Before the disastrous tour of India, I disagreed with the selections of Glenn Maxwell, Moises Henrigues, Xavier Doherty (in particular) and Steve Smith.
While my doubts about the first three were proven correct, I was happy to be proven wrong by the latter – despite the fact I always thought Smith’s best way to make the Test side was as a batsman who bowls, and I really wanted to, given his average form at the time, I had my doubts.
I was however proven wrong, and Smith proved very capable both in India and England. He may not have established himself as permanent, long-term member of the side, but he is doing all he can.
Which brings me to George Bailey.
Like a lot of fans, I’m concerned that with fielding restrictions, the pressures of valuing your wicket in the Test area and Bailey’s array of strokes may not stand up against England. But I sure as hell hope it does.
Most who are against Bailey being selected, among other things, point out his runs have come in limited over cricket, and he is now expected to score runs in the Test arena.
It would be a bit like if while Black Caviar was on her winning streak, she had been entered in the Melbourne Cup, then expecting her to win it because she is in such great form over a shorter distance.
But runs are runs and for a guy doesn’t have a great first class record, that’s particularity important.
Confidence brings form and it helps when the player knows they have already succeeded at international level.
It should also be noted that people had concerns about David Warner’s form for the first Test, given his lack of runs in early the Ryobi Cup matches.
If not scoring runs in one dayers is a reason to doubt a player’s credentials, than shouldn’t scoring runs enhance their credentials?
Of course ideally they should be scoring runs in first class cricket as well, but the point still stands.
Like his Tasmanian teammate Ed Cowan (who I desperately wanted to be a success), I would love to see Bailey succeed at Test level, partly because of what he offers besides his batting.
Like Cowan, he has a poor first class average, but also like his fellow Tiger, off field he is the sort of responsible, down-to-earth character us fans love and the Australian team needs.
At 31, he could easily play for another five years, performing a similar role to Michael Hussey at number six.
While many called for Alex Doolan to be selected, and one could probably make a more compelling case for him, ideally he should continue his strong form for at least another 12 months before being selected for the Test team.
If Bailey is a success, it also gives time for the likes of Jordan Silk and Joe Burns to develop into Test players, rather than being rushed into the side.
Then they will have the cool, senior head of Bailey there to help make the transition.
Moreover, he is a specialist batsman and, particularly with our weak batting line-up, we need six batsmen.
Furthermore, with Watson bowling, Smith’s occasional leggies and Clarke bowling, when fit, there is absolutely no reason for another all-rounder.
As I’ve written many times before, and many Roarers agree, I am vehemently opposed to bits and pieces players in Test cricket.
The last thing Australia should do is further weaken our batting line-up by picking someone such as Ian Chappell’s love-child Moises Henriques or James Faulkner at seven.
One issue with Bailey is his batting position. Most people saw the number six role being vacant and that worked in Bailey’s favour.
Clarke should be a lock in at five. I used to support him batting at four but, perhaps for psychological reasons, it generally hasn’t worked. You have to put your best player where they will be most productive and mold the team around him.
Smith is best suited to either five or six, and given Clarke is a lock at five, that leaves two plays best suited to six.
My solution would be to play Smith at six, Bailey at four (he often bats there anyway) and leave Watson at three.
In time, if Bailey is scoring runs and Watson is struggling, Watson can be moved down the order or dropped and Bailey can be experimented with at three.
After reading countless articles about which squad will win the Ashes or more recently reading game plans that will win the series, it’s great the first Test is nearly here.
I feel as excited as one does before Christmas, but really Christmas is just that day where all you all do is open presents, spend time with the family and eat nice food, all the while wishing Boxing Day would hurry up and come, so the cricket is on!
As far as Australia’s Ashes chances go, we are underdogs, but I give us a realistic chance of winning.
Success at the Gabba is vital. Given it will suit our pace bowlers and batsmen, disadvantage Graeme Swann and our strong record there, winning there is imperative and at worst we should get a draw.
A win would put us in the box seat. Lose, and I can’t really see us recovering.
It doesn’t seem likely that Australia will win three Tests, nor is it probable England will fail to win a match.
Using this logic, Australia’s only hope is a 2-1 victory.
The Gabba, WACA and MCG seem Australia’s best chance for victory, so ideally we should win at least one match at these grounds and not lose any.
Regardless of how much logic, research and knowledge we apply, there is no way of knowing with certainty the Ashes winner, how George Bailey will perform or any other aspect of the series.
But isn’t that one of the reason we love sport (and Roaring about it)!
While Australian can’t expect a series of champions every generation, we can hope for more consistency and players performing to the best of their ability.
Realistically, I can’t see Bailey averaging 50 plus for five years. He could average around 40 for some time, providing vital leadership and a cool head as well.
Given the lack of champion players, Australia needs to build a champion team, and Bailey’s credentials outside of batting help towards that.
And given the ever-present rumors of tension in the Australian dressing rooms, a player like Bailey may help bring some harmony, which is vital for building a champion team.
I don’t really like the idea of picking a Test player on the back of form in limited overs cricket, but that’s not to say Bailey is a poor option.
What’s more, it’s not as though there is a player first class average of 45 plus who has scored a mountain of runs over the past two or three years to demand selection.
Regardless of what transpires, I really hope Bailey proves a success in the Test arena.
When he walks out to crease at the Gabba, I’m not expecting him to fail. That’s not so say I don’t have my doubts.
So c’mon George, prove us doubter wrong!
Build your own fantasy cricket team and put it to the test with Draftstars daily fantasy competitions. Pick your match, pick your team and watch the points roll in to take out cash prizes on each match. What are you really gambling with? Set a deposit limit.
Test great Steve Smith is to play for Washington Freedom in the second season of Major League Cricket as the Australian influence in the…
Nathan Lyon has revealed his disappointment that Australia's cricket chiefs have prevented him from playing his first full season of county cricket in England…
Some of you may have watched the recent Fox Sports Series 'A Brief History of Australian Cricket: the Eighties'. If not, I’d definitely recommend…
Nathan Lyon's spell with English county Lancashire has been halved as Cricket Australia looks to protect the fitness of the star spinner. The Australian,…
Cricket Australia insists Optus Stadium can replace the Gabba as the men's Test team's new fortress after handing Perth the first match against India.…
It's no longer about how many runs score individually - it is about the team's ability to win Test in pressure moments.
