Haddin should be the Test keeper at the Gabba

Thanks for the support Quality; explained better than my attempt.

Great shot, should never have played for Australia again after that display

David, I have played and seen a hell of a lot of first class cricket. There is no logiical , sense based decision to continue Haddin's tenure on any grounds. The only possible conspiracy scenario of HAPPY HADDINS test career continuing would be that it would buy some time for CA'S golden haired boy Paine to be considered on Haddin's imminent sacking from a Test team. Phil . Nth Hobart.

that was more evidence of fitness. At that point, his test form justified him being picked if fit.

I just like to comment on the bottom part of the article. Althought the writer tried to use statistics to try and proved a fact it is not really a good argument using statistics without looking at the situations and the era's the teams were playing in. SA took 8 years to win their first test. Basically people from England represented SA and they were weak a weak team right through the thirties and had basically a one team. One guy batted and bowled so the English and Australia who had a head start in international cricket racked up the wins against them. If you take it from 1992 to 2012 SA have a 47% winning percentage which is winning 93 out of a 197 In that same period Australia have a 59.2% win ratio and England 36% Reason why I picked 1992 was due to SA readmission to test cricket. As well as one of the biggest and most controversial changes that took place in test cricket that was of such a magnitude that it was mostly responsible for the demise of the WIndies. That was the bouncer restriction and the over rates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xZTUB7dU8Y That is indefensible.

Look Tom, that's fair enough if you think Paine is the better player. I have however found this debate to be a little like debating Young Earth Creationists. You can provide them with all the scientific evidence you want but at the end of the day they will just turn to you and say "listen, you make good points but my opinion is that the world is only 10,000 years old and I'm sticking to it". Luckily it seems the selectors have unanimously stuck to the facts this time around.

Listen, you make good points about Wade and I reckon he goes alright, but from what I've seen, and not looking up the cricket almanac for avarages, my opinion is that Paine is a better wickie/batsmen ... and I'm sticking to it! You can't have enough leadership in any sporting side. Don't knock the U/15 Hobart Echidnas, top side that!

David, if it was based on form Haddin would have been dropped long ago. Which Indian player was spot on when he said Haddin was no longer moving his feet? That was clearly obvious in the analysis of his many dropped catches. Your sheltered NSWism, as evident by your regular anecdotal stories, shines through again.

+1

Tom, in terms of their keeping it's six of one half a dozen of the other. They can both keep well. Wade can also bat high in the order, which doesn't really matter anyway given the test top order is already jam-packed. So what you're saying is that because Paine once captained his U/15 Hobart Echidnas team it's worthwhile sacrificing the 9 additional runs (FC average of 41 compared to 32) that Wade will score per innings for the additional leadership Paine provides in a team that already has a Captain, former test Captain and a Vice Captain?!

Based on what?!? People keep talking but noise doesn't make it true. If Paine is as good as so many people keep claiming, he'll recover fully from his injury, out perform Wade at shield level, make an irresistible case for selection and then he'll get the gig. Until then, it's all just talk.

Paine is more solid with the gloves and can also bat up the order. Also has pretty good leadership creds, was captain of all his junior rep teams. He definitely isn't overrated, stats don't always tell the full story.

Yeh well I couldn't agree with me more on that one

Couldn't agree more Paul. Australian cricket selections are like the boat people arriving in Australia; everyone has an opinion but few actually know what they're talking about. You and I are among the informed Paul. Cameron Rose seems to know his stuff too.

Yay, 3 cheers for Langer! Sorry, had to say it.

JohnB I completely disagree with that. Healy averaged 30 with that bat in FC cricket and 27 with the bat in test cricket. So I would argue that his FC performance was a very reasonable guide to what he would produce in test cricket. Wade and Paine have both played over 50 FC games which is a large enough sample size to get a reading on their respective abilities. Wade is simply the better player. The fact he's also 4-5 years younger is another bonus.

Looking only at FC averages doesn't take into account that Paine did well when he steps up a level. FC performance is the best guide available to likely test performance - apart from actual test performance. Maybe the people who rate Paine do so on the basis of what he was able to do when given the opportunity. None of which is to say Wade hasn't seized his opportunities too. A snippet - Ian Healy scored all 4 of his FC centuries in tests.

David Lord, if you were Michael Hussey batting number 6 who would you sooner sit in the dressing shed with; a flashy Brad Haddin who is likely to come out and scoop a second ball, charge down the wicket, lofted, mis-hit off drive down mid-off's throat, OR testicular cancer survivor, Steve Waugh-esk tough prick with an axe tattooed on his arm Matthew Wade? If your answer is Haddin you cannot expect anyone reading this blog to take you, or anything you ever say, seriously ever again. As for Tim Paine, I truly cannot comprehend how people even contemplate the possibility that he would be a sound selection. In his 3 tests Wade has scored equal number of hundreds as Tim Paine has in his entire first class career; 1!

Indeed. S Marsh was reinstated in the test team after a 20/20 score of 99. That went well.