn't the point though, especially at the time he was dropped.

If they were dropping players to strengthen the batting, MMarsh should've been the absolute first to go. Plus Voges was floundering as was Burns. Nevill would rightly feel aggrieved that the selectors didn't try to get the top six sorted before dropping the number 7 for lack of runs.
That logic makes no sense. If the keeper is under-performing and there is a better option (or you think there is) you don't refrain from dropping him because "other batsman are failing as well".

Of course Mitch Marsh shouldn't have been in the team but it makes no sense to just never drop anyone because there's someone else in the team who's bad

They had 3 batsmen who weren't making enough runs who they dropped. They shouldn't have dropped the keeper as well.
Well the mass changes worked out pretty well for them. 5 straight losses before, 5 straight wins after.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
But Nevill wasn't that bad. He was awful in the subcontinent but he was decent at home. He'd hit a 60* trying to save the test just one game before.
 

Compton

International Debutant
Nevill wasn't posting the sort of numbers that CA clearly want from their keeper.

NZ: 45 runs @ 22.5
SL: 51 runs @ 8.5
ENG: 143 @ 23.83
AUS: 229 @ 32.71

His record in Australia was alright, but Australia aren't going to pick a keeper batting so poorly.
 

TheJediBrah

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
But Nevill wasn't that bad. He was awful in the subcontinent but he was decent at home. He'd hit a 60* trying to save the test just one game before.
That's a different discussion. IMO his output wasn't international standard, but he still may have been the best we had at the time.
 

The Battlers Prince

International Vice-Captain
Alex Carey might be a shout, his batting is on the improve and his keeping is as good as I've seen from someone so young.
What's Whiteman go? Why didn't he play after the big bash?
 

The Battlers Prince

International Vice-Captain
I haven't seen much of him tbh, so I must defer to you there.
If Healy, Seccombe or Hartley stick around and help Peirson out next year it would be great for him.
 

Tangles

International Vice-Captain
Might be a god idea to get Carey in the odi team to get some exposure to internationals.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
That logic makes no sense. If the keeper is under-performing and there is a better option (or you think there is) you don't refrain from dropping him because "other batsman are failing as well".

Of course Mitch Marsh shouldn't have been in the team but it makes no sense to just never drop anyone because there's someone else in the team who's bad
It makes sense if you see my point was Nevill wasn't under performing. As stated above, 2 tests before Nevill had made 60*. The top six was malfunctioning and he was being made to come in and bat in situations that didn't suit him at all. And then he was dropped for a guy who is a lesser keeper and has a lower FC batting average.

It remains a fact that Nevill has a better career FC average than all of Callum Ferguson, Shaun Marsh, Mitch Marsh and Matthew Wade. I'm not suggesting for a moment that he is necessarily a better batsman than any of them, but he has proven over time an ability to make runs at FC level, and shouldn't have been dropped for lack of run output at the stage he was.
 

Top