With Rogers and Watson looking shaky, who are the Test contenders?

Glenn, Aaron Finch has a first class average under 30. You may as well have Johnson open. His average is only 6 runs less.

What about Aaron Finch? He doesn't seem to get a mention at all. I think Watson has to go, he's had more than enough chances. He should be given the word to either get a century this series or take his pretty hair somewhere else.

I have my eye on Bancroft. Carters still getting enough runs. Handscomb was piquing my interest too but I've heard he is injured, as is Joel Paris. I don't think any of them should be in AUS colours anytime SOON, but excited to see them prosper domestically.

He dominated Shield cricket impressively last year and should've got a look back into the AUS team on that impeccable form. WHY DONT THEY PICK PLAYERS IN FORM? They picked Doolan on the back of a 2 year old Aus A innings against South Africa... They pick Marsh on his "Talent" but ignore his constant failures and inconsistency. Cowan, Voges, Cooper, Ferguson, and Burns are the worthy candidates. Barring injury I don't think they will drop Rogers, or Watson this series. I will put Carters, Bancroft etc in the too young basket right now. Silk is not in form

Don't forget Ludeman, he's starting to show some more maturity with the bat.

Look, I agree about Katich and as for Punter, even he has admitted since retirement that he stuck around 2 years too long. It's the problem with the selectors, they will stick with rampantly underperforming senior players for years if the player is seen as any sort of icon, but they won't give youngsters time to find their feet. The same thing is happening now with Haddin.

Shane watson must go- it is now the perfect time to tell him that Mitch marsh is the future for Australia's bowling allrounder because, let's face it, Watson's batting hardly makes him a standout at 3, supposedly the position of the best bat for the team. 4 centuries from how many tests now? His conversion of 50's to hundreds is appalling (4 100's & 17 50's) when you compare that to Clarke's 28 & 28. The centuries he has made have never come when the chips are down or, bar one, against quailty opposition. A winning team can only hide the excess baggage so long- anyone remember Damien martin? At least he stood aside when he knew the selectors loyalty was embarrassingly misplaced.

I know full well he is not selected as an all rounder but supposedly our best No 3. Heaven help us if that is the case. He's been averaging in the low to mid 30s consistently in test cricket for the past few years (Hughes and Cowan were dropped because of that). His high first class average was attained years ago but has been sliding since. In the past 2 years since December 2012, Watson has averaged 35.23. He has averaged since December last year 39. In 2 years he has scored 2 centuries and six 50s in 33 innings. He failed to reach 30 on 21 occasions. And most of his games have been as opener, first or second drop. And this for the most important batting position in the side. Sorry Don but I cant see the logic of him being at No 3 and having two all rounders. He is an all rounder and that's his skill. If he was the only all rounder I would say fine and keep him at 6. But there are presently many better performed batsmen only in Shield cricket

Marsh out for 11 runs and for the match at 33 per innings. Cowan scored two centuries and his average is now 41.1 compared to Marsh's 36.7. If Shaun gets his average up into the 40s then I'll suggest he is considered, because then it will show he is maintaining consistency. At present he is not.

Watson is not selected as an all rounder. He is selected as our best Number 3 batsman. Just because he bowls doesn't disqualify him from being the best number 3. If he doesn't succeed, replace him. He has done well over the years. The top six have all performed to some degree with Rogers and Watson not pushing on. If they get 20s and 30s and replacements are getting 40s And 50s, there is no case for change. Players like Burns, Khawaja, Ferguson and Shaun Marsh are getting big numbers but then do a Watson or Rogers and fail. Cowan is the only batsman sustaining his case. 30 is not too old.

Sorry Don. I thought I was being clear but I forgot that it has to be spelt out to you step by step. How should I start. Once upon a time....no that's been done. What I am trying to say is that Australia are relying too heavily on a few players and are allowing underperformers to hide and hold their places because they are winning. They have done this before with Clarke and Hussey dominating in the past, and suddenly when they were no longer scoring the team was in trouble. Surely a test team is selected using the best performed (over a few seasons) and using it as a means to constantly be introducing young potential stars into the arena to prepare them for their time of being the backbone of the side. They finally woke up to it with Smith and Warner. They blundered with Khawaja. They waited too long with Hughes. I thought they moved too quick with Mitch Marsh but he seems to be settling in, and good on him, but they should have been doing same with a number of the more experienced young batsmen ages ago. Instead they selected time and again inconsistent 30 something players and allowed loyalty with others to seemingly cloud their judgement. For example taking two all rounders into the side was in my opinion folly. Though Mitch has performed creditably, his and Watson's combined scored total of 128, averages only 32 per innings. These are primary batting positions. Together they have bowled only 16 overs this test without a wicket, though they bowl accurately. In fact in their past 2 1/2 tests combined they have bowled 77 overs and have taken 1-197. What I am saying is that you can carry one all rounder but not two. It places too much burden on the other players who have to score the runs and take the wickets. If it was just Mitch Marsh, especially as a development issue, its fine. But you need another specialist batsman for Watson, if Marsh is to be selected. If Marsh isnt selected its OK to have Watson. But not both. And if Rogers is not performing, especially given his experience, you surely dont hesitate like you would with a young developing player. Drop him now and get someone like Cowan in. Its all about performance, outcomes, not window dressing Don, not favoritism or loyalty. Have I not taught you anything old salt

Hey Bear, if you take away Smith's score, Warner's score, Clarke's score and Mitch Marsh's score...it's not good enough. Duh! Of course. Why would you take them away?

Most of the time we play there we win. My point is, England is a good team against which we can blood new players so that they can get established before they meet tougher opposition than England...Bangladesh, Afghanistan, West Indies...

I like your thinking GYAG. Been saying this for the past couple of years and yet the selectors keep picking 30 something batsmen without decent first class averages over the younger better performed kids. Batsmen like Hughes and Khawaja should have been stuck with. Instead they never seemed to pick them when they were hot and crucified them when they were cold. Little wonder Khawaja is still struggling after the way they treated him. Batsmen like Burns, Maddinson, Lynn, Silk should have been given their chance when they were performing. Instead they chose Quiney, Bailey, Shaun Marsh, Cowan (the Cowan of 3 years ago not the Cowan of today), Doolan, all older, all with poorer averages, all failed. Unfortunately the selectors created their own mess because many of the younger batsmen seemed to go into their shell and suddenly Australia had to rely of the Rogers of the game, top class batsmen, but on the downward spiral of their career. Now we are struggling again to get consistent young batsmen, instead of batsmen who had been toughened by the test cricket standard. Australia should have plugged for youth years ago. They still havent learned the lesson having two all rounders in the one team. Take away Clarke, Warner and Smith's contributions in this test and you have a total of 211 for two innings and that includes 36 sundries. Take away Mitch Marsh's contribution and you have six scores totaling 96 runs at an average of 16 each. NOT GOOD ENOUGH. If these older batsmen arent performing then there is nothing lost risking the younger group who will develop. But batsmen like Silk and Maddinson are off the boil now, Khawaja is just coming back, Lynn is injured, therefore leaving Burns. So we dont have much on offer, a lot a great scores here and there but the young ones arent doing well enough at present. But I would still risk it. I would therefore go for Warner Cowan (Silk when he gets his mojo back) Smith Clarke (Khawaja as back up) Burns Mitch Marsh (definitely a No 6 not 4) or Maxwell But I would have players like Maddinson, Carters etc in reserve, I would finally close the door on the average performing 30 something batsmen.

Nothing overly controversial about the idea. The suggestion that two of the possible younger selections should be Silk and Madison is a bit more shaky. You' expect the new selections to be the best performed youth. Silk and Madison are way off the pace.

What I am about to write will be extremely controversial. Since Martin Love was chosen in 2002, I have expressed a constant theme to my friends about cricket, Remember the West Indies and what happened when they stopped picking youth. India had a fabulous five: Shewag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly and Laxman. As they faded, young people like Kohli and his youth brigade succeeded them. Each of these young men: Dhawan, Rahane, Pujara, Kohli and Sharma got starts. Dhawan is the oldest of these at 29 and got 25 from 24. Australia's veteran top 7 batsmen players over 33 not including Clarke got 9, 14, 0, 21, 33 and 14 not out. Scores by the three youngest top 7: Marsh (41 and 40); Smith (162 n.o. and 52 n.o.) and Warner (145 and 102). These 3 all have career averages over 40 (I am aware that Marsh 40.83 played 3 Tests); Smith 23 matches @ 46.02 and Warner 33 @ 50.05. Now Watson, the youngest of the three over 33 not including captain Clarke is 53 matches @35.98; Rogers 17 matches @34.78 and Haddin 60 matches @33.97. Should captain Clarke be fit (unlikely), then perhaps the 'potential' of Watson, the 'endurance' of Rogers and the 'skill' of Haddin should count less than their under performing abilities. This marks the 3rd consecutive Test match that the 3 batsmen there overshadowed Rogers and Haddin. Now 3 matches may not mean much....but after more than 16 years of first class cricket for Rogers and Haddin and more than 11 years of international experience and 53 matches for Watson (experience includes ODIs even though the relevance is questionable); these 3 men aren't scoring runs like they used to. And Haddin's keeping isn't so great than he should be picked ahead of Wade who kept well in the ODIs and at 27 will only get better. Haddin missed a real tough chance earlier and was wrong footed for another in India's 1st Innings. If he thinks he can fail so completely with the bat and be anything less than unbelievable behind the stumps, then something is wrong with our selectors. Since Rogers' form since and including the Centurion Test is 4,1, 5, 107, 25, 39, 38, 43, 5, 2, 9 and 21. One century and no 50s in 12 Innings. That's around 299 runs @ 24.92. Are you saying that Silk or Maddinson couldn't do that? Burns averages 42.84 in first class cricket, he has had 45 first class matches. Why shouldn't be have a chance after scoring a century a month ago and 59 and 27 in the match that NSW won by an innings? So I would say that Burns should debut at the Gabba. Silk, who got 58 and 41* against an Indian XI should get a chance as he could learn from someone like Warner. Now should Clarke not be fit, that would be far trickier. Smith must stay at 5 (averages over 66!!!!), so Mitchell Marsh can move to 4. Perhaps Maddinson, who got 118 in his last first class match against Qld at the GABBA, could play at 6, even though he is an opener? So I would have: 1 Warner 2 Silk 3 Burns 4 Marsh 5 Smith (c) 6 Maddinson 7 Wade (vc) 8 Johnson 9 Starc 10 Hazelwood 11 Lyons If Clarke is fit, then Maddinson goes out and Clarke bats at 6. My reasons are an average of 48.76 at 6 as opposed to 31.78 at 4. He is currently an injured player. And with Smith, Clarke is the best player of spin in the team. I believe despite a terrible first class average that Mitchell Marsh can learn from Warner and Smith and become a good batsman who bowls (despite Watson's 'potential') . Please post this comment Roar as you haven't publish the first two comments I responded in other articles.

When was the last time you won in england

Ray, I don't really know what to say to that. Gilchrist is one of the best batsmen of all time but you label him a basher of bad bowling? Ludicrous. He averaged well over 50 for most of his career peaking at about 58 from memory. You said "you name me one champion test side that has 3 or 4 left handed top six batsmen .. " and I gave you Langer Hayden and Hussey. Question answered, negating your argument. Gilchrist may have batted 7 but he did so by choice and could very easily have batted anywhere in the order. He opened in one day matches and occasionally did in tests as well. Never mind that every test team in the world now relies on their keeper to be a batsman as well, which is only because of the ability Gilchrist had.

JOEL, I asked , you failed to answer. TOP 6 Ok Gilchrist was a good basher of bad bowling . He was always doubtful batting higher in Test cricket.

Probably because only about 10% of the population are left handed, Ray. Amazing that they are so strongly represented in sports