Third Test- Australia v South Africa

[Unbreakable]

Where has O'Keefe been hiding his 200 Test wickets?

Ask the selectors, they were the ones who kept overlooking him regardless of how well he was playing. Lyon has done extremely well to get as many wickets as he has over the years, but his lack of wicket taking ability over the last few series has really shown, he's just not a dangerous bowler anymore.

Having O'Keefe's bat in the lower order will be handy as well, if the recent track record of our batsmen is anything to go by. People need to be held accountable, Lyon is one of them.

 

[1910]

Ask the selectors, they were the ones who kept overlooking him regardless of how well he was playing. Lyon has done extremely well to get as many wickets as he has over the years, but his lack of wicket taking ability over the last few series has really shown, he's just not a dangerous bowler anymore.

Having O'Keefe's bat in the lower order will be handy as well, if the recent track record of our batsmen is anything to go by. People need to be held accountable, Lyon is one of them.

Last few series? Against Sri Lanka he got 16 wickets in three Tests to be third most, New Zealand before that top wicket taker in the two tests with 10, New Zealand in Australia 10 wickets in three Tests fourth most for the series and finally West Indies in Australia 13 wickets in three Tests for equal first spot.

That's the last 12 months.

Do you think there is anything in maybe your off-spinner not being too much use bowling against 85 runs?

O'Keefe beside picking a near impossible skill to master, has had since 2005 and he hasn't even been able to be the New South Wales number one spinner in that time. 2013/2014 he had a great year with 41 and sort of backed it up the next year with 28 only 20 last year.

2005/2006- 2 wickets
2009/2010- 15 wickets
2011/2012- 9 wickets

He's been all over the shop- he's certainly not the hard luck selection story you're pretending he is.

 

[Unbreakable]

Last few series? Against Sri Lanka he got 16 wickets in three Tests to be third most, New Zealand before that top wicket taker in the two tests with 10, New Zealand in Australia 10 wickets in three Tests fourth most for the series and finally West Indies in Australia 13 wickets in three Tests for equal first spot.

That's the last 12 months.

Do you think there is anything in maybe your off-spinner not being too much use bowling against 85 runs?

O'Keefe beside picking a near impossible skill to master, has had since 2005 and he hasn't even been able to be the New South Wales number one spinner in that time. 2013/2014 he had a great year with 41 and sort of backed it up the next year with 28 only 20 last year.

2005/2006- 2 wickets
2009/2010- 15 wickets
2011/2012- 9 wickets

He's been all over the shop- he's certainly not the hard luck selection story you're pretending he is.

You're cherry picking stats from seasons as far back as 05 to look for reasons to not pick him rofl, you said it yourself, he's been the best spinner in Australian FC cricket over the last 3 years, 89 wickets across the last 3 seasons, and a good start to this one with 8 wickets against WA 2 weeks ago. I also notice you conveniently left out his batting from the argument - A first class average of 30 with 9x 50's is pretty respectable for a lower order batsmen, especially in comparison to Lyon's average of 13 in FC/Tests.

Lyon is completely out of form, if you've been watching the last 2 tests, you'd agree. We can't just pencil in his name every week because of his form from 4 months ago playing on Sri Lankan pitches, all players should be held under the selection microscope, not just the top order batsmen.

And don't bother bringing up their current FC match against Victoria, because he's still bowling better than Lyon.

O'Keefe - 1/107 @ 2.89 w/ 8 maidens
Lyon - 0/141 @ 3.62 w/ 3 maidens

 

[1910]

You're cherry picking stats from seasons as far back as 05 to look for reasons to not pick him rofl, you said it yourself, he's been the best spinner in Australian FC cricket over the last 3 years, 89 wickets across the last 3 seasons, and a good start to this one with 8 wickets against WA 2 weeks ago. I also notice you conveniently left out his batting from the argument - A first class average of 30 with 9x 50's is pretty respectable for a lower order batsmen, especially in comparison to Lyon's average of 13 in FC/Tests.

Lyon is completely out of form, if you've been watching the last 2 tests, you'd agree. We can't just pencil in his name every week because of his form from 4 months ago playing on Sri Lankan pitches, all players should be held under the selection microscope, not just the top order batsmen.

And don't bother bringing up their current FC match against Victoria, because he's still bowling better than Lyon.

O'Keefe - 1/107 @ 2.89 w/ 8 maidens
Lyon - 0/141 @ 3.62 w/ 3 maidens

How can I cherry pick stats when I listed his whole career? Acknowledged his better years too. I didn't mention his Test career if I wanted to show how poor he's been going I could have said that.

Batting; you're as bad as the selectors- lets' pick bowlers for their batting! Starc is out then.

I never said anything even remotely close to he's the best spinner in the country. No figure or observation in the world backs that up. Ahmed has out bowled him the last three years. O'Keefe hasn't been the best the last three years at all.

Last two Tests- you said every recent series? Why do you keep moving the posts? What happened to Sri Lanka, West Indies twice and New Zealand twice? You were wrong so we move on.

You missed that point about how do you expect the off-spinner to defend 85? Lyons just should have spun a lazy 10/72 and got us back in the game?

If all players are held accountable how are you picking O"Keefe with his Test form? You're not being too consistent. I would have got to watch O'Keefe in Brisbane a few weeks ago but he was dropped- again. What his club form like?

Lyon is out of form- which if you'd read I said let's not even pick a spinner.

 

[Mister Wright]

I know his output has been poor since his century against NSW in round 1, but Burns deserves another opportunity, although it may be a good thing for him not to play in the day/night game. Every time he has been dropped you definitely can count it as unlucky. After 60 odd against India in Sydney he gets dropped for Voges to make his debut, then after scoring 170 three test later he is dropped. He deserves to stay in the team. It's great to see blokes like Renshaw and Dean make runs and if they can continue to do so they should definitely put pressure on him. Handscombe just has to come in for Nevill, that is an easy decision. Whether Ferguson stays is a tough one. Do you deserve to get dropped after just one test? A lot of players have been after performing better, Stuart Law is a great example. The decision on Voges has been made easy by his injury.

This is the team I would go for in Adelaide:

Warner
Burns
Khawaja
Smith
Ferguson
Marsh (Last chance)
Handscombe
Starc
Bird
Hazelwood
Lyon (Suprisingly not too far away from his last chance either)

I know it's not the wholesale changes everyone is looking for, but the selectors really need to understand that the next two tests are day/night tests and they could be harsh environments for young test batsmen to make their debuts.

Renshaw, Dean, Patterson (if he makes runs) should all be called by the selectors and told they are on the radar.

Having said that I would not be outraged if Burns, Ferguson & Marsh are not selected as they haven't exactly put strong cases forward to begin the season.

 

[1910]

When was the last time there was two double 100's in a Shield Round?

Doolan- 202 retired hurt.

They're both down to 10 men now.

Doolan was Test quality three years ago and should have played more than his four Tests- if only he hadn't had such lean years for three years.

 

[Sproj]

I'm going to go controversial, I've picked my side:

1. Renshaw
2. Warner
3. Khawaja
4. Patterson
5. Smith (c)
6. Handscomb
7. Whiteman
8. SOK
9. Starc
10. Hazlewood
11. Bird

12. Lehmann

 

[Unbreakable]

Ponting no longer coaching the Mumbai Indians, you've gotta imagine he'll be named chairman of selectors.

 

[Battler]

I'm going to go controversial, I've picked my side:

1. Renshaw
2. Warner
3. Khawaja
4. Patterson
5. Smith (c)
6. Handscomb
7. Whiteman
8. SOK
9. Starc
10. Hazlewood
11. Bird

12. Lehmann

Love this side, although I'd go Sayers > Bird on recent form. If SOK is injured pick Maxwell at 6/7 and go three or four quicks.

 

[Broncoman]

Love this side, although I'd go Sayers > Bird on recent form. If SOK is injured pick Maxwell at 6/7 and go three or four quicks.

Did you see Maxwell play test cricket?

He was out of his depth

 

[Unbreakable]

Not sure how reliable it is, but the mail going around is this will be the team -

1. Warner
2. Renshaw
3. Khawaja
4. Smith (c)
5. Maddinson
6. Handscomb
7. Wade
8. Starc
9. Hazlewood
10. Bird
11. Lyon

 

[Broncoman]

Should be Patterson over Maddison. Maddison is always 1 ball away from getting himself out.

 

[1910]

Renshaw is in!

 

[1910]

Cracker has used the word revamp 45 times.

 

[1910]

Australia's Test squad: Steve Smith (c), David Warner (vc), Jackson Bird, Peter Handscomb, Josh Hazlewood, Usman Khawaja, Nic Maddinson, Nathan Lyon, Matt Renshaw, Chadd Sayers, Mitchell Starc, Matthew Wade

 

[Unbreakable]

Good squad, would've preferred Patterson, but I'm happy to give Nic a shot.

1. Warner
2. Renshaw
3. Khawaja
4. Smith (c)
5. Maddinson
6. Handscomb
7. Wade
8. Starc
9. Hazlewood
10. Bird
11. Sayers

12. Lyon

Should be the team for Adelaide.

 

[Unbreakable]

My only hope with this squad is that we stick with it, no chopping and changing, let these guys play in Adelaide and guarantee them the entire Pakistan series.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Maddinson is a disgusting pick. I actually hope we get thumped again.