CRICKET Australia v India Summer

[Big Del]

He's a FAR better pure bat option than Marsh and a lot younger. He has averaged 50 the last 12 months compared to the next best Aussie bat - Carey - at 33. He's plenty good enough compared to every other bat in the side.

I think you are optomistic .
He is very inconsistent . Highest score of 42 vs England . His recent average is boosted by one big not out score in NZ . Most of his runs other wise are starts but not going on with it . That could be OK at #6 when he bowls . At #4 he needs good runs more often .

Travis Head averaged under 40 for the longest time in FC as well before being picked in the Test side. It then took him time to find his feet and a style that worked for him.

McSweeney has come in on the back of two good Shield seasons, something similar to Head (probably did it a couple of seasons longer). McSweeney was a good choice but opening is not the same as batting in the middle order, this needs to be taken in to consideration. Not every batsman can do a Khawaja AND Khawaja was much more experienced when he took on test opening full time.

Head was stifled by the old school hard man coach .
Now he is free to play his game he has won World test champs , world cup and a test in Oz .
So there is that angle too .

 

[Sproj]

I think you are optomistic .
He is very inconsistent . Highest score of 42 vs England . His recent average is boosted by one big not out score in NZ . Most of his runs other wise are starts but not going on with it . That could be OK at #6 when he bowls . At #4 he needs good runs more often .


Head was stifled by the old school hard man coach .
Now he is free to play his game he has won World test champs , world cup and a test in Oz .
So there is that angle too .

Yeah that's fair, he has certainly improved under the softly, softly approach, considerably in fact. So that is credit to McDonald. Carey also seems to have benefitted.

At the same time, Smith and Labushagne have gone considerably backwards. How much do we attribute all of this to respective coaches is a good question.

 

[1910]

Now do Marnus .
He had similar figures in Shield but was in the top few in ICC test rankings at one time .
Shame to see him back to his Shield tactics of waving the bat outside off and nicking . He shelved that early on in his test career .

What's happening to Marnus' average now? He averaged 56 in in 22, 34 in 24 and 26 in 24.

If you are relying on players doubling their Shield average, you're going to be disappointed nearly every time.

 

[Big Del]

What's happening to Marnus' average now? He averaged 56 in in 22, 34 in 24 and 26 in 24.

If you are relying on players doubling their Shield average, you're going to be disappointed nearly every time.

It was good while it lasted .
He had plenty of good fortune in his early days .

Then again Green has a great shield average . But has looked lost at times in tests . The power of the mind is a fascinating thing .
I think the way Marnus got his start coming in for his hero may have helped him go to a higher level early that couldn`t be sustained .

 

[Sproj]

Ollie Pope averaged well over 50 before playing tests - he is struggling to average 35.

Gill averaged over 60 before playing tests - he is struggling to average 35.

Labushagne averaged 32 I think and for the first 40 tests of his career - he averaged 60.

Green averaged around 50 in Shield but 35ish in tests.

Rahul averaged about 50 in FC, averages 35 in tests.

Harry Brook averaged around 40 in FC, he averages 60 at almost a run a ball in tests.

Although early, Bethell averaged around 28 in FC and currently averages 52 in tests.

Kamindu Mendis averaged about 60 in FC and until the last test, averaged 90 in tests.

The point is, there is no sure fire way to pick who is going to be a gun in tests and who isn't.

 

[Big Del]

I found it interesting listening to Alan Border describe the differences in a shield game pitch and a test pitch .
He said the shield pitch would be more damp and slower on the 1st morning .

 

[Bucking Beads]

I found it interesting listening to Alan Border describe the differences in a shield game pitch and a test pitch .
He said the shield pitch would be more damp and slower on the 1st morning .

They’ve torqued up the pitches and made changes to the balls as well.

 

[1910]

Ollie Pope averaged well over 50 before playing tests - he is struggling to average 35.

Gill averaged over 60 before playing tests - he is struggling to average 35.

Labushagne averaged 32 I think and for the first 40 tests of his career - he averaged 60.

Green averaged around 50 in Shield but 35ish in tests.

Rahul averaged about 50 in FC, averages 35 in tests.

Harry Brook averaged around 40 in FC, he averages 60 at almost a run a ball in tests.

Although early, Bethell averaged around 28 in FC and currently averages 52 in tests.

Kamindu Mendis averaged about 60 in FC and until the last test, averaged 90 in tests.

The point is, there is no sure fire way to pick who is going to be a fun in tests and who isn't.

You can certainly take some of the guess work out and rely on the level below.

Most Shield runs before Test debut for Australia.

Lehmann 7985
Hodge 7537
Hussey 7282
Voges 6881

When all those guys got to play Tests, they knew, and you knew what they could and couldn't do and you can look at it that they didn't get to play as many, but they might not even have got that 27 if they had been picked 10 years earlier.

Does Hussey play 79 Tests and score three hundreds in his first five Tests if he's picked in 1995?

 

[Sproj]

You can certainly take some of the guess work out and rely on the level below.

Most Shield runs before Test debut for Australia.

Lehmann 7985
Hodge 7537
Hussey 7282
Voges 6881

When all those guys got to play Tests, they knew, and you knew what they could and couldn't do and you can look at it that they didn't get to play as many, but they might not even have got that 27 if they had been picked 10 years earlier.

Does Hussey play 79 Tests and score three hundreds in his first five Tests if he's picked in 1995?

Sure but that was a different era, the Australia A side was better than any other test side in the world.

David Hussey averaged over 50 at a time though when Australia could have used a guy averaging 50, he couldn't get a look in.

Marcus Harris has one of the best averages in FC (for present day Australian players) and you wouldn't trust him to score against Bangladesh. McSweeney looks good and scored well against India A, full of very decent bowlers. I would really like to see how he goes against a team without a Bumrah in it. He might well not be good enough but he has played well for 2 years, that has to be worth something in the current generation.

Selection has never been an exact science and an era like Australia had that you like to refer to will likely either never come again or not for another generation or two, you can't use that as your yardstick for the current generation.

 

[Fitzy]

I think you are optomistic .
He is very inconsistent . Highest score of 42 vs England . His recent average is boosted by one big not out score in NZ . Most of his runs other wise are starts but not going on with it . That could be OK at #6 when he bowls . At #4 he needs good runs more often .


Head was stifled by the old school hard man coach .
Now he is free to play his game he has won World test champs , world cup and a test in Oz .
So there is that angle too .

You have to remember that Green had the undesirable job of batting at 6. The runs were always scored. He was never put in a position to benefit himself and usually when he was he would come close to a 100. I think his only shortcoming from batting at 6 is the lack of converting scores into 100’s. I think he played that role to the best of his ability, it just wasn’t him who should have played that role. Any surprises that in the first full series of him batting at 4 he scored a 100. It was dead obvious it was a bloke batting wildly out of position. He cannot go back there. You have to remember for a good chunk of Greens career at 6, pretty much every time both set batsman would get out the second he came in and Carey and Cummins were about as reliable for runs in that period as a broken condom. Doesn’t really give you great support to lay a foundation, he had to go out there and be more aggressive (to continue the momentum of heady) than what he would have wanted. I think it has given him a great learning platform in a period where we weren’t lacking quality batsman so that’s good. Now it’s his turn to step up at 4.

 

[1910]

Sure but that was a different era, the Australia A side was better than any other test side in the world.

David Hussey averaged over 50 at a time though when Australia could have used a guy averaging 50, he couldn't get a look in.

Marcus Harris has one of the best averages in FC (for present day Australian players) and you wouldn't trust him to score against Bangladesh. McSweeney looks good and scored well against India A, full of very decent bowlers. I would really like to see how he goes against a team without a Bumrah in it. He might well not be good enough but he has played well for 2 years, that has to be worth something in the current generation.

Selection has never been an exact science and an era like Australia had that you like to refer to will likely either never come again or not for another generation or two, you can't use that as your yardstick for the current generation.

This isn't wishful thinking or dreaming, you can have high standards and have systems in place to support high standards.

CA got rid of the Academy, now states do it themselves but who oversees that? No one. Shield isn't as hard or tough anymore and batting has suffered because those Under 21 players aren't coming from that hard system to the state system and playing Shield against guys that have 8000 state runs.

It wasn't just an act of God like your claim, things were in place that made those players and produced that cricket that made Test players.

Currently someone averages 32 for Western Australia and he has to be in the Test team right now. Everyone swoons over a score of 67.

 

[Fitzy]

It’s seeming like it’s gonna be adios Nathan. Real shame but I think it was wishful thinking from all of us that he would succeed at opener. Didn’t want him at opener long term anyway. Find him an opportunity down at 6 in the near future and he will show you what he has got and can work his way into the top-middle order. That’s the way you should be easing blokes in, not chucking them at opener.

 

[Sproj]

This isn't wishful thinking or dreaming, you can have high standards and have systems in place to support high standards.

CA got rid of the Academy, now states do it themselves but who oversees that? No one. Shield isn't as hard or tough anymore and batting has suffered because those Under 21 players aren't coming from that hard system to the state system and playing Shield against guys that have 8000 state runs.

It wasn't just an act of God like your claim, things were in place that made those players and produced that cricket that made Test players.

Currently someone averages 32 for Western Australia and he has to be in the Test team right now. Everyone swoons over a score of 67.

Who are you even talking about here? Goodwin?

He was discussed by one poster on the back of scores of 2 centuries and 3 fifties in his last 8 FC games. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't remember a single person demanding he be in the test team, only as someone to watch.

It wasn't just an act of God like your claim

What are you even talking about here?

And it really doesn't matter why something has / hasn't occurred when that isn't the direct point under discussion but you do like to shift the goal posts so that you can turn some discussion around to something not relevant to the original discussion point.

Whatever the reason things are the way they are, the fact remains - they are not the way they are and so your argument remains irrelevant to the discussion unless those processes are put back in place - and that would take years anyway.

Right now, your criteria of picking batsmen based on scoring mountains of runs for 7+ seasons just does not work for the right now. Or are you suggesting that when the current old test players retire next summer, Australia just forfeits moving forward because none of these players exist anymore?

Or are you suggesting that this is the side Australia should run out post-Ashes:

1. Harris
2. Bancroft
3. Labushagne
4. Handscomb
5. Head
6. Patterson (haha)
7. Carey

 

[Sproj]

It’s seeming like it’s gonna be adios Nathan. Real shame but I think it was wishful thinking from all of us that he would succeed at opener. Didn’t want him at opener long term anyway. Find him an opportunity down at 6 in the near future and he will show you what he has got and can work his way into the top-middle order. That’s the way you should be easing blokes in, not chucking them at opener.

So instead we get to watch Konstas' confidence get destroyed. They should let McSweeney have this series and then bring in Konstas for SL. If Labs keeps struggling and Green isn't fit, you can put McSweeney into the middle order.

 

[1910]

Who are you even talking about here? Goodwin?

He was discussed by one poster on the back of scores of 2 centuries and 3 fifties in his last 8 FC games. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't remember a single person demanding he be in the test team, only as someone to watch.


What are you even talking about here?

And it really doesn't matter why something has / hasn't occurred when that isn't the direct point under discussion but you do like to shift the goal posts so that you can turn some discussion around to something not relevant to the original discussion point.

Whatever the reason things are the way they are, the fact remains - they are not the way they are and so your argument remains irrelevant to the discussion unless those processes are put back in place - and that would take years anyway.

Right now, your criteria of picking batsmen based on scoring mountains of runs for 7+ seasons just does not work for the right now. Or are you suggesting that when the current old test players retire next summer, Australia just forfeits moving forward because none of these players exist anymore?

Or are you suggesting that this is the side Australia should run out post-Ashes:

1. Harris
2. Bancroft
3. Labushagne
4. Handscomb
5. Head
6. Patterson (haha)
7. Carey

I wasn't talking about anyone specific, just the fact lots have become very very easily pleased.

It's relevant, you just seem to think great things happened once as an act of God, and we can't get back there. That's simply not true, CA got rid of the things that achieved those results and as a result we now value batsman that average low 30's.

Imagine if the Broncos just shrugged their shoulders and said nuh can't get back to those high standards of the 90's let's just be happy with 10th. Can't find another Alf or Lockyer let's stop the Academy.

 

[Big Del]

You have to remember that Green had the undesirable job of batting at 6. The runs were always scored. He was never put in a position to benefit himself and usually when he was he would come close to a 100. I think his only shortcoming from batting at 6 is the lack of converting scores into 100’s. I think he played that role to the best of his ability, it just wasn’t him who should have played that role. Any surprises that in the first full series of him batting at 4 he scored a 100. It was dead obvious it was a bloke batting wildly out of position. He cannot go back there. You have to remember for a good chunk of Greens career at 6, pretty much every time both set batsman would get out the second he came in and Carey and Cummins were about as reliable for runs in that period as a broken condom. Doesn’t really give you great support to lay a foundation, he had to go out there and be more aggressive (to continue the momentum of heady) than what he would have wanted. I think it has given him a great learning platform in a period where we weren’t lacking quality batsman so that’s good. Now it’s his turn to step up at 4.

The cpl of times when he came in after the top order crashed I didn`t feel confident . He couldn`t rotate the strike and looked stressed .

Yes he can bully an attack if there are runs on the board . But coming in under pressure he was a very different player unable to impose himself .

#4 is a different job . Optomistic . I seen him look magnificent , but also ordinary .
Hopefully maturity and exp bring consistency .

 

[Big Del]

It’s seeming like it’s gonna be adios Nathan. Real shame but I think it was wishful thinking from all of us that he would succeed at opener. Didn’t want him at opener long term anyway. Find him an opportunity down at 6 in the near future and he will show you what he has got and can work his way into the top-middle order. That’s the way you should be easing blokes in, not chucking them at opener.

#6 can often be facing the 2nd new ball .
Needs to learn not open up his body , stay behind the front shoulder the way he faces up and to not open the bat face and give catching practice .
Strong mentally technique needs a tweak .

Does Konstas field in the slips ?
Uzzie , Warner and Smiffy all good slippers . Gonna need replacing too .

 

[Big Del]

So instead we get to watch Konstas' confidence get destroyed. They should let McSweeney have this series and then bring in Konstas for SL. If Labs keeps struggling and Green isn't fit, you can put McSweeney into the middle order.

I think easier for Konstas to come in on home soil .
Going to SL and unfamiliar conditions against a more spin focussed attack is a bigger challenge . IMO .

Do they say sink or swim kid . You have plenty of time to regain confidence .
Or , you wait another year yet you have more to learn yet .

Although I don`t think his PM`s 11 or T20 runs should have as much weight as the 2nd 11 or shield . Different conditions and match strategies .