The recently concluded one day series in India saw Australia scoring 300+ scores in all five matches played, something which has happened for the first time ever in Australian cricket history.
This brings us to a question as to whether performance in this series should count for Ashes selection or not.
George Bailey scored 478 runs at an average of 95.60, with three 50s and a ton. Does that help him to get a berth in Tests? Why not?
What else should a player do to deserve a chance? The immediate answer would be his first class record should be the first thing to look at before selection.
However so many batsmen with good first class records have been given their chance in the last many months. And most of them have failed.
So it shows the old strategy is not working now. Something is lacking
And what is lacking is international exposure. That is precisely what Bailey and Glenn Maxwell have, which the first class players do not.
Even though it is a completely different format, the fact they have played on international arena has given them the confidence required to succeed in the longer format of the game also.
And this is not to say merely being a part of an ODI team is enough. Performance is the ultimate thing.
Which is also the reason why guys like Bailey deserve their chance.
Yes India’s pitches may be batting paradises, but you still have to score runs.
James Faulkner has shown he can cope with pressure situations. And if it was so easy, the question remains as to why guys like Phil Hughes, Brad Haddin and Shane Watson could not cash in on the opportunity to score runs.
These guys were a part of the Test side which toured India earlier this year. They did not perform as well as one would have liked them to, nor have they seemed to learn from that experience.
The point also remains if a player who has performed well in ODIs should not be in Tests because his first class record is poor, then how can a currently out-of-form player be in the side just on the basis of good past performances?
Matt Sterne
Roar Rookie
Yes. Great form in the Australian ODI team has ALWAYS been a stepping stone toward Test selection. Was in Steve Waugh and Andrew Symonds time - is still relevant today.
abigail
Guest
ODI form is relevant only if it is backed up by Shield form. I would have expected Bailey to do better in the Shield game against Qld. In his defence, he'd only been back in the country two days when he batted, but he will need good runs in the next Shield match to be a chance of playing in the first test. The same applies to Khawaja. He performed well in the Ryobi cup, but damaged his chances by underperforming in the Shield game. Warner franked his good Ryobi form with a century today and assured his selection, I believe. Our team for the first test still remains a mystery with Rogers, Warner, Smith and Clarke (if still fit) a lock for selection. I assume Haddin will be wicketkeeper despite his poor form with the bat, and Harris would be a certainty. The makeup of the rest of the squad revolves entirely around Watson's fitness, and how it will affect the team balance if he plays as a specialist batsman. I don't like taking half fit players into a game, the risk of them aggravating the injury and leaving the team a player short seems too big a risk for me. But the selectors will have the benefit of a multitude of medical experts to guide them.
Hookin' YT
Guest
Kohli ct Powell b Shillingford 3 India 5/87
Manoj
Guest
+1
Hookin' YT
Guest
No. Different game. Bailey failed today and Johndon bowled crud yesterday. Mate at the WACA said England would have torn him a new one, scattergun...as usual.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
For the most part, I am in agreement. It might show a player is in good form, but they need to First Class results firstly and any limited overs on top of that adds just a little (very little) to their credentials. With no multi-day form, or bad form in the relevant format, anything in any other type of cricket is utterly irrelevant. The pitches are different, the pressures are different, the requirements for success are different and the bowling is different. Without solid FC form, nothing else should bring a player into consideration.
Gr8rWeStr
Guest
Consistently scoring runs in ODI does suggest a batter is in touch, but that is only one aspect of batting form the other two are temperament and technique. Many, myself included, would argue that the temperament and technique required to be effective in ODI is significantly different to that required for Test batting success and, therefore, the temperament and technique required for Test cricket need to be shown in 1st Class matches, that come closest to Test conditions. While I agree that ODI, and T20, can be used to get players comfortable in playing with, and against, players at the highest level and some of the pressures involved to require 'success' in that format of someone who's temperament and technique are clearly more suited to the longer versions of the game would be, IMO, poor selection policy. As an example of what I mean, Jordan Silk looks like a young player with a very good longer version temperament and technique and I don't think his chances of selection in the Australian Test team should hinge on outstanding ODI performances.
A punter
Guest
NO, I ideally it should not. Pitches in ODI's are different.