Australia Test squad - 2014

[The_Reaper]

Based on the fact that Maxwell having a better average and a better conversion rate at FC level? Maxwell>Ferguson, every day of the week.

Based on the fact that Maxwell is a ****ing idiot

 

[Seagrave_Holmes]

Based on the fact that Maxwell is a ******* idiot

Just waiting for ethdog to tell you about how good Maxwell was last season while completely failing to acknowledge that the runs he scored were from lower order slogging after the bush rangers had already **** the bed and had no chance of winning.

 

[eth-dog]

Just waiting for ethdog to tell you about how good Maxwell was last season while completely failing to acknowledge that the runs he scored were from lower order slogging after the bush rangers had already **** the bed and had no chance of winning.

Ah, the bloke who can't handle being wrong so whinges in other threads.

 

[Seagrave_Holmes]

Ah, the bloke who can't handle being wrong so whinges in other threads.

Sorry can't recall what I was wrong about, care to elaborate? Or is it just another deflection instead of actually trying to back your ludicrous claims? I forgot that all your opinions should be read as fact.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Sayers should be an Asia+England specialist.

Seems to go alright in Australia...

 

[eth-dog]

Sorry can't recall what I was wrong about, care to elaborate? Or is it just another deflection instead of actually trying to back your ludicrous claims? I forgot that all your opinions should be read as fact.

I remember you saying Maxwell had never had a good shield season (even though he made the shield team of the year last year), dismissed that he was a good player of spin, even though Marsh had said that's why he was selected and believed that the Maxwell experiment had failed, despite batting in the tail in half of his test innings', after 3 tests. He is one of the most talented players in Australian Cricket yet you want to dismiss him after 3 tests when he's still got 8-10 years left in him.

 

[Seagrave_Holmes]

I remember you saying Maxwell had never had a good shield season (even though he made the shield team of the year last year)

Statistically speaking, last shield season was his best season where he scored 544 runs at an average 45 in 12 innings. If you take away the slogged scores (94 runs @ S.R 98.94 with and 127 runs @ S.R 125.5) from the woeful match Vic played against NSW when he came in at 4/77 in the first innings and 5/5 in the second, he scored 323 runs in 9 digs averaging 35 runs. Hardly inspiring stuff. Claiming he is good simply because he made the shield team of the year is laughable. Seriously, just think about it.

dismissed that he was a good player of spin, even though Marsh had said that's why he was selected

He sure has a strange way of showing his prowess at playing the spinners, out to spin 5/6 innings at test level for an overall average of 9.75. You also fail to acknowledge that Marsh also said that he was the most undeserving player picked for this tour. To quote Brydon Coverdale on Maxwell's dismissal in the first innings: "he played across the line, against the spin, closed the face and was bowled". What an ugly dismissal.

believed that the Maxwell experiment had failed despite batting in the tail in half of his test innings', after 3 tests

Pretty obvious that it has. What a poor argument, just because you come in down the order at 7/8/9 etc doesn't mean you are immune from playing a proper test match innings, why don't you think about Peter Siddle's dual 50's last year against India, or Starc's 99 also against India or the numerous knocks by Johnson over the years. Maxwell has shown that he has no appreciation for the match situation and doesn't have the temperament for it and may never.

He is one of the most talented players in Australian Cricket yet you want to dismiss him after 3 tests when he's still got 8-10 years left in him.

Not disputing that he isn't talented, but talent simply isn't just how good his hand eye coordination is or how far he can hit the ball, for tests batsmen obviously need to play long innings, show concentration, know when to knuckle down and see off the threat and demonstrate proper shot selection.
For these reasons I can happily watch him slog in the pyjama cricket formats but not in tests.

 

[eth-dog]

Statistically speaking, last shield season was his best season where he scored 544 runs at an average 45 in 12 innings. If you take away the slogged scores (94 runs @ S.R 98.94 with and 127 runs @ S.R 125.5) from the woeful match Vic played against NSW when he came in at 4/77 in the first innings and 5/5 in the second, he scored 323 runs in 9 digs averaging 35 runs. Hardly inspiring stuff. Claiming he is good simply because he made the shield team of the year is laughable. Seriously, just think about it.



He sure has a strange way of showing his prowess at playing the spinners, out to spin 5/6 innings at test level for an overall average of 9.75. You also fail to acknowledge that Marsh also said that he was the most undeserving player picked for this tour. To quote Brydon Coverdale on Maxwell's dismissal in the first innings: "he played across the line, against the spin, closed the face and was bowled". What an ugly dismissal.



Pretty obvious that it has. What a poor argument, just because you come in down the order at 7/8/9 etc doesn't mean you are immune from playing a proper test match innings, why don't you think about Peter Siddle's dual 50's last year against India, or Starc's 99 also against India or the numerous knocks by Johnson over the years. Maxwell has shown that he has no appreciation for the match situation and doesn't have the temperament for it and may never.


Not disputing that he isn't talented, but talent simply isn't just how good his hand eye coordination is or how far he can hit the ball, for tests batsmen obviously need to play long innings, show concentration, know when to knuckle down and see off the threat and demonstrate proper shot selection.
For these reasons I can happily watch him slog in the pyjama cricket formats but not in tests.

This post proves you're close to the biggest dimwit who's ever posted on here. Congratulations.

 

[Torz]

Why does high strike rate necessarily = "slogged scores". I've seen guys play classically at better than a run a ball and I've seen guys try to slog and only manage a 50 strike rate.

 

[Super Hans]

I've got no opinion on Maxwell one way or the other, but to not include a 94 and 127 in his average is just stupid. Runs are runs.

I'm sure as hell Misbah's ton the other night isn't coming out of his average.

 

[Seagrave_Holmes]

This post proves you're close to the biggest dimwit who's ever posted on here. Congratulations.

This kind of post makes you look childish and immature. Good to see you're still in denial about Maxwell and completely devoid of any kind of reasoning other than your own. I would add you to the ignore list but your posts are too amusing for me not to do so. Ill leave it at that because you're clearly incapable of carrying any line of argument.

 

[Hellgood]

Has Doolan really been so terrible that he now has a black mark through his name? IMO he hasn't. I'm not a huge fan, but he showed enough against a top notch bowling attack in South Africa that he at least has something to offer at test level. Looked awful in the first test against spin, but I doubt any of the alternatives would have had much more success.

I think Shaun Marsh is the most likely of all those currently in contention for the role to succeed. Obviously rating guys on their best work is fraught with danger considering how bad things turn for him when he's out of touch, but he has shown that he can make big hundreds at test level.

Having said that, I would be very interested to see how Smith would go at number three. Seems a pretty natural fit and would allow a slightly less stressful transition for the lesser experienced player to fit in at five.

 

[Seagrave_Holmes]

Has Doolan really been so terrible that he now has a black mark through his name? IMO he hasn't. I'm not a huge fan, but he showed enough against a top notch bowling attack in South Africa that he at least has something to offer at test level. Looked awful in the first test against spin, but I doubt any of the alternatives would have had much more success.

I think Shaun Marsh is the most likely of all those currently in contention for the role to succeed. Obviously rating guys on their best work is fraught with danger considering how bad things turn for him when he's out of touch, but he has shown that he can make big hundreds at test level.

Having said that, I would be very interested to see how Smith would go at number three. Seems a pretty natural fit and would allow a slightly less stressful transition for the lesser experienced player to fit in at five.

So much this, constantly throwing new players in at 3 is not helping at all.

 

[Hellgood]

So much this, constantly throwing new players in at 3 is not helping at all.

I could initially see the logic in Arthur and Clarke wanting Ponting to take a bit of a back seat role and give a bloke a chance to make the role his own, but it's now pretty evident that this methodology hasn't been a success. Marsh had some extremely impressive successes and cringeworthy failures there, but is faced with the difficulty of overcoming a lack of continuity due to being frequently injured. I thought Doolan made a good fist of it in South Africa and made a ton in the tour game, but it only took one bad performance and he's now apparently gone. Cannot even begin to fathom the logic behind Maxwell batting at first drop. I wasn't completely against Maxwell's inclusion for the second test given Lyon's failures on the subcontinent, but how anyone could have ever thought that he'd be a successful number three is beyond me.

 

[Seagrave_Holmes]

I could initially see the logic in Arthur and Clarke wanting Ponting to take a bit of a back seat role and give a bloke a chance to make the role his own, but it's now pretty evident that this methodology hasn't been a success. Marsh had some extremely impressive successes and cringeworthy failures there, but is faced with the difficulty of overcoming a lack of continuity due to being frequently injured. I thought Doolan made a good fist of it in South Africa and made a ton in the tour game, but it only took one bad performance and he's now apparently gone. Cannot even begin to fathom the logic behind Maxwell batting at first drop. I wasn't completely against Maxwell's inclusion for the second test given Lyon's failures on the subcontinent, but how anyone could have ever thought that he'd be a successful number three is beyond me.

Who do you think should bat at 3 in the first test coming up? I think Watson will get the nod with Marsh at 6. A lot would argue that you should have your best batsmen at 3 so in our case that would be Warner on current form but he has done so well opening it would be hard to change a good thing. It really is a selection headache.

 

[Hellgood]

Who do you think should bat at 3 in the first test coming up? I think Watson will get the nod with Marsh at 6. A lot would argue that you should have your best batsmen at 3 so in our case that would be Warner on current form but he has done so well opening it would be hard to change a good thing. It really is a selection headache.

Yeah that's what I expect to see. I think it's silly to discard Doolan off the back of his first terrible performance for another candidate from outside the team, but I would consider Watson to be the incumbent number three so can see the logic if such a scenario plays out. Having said that Watson has hardly been setting the world on fire in the role either! So I think that promoting Smith to three would be the best way to go. That leaves the difficult decision of deciding what to do with the rest of the order. Is it as simple as fitting Watson in at five? Or do we have to make the call between he and Mitch Marsh? I don't think Doolan is well suited to batting five, so we'd need to subsequently bring in someone - my preference would be for Shaun Marsh, but claims could be staked for Cameron White, Adam Voges, Callum Ferguson and Tom Cooper.

 

[Seagrave_Holmes]

Yeah that's what I expect to see. I think it's silly to discard Doolan off the back of his first terrible performance for another candidate from outside the team, but I would consider Watson to be the incumbent number three so can see the logic if such a scenario plays out. Having said that Watson has hardly been setting the world on fire in the role either! So I think that promoting Smith to three would be the best way to go. That leaves the difficult decision of deciding what to do with the rest of the order. Is it as simple as fitting Watson in at five? Or do we have to make the call between he and Mitch Marsh? I don't think Doolan is well suited to batting five, so we'd need to subsequently bring in someone - my preference would be for Shaun Marsh, but claims could be staked for Cameron White, Adam Voges, Callum Ferguson and Tom Cooper.

Even though Watto hasn't been setting the world on fire at 3, the sad truth is that he is statistically our best performing number 3 since the great man retired, IIRC Watto is averaging a shade over 40 in that spot. I would probably rather see Watson come out 3 against the new ball if we lose a wicket early than Smith who would be better coming in against the spinners with the old ball. I couldn't care less about Doolan to be honest, I mean he was even struggling to even rotate the strike in South Africa and the first test in Dubai. Just didn't show enough in his chances for mine. However, he will be forever remembered for those two sublime catches at short leg.

 

[bird_man]

Has Doolan really been so terrible that he now has a black mark through his name? IMO he hasn't. I'm not a huge fan, but he showed enough against a top notch bowling attack in South Africa that he at least has something to offer at test level. Looked awful in the first test against spin, but I doubt any of the alternatives would have had much more success.

I think Shaun Marsh is the most likely of all those currently in contention for the role to succeed. Obviously rating guys on their best work is fraught with danger considering how bad things turn for him when he's out of touch, but he has shown that he can make big hundreds at test level.

Having said that, I would be very interested to see how Smith would go at number three. Seems a pretty natural fit and would allow a slightly less stressful transition for the lesser experienced player to fit in at five.

He made one score over 50 in 8 innings. Not only that, he averages only 36 at FC level, hardly inspiring. I'd prefer Hughes gets another go, but I'm expecting Watson.

 

[Black Diamond]

I'd be going with this for the Gabba:

Rogers - Has some haters, but picks himself.
Warner - Picks himself.
Watson - It's been suggested he will only be considered for 6. Fine, but I'd still pick him at 3. There is no better option.
Smith - Picks himself. Number four has historically been our hardest position to fill. I see Smith as a natural middle order player and would move him to four now while he is in form.
Clarke - Out of form, blah, blah, blah. He will be picked and rightly so.
White - I believe of all the fringe options (Ferguson, Doolan, Hughes) that White is the most likely to perform at test level irrespective of his FC record.
Haddin - I could be convinced to go with Whiteman, but for now no change. I'm reluctant to dismiss a guy for playing badly after a tour when almost everyone struggled.
Johnson, Siddle, Bird, Lyon - Johnson and Lyon are obvious. Based on who is fit at the moment (who knows, right as I type this out CA could be preparing to announce another injury to a fast bowler) those are the four I'd pick.

These are my thoughts at the moment. They are subject to change in the coming weeks. Changes could include and are not limited to Doolan, Whiteman, M Marsh, Voges, McDonald and O'Keefe.

 

[bird_man]

I'd be going with this for the Gabba:

Rogers - Has some haters, but picks himself.
Warner - Picks himself.
Watson - It's been suggested he will only be considered for 6. Fine, but I'd still pick him at 3. There is no better option.
Smith - Picks himself. Number four has historically been our hardest position to fill. I see Smith as a natural middle order player and would move him to four now while he is in form.
Clarke - Out of form, blah, blah, blah. He will be picked and rightly so.
White - I believe of all the fringe options (Ferguson, Doolan, Hughes) that White is the most likely to perform at test level irrespective of his FC record.
Haddin - I could be convinced to go with Whiteman, but for now no change. I'm reluctant to dismiss a guy for playing badly after a tour when almost everyone struggled.
Johnson, Siddle, Bird, Lyon - Johnson and Lyon are obvious. Based on who is fit at the moment (who knows, right as I type this out CA could be preparing to announce another injury to a fast bowler) those are the four I'd pick.

These are my thoughts at the moment. They are subject to change in the coming weeks. Changes could include and are not limited to Doolan, Whiteman, M Marsh, Voges, McDonald and O'Keefe.

Is Bird fit? Did not play for Tassie. I like White but I can't see him getting picked, especially considering they didn't allow the T20 players to play Shield cricket so he won't have played a game before the side is announced.

 

[The_Reaper]

Is Bird fit? Did not play for Tassie. I like White but I can't see him getting picked, especially considering they didn't allow the T20 players to play Shield cricket so he won't have played a game before the side is announced.

No shield game for Rogers as well.

 

[western royboy]

No shield game for Rogers as well.

Rogers is colour blind, he's not going to be able to see a pink ball at night. Again a great time to schedule an experiment by CA.

 

[Black Diamond]

Is Bird fit? Did not play for Tassie. I like White but I can't see him getting picked, especially considering they didn't allow the T20 players to play Shield cricket so he won't have played a game before the side is announced.

I really don't know if Bird is fit. I know Johnson and Siddle are ok, and that is it.

Also, it looks like Cummins is playing tonight (forgive me, I struggle to follow this rubbish). I wonder if this will further bolster my theory that T20 cricket is causing our injuries to fast bowlers?

 

[eth-dog]

I think it's almost inevitable that unless Harris is fit, Starc will be the 3rd seamer.

 

[The_Reaper]

I think it's almost inevitable that unless Harris is fit, Starc will be the 3rd seamer.

I'd hope not. Surely you'd stick with Siddle and give Coulter-Nile or Hazlewood a go.

Starc's not near test standard at the moment