Is George Bailey ready for the baggy green?

I take your point. I guess its that I havent given up on Hughes and Khawaja, both potentially better batsmen than Bailey and for that matter Cowan. There has been much talk about the failure of these two youngsters, and I certainly dont suggest they will be future batting greats (though who can tell). Maddison I think will be a 'Great' but he's still in hi formative period and it may be premature to throw him into the fray though it wouldnt be the first time. But Hughes and Khawaja have failed more because we have expected too much of them too soon and are trying to compare them with Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Hussey, Martyn, even Hodge at their best. That's years away if ever. But like we tolerated innings after innings of disappointment from the younger Hayden, Waugh, Boon even Ponting before they achieved consistency and dominance over the best bowling, we must allow these guys time to and experience to develop. You could say they should be dropped to allow them that time, but they both have been, just as the great players were. But eventually you have to bite the bullet and persist with them. They have the potential and I dont agree that they are not up to test cricket...its a major jump and most batsmen find it hard to adjust. In fact I think we will see some pretty impressive performances this coming summer from these two and though i doubt they will be consistent, I think they are about to justify the faith put in them. Smith broke through recently, and he had over 20 innings and being dropped twice before he showed he was up to it. Khawaja is yet to have that many innings (17) while Hughes is taking more time (49), because of technique problems. But I recall whilst some of us were contending that Smith required patience, other's were suggesting he wasnt a test players bootlace. Test players are developed not born instantly made like cup-a-noodles. And I dont think bringing in batsmen who are unlikely to do much better and are less likely to develop further is helpful. These kids need the experience at the top level. They need to deal with Anderson, Swan, the Indian spinners etc over and over so they get used to what is happening. Keeping them away denies them the experience. All sportspeople tend to play to the level they are selected at.until its difficult when getting older to adapt to an increase in class. When you're young, as with all things, adapting is easier. I seriously believe by the time these guys are 30, we will be wondering what all the fuss was about.

Bearfax, look I do agree with you. At least in part. Bailey isn't the ideal candidate, and you're right in there being no guarantee that his ability to lift on the international stage will translate to Tests as well. But the thing is, and I hate to break it to you, there is no ideal candidate. We're talking about a number 6 spot that noone has claimed. Its not as if its the mid 2000s and we're debating whether to keep Brad Hodge ahead of Hussey or Clarke. We're talking about Bailey getting the nod over someone like Hughes or Khawaja or Ed Cowan. All of whom, to differing extents, have already shown the can't really handle the step up to Test level... I'm not looking for someone who's going to belt a double ton, we don't have anyone with that talent aside from Clarke. I'm looking for someone who won't fold like a cheap suit when the inevitable top order collapse comes. Someone with the proven international temperament and smarts to play Australia out of trouble. Instead of just leaving it all up to the tail. Yet again. Put it this way, with Australia at 4/40, who out of Bailey, Hughes, Khawaja or Cowan would you really want walking to the crease?

now now Expat. Lets not get heated under the collar. You take my comments far too literally. What I'm trying to show is that Hussey is a far better long form batsman that Bailey or Finch, and his first class figures show that. I was trying to show that Finch and Bailey are both proficient at ODI games. Finch's average is a bit low because he opens and cops the hardest bowling, whereas a middle order batsman like Bailey, is facing mainly medium paced bowlers for much of his innings, as is the practise in ODI matches. For some reason Hussey doesnt handle that as well at that level. But to suggest because Bailey is more proficient at ODI matches than normal List A matches because he plays better for Australia, may have some merit in that form of game which he is good at. But to suggest that that naturally therefore translates to test cricket vs first class cricket is a big stretch. Though he hasnt played test cricket before, he has played overseas against players from other nations and his averages have been pretty much the same

Bearfax Now you're just making things up. "Hussey's style obviuously doesn't suit ODI matches as well" What are you smoking?? David Hussey averages over 40 in almost 300 List A games, his limited overs record is every bit as good as his long format record. He's a classic limited overs player. At First Class level. What his ODI record shows is he couldn't handle the step up to international cricket. And I suspect that's one of the reasons he never played a test for Australia. And, to spell it out for you again, Bailey's gone from averaging 35 at List A to 47 in ODIs, the exact opposite of Hussey, the guy grows another leg when he plays for Australia. And "Bailey, like Finch". You think Bailey is the same style player as Aaron Finch? You had a little bit of credibility left, right up until that point.....

Stoinis has looked great today. Solid defence, great full face and playing straight. Of course the commentators are bagging him out for those very attributes.

Before anyone starts raving about Khawaja's inning in todays Ryobi cup match, please remember it's against a Tasmanian attack missing Bird, Hilfenhouse, Faulkner, Butterworth and Doherty. Having said that, it is still good to see the kid string together some consistant scores and it certainly won't harm his chances.

Would love to see George Bailey in a baggy green! I reckon he goes up a level when he plays for Australia (even before the India ODI series he wasn't dominating the Ryobi Cup) and I would prefer him at No.6 than Hughes/Khawaja etc. He's certainly not the worst option and I reckon he would do a great job. Good head on his shoulders and has batted well under pressure when the team has been 3 or 4 wickets down with minimal runs on the board. Also more of a genuine no.6 compared to Hughes and others.

Expat I respect what you are trying to say. But you keep coming back to ODI matches, and you speak of Hussey failing at that level and Bailey improving.. But this is about test cricket and that obviously takes a different form of discipline. Hussey's style obviously doesnt suit ODI matches as well, but it does suit the longer form as his record clearly shows. Bailey, like Finch, Shaun Marsh, Voges,etc are well suited to the ODI format and that is why they succeed at that level. But they are different types of game Expat. One day matches are good for the more flamboyant style of batsman, who tends to be looser than the longer form batsman but scores faster and looks at times more attractive. That's what you are seeing in Bailey. He thrives on the limited field placings, lack of regular slips, restricted bowling options, much more wide open spaces for the lofted shot. Longer form cricket requires a more controlled form of batting, where a strong bowling line up can surround and intimidate a batsman, and a strong defence is required. Bailey has shown he doesnt have the long term perseverance to hold down his wicket. He'll have his good times but in general but for an occasional purple patch, he maintains much the same average in the mid to high thirties, and despite your'feelings' his stats do not suggest he is getting better in that form of the game. Test cricket needs more than that and he should have by now learned how to adjust. David Hussey on the other hand is an accumulator of runs. His style doesnt well suit one day matches because he's not particularly flamboyant most of the time. He concentrates more on defence. But he does what test cricket needs. He sticks around, just like Rogers does.

Bearfax, Hussey's first class record is unbelievably good..... But you have to say that in the 70 ODIs he played for oz he never really made his mark. He was ok, but not anywhere as good as his first class/list A record suggests he should have been.

Thanks Brett, got them. Great website, not come across it before!

Bearfax, my point is really that his List A stats aren't really that flash, would put them in the same competent category as his first class stats. But so far his international limited over performances have been well above what those List A stats would indicate. And he's seemingly getting even better. There are some guys who simply perform better at higher levels. And some that just go worse. A guy like Graham Hick is the supreme example of the latter. And Phil Hughes looks increasingly likely he falls in that category as well. But with every innings he plays I'm getting the feeling that Bailey is one of the former. Couldn't hurt to see if he responds similarly in the long form of the game. Especially since there's noone else crying out for selection...

Experhack that's because khawaja barely gets half the chances others do, in the ashes e got 3 tests where he top scored in lords and got a shocker decision in Manchester, ponting made a very good comment that our best young batsman in khawaja, Hughes need a real go at test level as it takes time to find your feat, yesterday in the Ryobi the bulls were send in on a tricky wicket and were 3 down in the first 7 overs but khawaja fought it out to get 60 odd, in out conditions he will be valuable against the POMS

Well said bearfax, early runs is the key and khawaja and smith have started well

All Khawaja, Hughes and Smith can do is succeed to score in the next month or so in all forms of the game. Good to see all three performed admirably in their limited overs matches. Warner still has an itch in those mighty batting arms that needs restraining.

As pointed out. A fine limited overs player worthy of International selection. A competent first class batsman, but potentially less than average test player.

Brett I would have David Hussey well before Bailey in my test side if you are going for experience and it amazes me that he is put down because of last years Shield season. I mean a first class average of 52.07 compared to Bailey's 38.29. There has been talk that Hussey wouldnt be chosen because of a poor 2012-3 Shield season. Sure he was off the boil but on average for that season he was still better than Bailey and most of the other 30+ batsmen being suggested. And I still think I would go for the younger players who have 40+ averages before I'd chose from a bunch of 30 + year old batsmen like Bailey who are under the 40 average. For a young batsman to be 40+ suggests they will improve. Not so for a 30+ aged batsmen even if they had similar averages. Experience is important but potential I believe is more important when you're talking about players with similar averages.

Expat, I think I've done the breakdown/comparo, but it's bogged in the moderation queue. Might have to check back tomorrow..

Experthack, I think this is it.. From Cricket Archive: http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Players/35/35010/35010.html First Class: 170 Inns 5936 runs @ 38.29 (14 100s, 30 50s) ODI: 28 Inns 1146 runs @ 47.75 (1 100, 9 50s) List A: 156 Inns 4984 runs @ 35.85 (6 100s, 31 50s) If I've done it right, this should be the List A breakdown: http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Players/35/35010/a_Batting_by_Team.html (includes ODIs, Aust A, tour games, etc) ODD for Tas breakdown is: 96 inns 2962 runs @ 34.84 (4 100s, 17 50s)

"Khawaja looked great against Victoria in the Ryobi game yesterday" And yet he's failed internationally pretty much every opportunity he's been given, Test and ODI.

Equally Manoj, they can show plenty of Shield form before they turn 30 and still be nowhere near ready...