Australian 3 ODIs vs India (14th, 17th, 19th)

[Jez1974]

Maybe I'm optimistic but with the top 4 as it is (quality with two "grafters") I'm more inclined to give the other two spots to players who can go from the first ball and I think Marsh and Maxwell are the best at it in Australian cricket at the moment. Maxwell is definitely flukey but I think the team needs it on balance. I think Labuschagne makes a big difference to the team line-up. Him and Smith will be locks the next 4 years as elite grafters, back em up with some chaos.

If you want more consistency you could probably go Stoinis instead, just need to make sure we have other options for the last 10 becuase he needs 10-20 balls to get going which is something you cant afford at the time of the innings.

I do agree with trying new players out though and I can see why Turner was picked but I think he'd be best off playing domestic cricket and getting some touch back (this is as much hindsight as anything mind you). He was always going to struggle in this series given his domestic season so far.

In the end, I think we'll be a powerhouse come the next world cup so long as Finch and Warner can keep it going - some hard calls are going to need to be made here because the last thing we want is realising both arent up to it come the next world cup and we are blooding two new openers

Agree. Top 4 are solid as is Carey. Some grunt big hitting and innovation is what's needed, stoinis, marsh and Max. Can't believe they weren't selected ahead of turner and agar!!

 

[to1994]

Agree. Top 4 are solid as is Carey. Some grunt big hitting and innovation is what's needed, stoinis, marsh and Max. Can't believe they weren't selected ahead of turner and agar!!

It wasn't that long ago that we were shown Stoinis and Max were not the "grunt" that was needed. Both were woeful in the World Cup and I think Maxwell has shown he can't perform consistently at the national level and should only have a place in the t20I side.

Turner and Agar were the guys left out for them so it made sense to give them a shot instead it's just a shame they weren't in very good form. I'd rather give them a chance over proven failures.

That said I do think Mitch Marsh should come back.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

I like some middle order players that can do both, in the same innings even. Adjust their game, if there are still 20 overs left bat conventional for 12-15 overs and put away the unconventional shit until the last 5 or 8 overs - depending upon the pitch and game situation. Like I said, they don't always get the situation where the top order has built them a platform, sometimes they need to build part of the platform themselves.

I think a player that makes himself less versatile and loses the ability to adapt his game makes himself a worse player. I just don't buy the "that's just the way he plays" argument. It is not consistency I am after, it is more adaptability.

So you’d prefer Stoinis over Maxwell? I think that’s fair enough, just need to make sure he goes in if we lose a wicket around 30, not 40 overs. Once he’s going he’s close to the best in the business but he does need 10-20 balls to get going which puts a lot of pressure on the guy at the other end. I also like Maxwells bowling as an option so Stoinis needs to get bowing again.

Did you have someone else in mind? I’m also not writing Turner off, got plenty of time to get back into it, just think it was silly to take him given his current form

 

[Mateyman]

Maxwell averages 32 in ODIs at a stroke rate of 120 which is perfectly acceptable for a finishing batsman. Yes he was in bad form at the last world cup but the one before that he was a major reason why we won. I think he's definitely worth including when we're so lacking on people who can build on a foundation in the last 10 overs

 

[TubbsFarquhar]

It wasn't that long ago that we were shown Stoinis and Max were not the "grunt" that was needed. Both were woeful in the World Cup and I think Maxwell has shown he can't perform consistently at the national level and should only have a place in the t20I side.

Turner and Agar were the guys left out for them so it made sense to give them a shot instead it's just a shame they weren't in very good form. I'd rather give them a chance over proven failures.

That said I do think Mitch Marsh should come back.

I can understand Maxwell being left out but in no way shape or form did Turner warrant a selection.



Head and M. Marsh probably should've been a consideration but, other than them, no one else stands out for the middle order.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

at a stroke rate of 120

Matey what you do on your own time is nobody's business but your own.

 

[Admiral Byng]

So you’d prefer Stoinis over Maxwell? I think that’s fair enough, just need to make sure he goes in if we lose a wicket around 30, not 40 overs. Once he’s going he’s close to the best in the business but he does need 10-20 balls to get going which puts a lot of pressure on the guy at the other end. I also like Maxwells bowling as an option so Stoinis needs to get bowing again.

Did you have someone else in mind? I’m also not writing Turner off, got plenty of time to get back into it, just think it was silly to take him given his current form

I was objecting to the assertion made earlier that Maxy in the ODI side would have been the difference between wining the series. I just don't see it, not the way he plays; against the like of Bumrah and Shami. Against good attacks his style does not pay off. The way he plays you can't send Maxy in at the 30 over mark because he won't try to bat deep. At least someone else would. The scenario of the player in his position coming in at the 30 over mark is more likely than him coming in at the 40+ over mark, so you go with the percentages.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

I was objecting to the assertion made earlier that Maxy in the ODI side would have been the difference between wining the series. I just don't see it, not the way he plays; against the like of Bumrah and Shami. Against good attacks his style does not pay off. The way he plays you can't send Maxy in at the 30 over mark because he won't try to bat deep. At least someone else would. The scenario of the player in his position coming in at the 30 over mark is more likely than him coming in at the 40+ over mark, so you go with the percentages.

Yeah that’s mah bad for jumping in mid conversation. I don’t think he would have been the difference, just that side would be a whole lot better and balanced with him and Marsh rather than the Ashtons

 

[Topkent]

Why not just have an adjustable batting line up. If it's the 30th over send in Carey, if it's the 42nd over send in Maxwell.

Saying things like 'i prefer someone who can play both roles' is great but players like Mike Hussey aren't available. The perfect number 6 would actually be Smith because he can play both roles but we don't have enough at the top of the order.

 

[RohitSharma]

You boys liked my performance. That was some thumping mates

Even our Rahul >>> Labu

 

[SSwans2011]

Turner playing the entire series over Handscomb is mind-boggling. I get he had that great knock last year, but that was one great innings. Handscomb beasted that entire series.

 

[SSwans2011]

You boys liked my performance. That was some thumping mates

Even our Rahul >>> Labu

C'mon Rohit, you know you guys got lucky that it was only a 3 match series and that our selectors didn't want to give you guys PTSD by selecting Khawaja and Handscomb again.

 

[akkaps]

You boys liked my performance. That was some thumping mates

Even our Rahul >>> Labu

Sorry, I may have missed this earlier in the thread, but what happened to your arm towards the end of the second game?
My mates thought it was a long term injury, and questioning your IPL and possibly the T20WC.

 

[SSwans2011]

Sorry, I may have missed this earlier in the thread, but what happened to your arm towards the end of the second game?
My mates thought it was a long term injury, and questioning your IPL and possibly the T20WC.

His arms weren't getting their usual BigFooty workout this series. Was bound to happen.

 

[to1994]

I can understand Maxwell being left out but in no way shape or form did Turner warrant a selection.

View attachment 809058

Head and M. Marsh probably should've been a consideration but, other than them, no one else stands out for the middle order.

You can't always pick people based on domestic stats. We've struggled to find the right middle order combination for a while and haven't found them. The Big Bash is not where we should be selecting anyone from, the bowlers are barely grade standard.

Not suggesting Turner is most certainly the answer but he's worth at least trying since he was the one left out, despite good performances, for Maxwell who was useless.

The cupboard is pretty bare for middle order options who aren't certain failures at the moment.

 

[TubbsFarquhar]

You can't always pick people based on domestic stats. We've struggled to find the right middle order combination for a while and haven't found them. The Big Bash is not where we should be selecting anyone from, the bowlers are barely grade standard.

Not suggesting Turner is most certainly the answer but he's worth at least trying since he was the one left out, despite good performances, for Maxwell who was useless.

The cupboard is pretty bare for middle order options who aren't certain failures at the moment.

Turner wasn't even making big scores against domestic trundlers in the BBL, and hasn't had a decent knock since last March against India, he was never going to be much hope against Bumrah and Shami in India given his horrendous form. I agree we shouldn't be selecting players based on BBL form, we all remember what happened when Lynn was selected for the ODI squad, but Turner had no form, Head is the man who should've been given the gig. As I said, Maxwell had a poor WC and I have no qualms with him being left out, but it's probably the best option that he's brought in now and comes in when a wicket falls around the 42nd-43rd over where he can just go for it instead of coming in in the 30th. Aside from Head and M. Marsh, no one else is banging down the door for a middle order selection.

 

[akkaps]

Sorry, I may have missed this earlier in the thread, but what happened to your arm towards the end of the second game?
My mates thought it was a long term injury, and questioning your IPL and possibly the T20WC.

* gets cricinfo alert *
*checks cricinfo alert *

Shoulder injury rules Shikhar Dhawan out of New Zealand T20Is

The BCCI has not named a replacement yet but has options to pick from in New Zealand

www.espncricinfo.com

Looks like Rohit and Rahul definitely open.

 

[Westend]

Why not just have an adjustable batting line up. If it's the 30th over send in Carey, if it's the 42nd over send in Maxwell.

Saying things like 'i prefer someone who can play both roles' is great but players like Mike Hussey aren't available. The perfect number 6 would actually be Smith because he can play both roles but we don't have enough at the top of the order.

Yeah I understand the logic and I agree with a flexible line up in t20 cricket but this is different 50 overs lot longer

and thats the problem with maxwell atm....we shouldn't hide maxwell because we are afraid he can't bat 20-30 overs plus

What happens if we are 3 down early or 4/40?? do we hide Maxi then perhaps we bring starc up again and wait so Maxi can only bat 10 overs because we are afraid he will throw it away ...which he has when there are 20 plus overs to go ??

This is the issue with maxwell atm ....we know how dangerous he is when the team is on top....say 2/230 with 10 overs to go....that's where you see the great benefit of maxwell....but the issue is and why he has been dropped is his ability to bat in all situations regardless the score. I truly believe that's why the selectors have dropped him and they would love to see him become a better allround batter

Wouldn't it be great to see maxi with the power he has bat 30 plus overs ??? if he could get his head right and build an innings and then go for the glory shots ?? instead of throwing it away when we are in trouble ??

I have said this on the maxi thread...the talent he has got....he really should be batting 3 and dominating attacks

Its frustrating I still have time for him and hope he can become a better allround batsmen which we need in the middle order

 

[Topkent]

Yeah I understand the logic and I agree with a flexible line up in t20 cricket but this is different 50 overs lot longer

and thats the problem with maxwell atm....we shouldn't hide maxwell because we are afraid he can't bat 20-30 overs plus

What happens if we are 3 down early or 4/40?? do we hide Maxi then perhaps we bring starc up again and wait so Maxi can only bat 10 overs because we are afraid he will throw it away ...which he has when there are 20 plus overs to go ??

This is the issue with maxwell atm ....we know how dangerous he is when the team is on top....say 2/230 with 10 overs to go....that's where you see the great benefit of maxwell....but the issue is and why he has been dropped is his ability to bat in all situations regardless the score. I truly believe that's why the selectors have dropped him and they would love to see him become a better allround batter

Wouldn't it be great to see maxi with the power he has bat 30 plus overs ??? if he could get his head right and build an innings and then go for the glory shots ?? instead of throwing it away when we are in trouble ??

I have said this on the maxi thread...the talent he has got....he really should be batting 3 and dominating attacks

Its frustrating I still have time for him and hope he can become a better allround batsmen which we need in the middle order

I agree yeah. I think he should still be in the side but yeah there's no reason he couldn't noodle it around for 10 overs. It's not exactly the hardest part of one day cricket.

 

[Jez1974]

I agree yeah. I think he should still be in the side but yeah there's no reason he couldn't noodle it around for 10 overs. It's not exactly the hardest part of one day cricket.

Still better than Turner and Agar at this stage. Should be in the side