Now, more than ever, is time to pick and stick

By David Schout / Expert

By opting for Joe Burns and Kurtis Patterson against Sri Lanka, the Australian selectors have come good on their promise to reward Shield runs with national selection.

Looking purely at run tallies, their inclusions were a no-brainer: the pair have scored the most runs at Shield level in the last three seasons. And while national selection is more nuanced than pure stats, Australian cricket is at a point where objectivity should trump subjectivity.

‘Hunch’ picks, as we’ve seen recently, have a history of failure.

Patterson also holds another pleasing record over the last three seasons, having comfortably faced the most deliveries of any player. He’s faced 250 more than the next best in Marnus Labuschagne.

Occupying the crease, the most indifferent fan will even tell you, has been an issue in Australian cricket for some time. In Patterson we get a proven player against the new ball, who has as good a grasp of his off-stump as any player in Australia.

In Burns we get a proven run scorer who has responded to numerous Test omissions with more runs – the only currency we’re told matters.

Joe Burns. (AFP PHOTO / Saeed KHAN)

As such, now more than ever is a time where selectors must give Burns and Patterson an extended run at things. ‘Pick and stick’ has been asked of the selectors for some time, and for good reason. If a player is deemed good enough to be selected for Test cricket, they should be given assurances of an extended opportunity in spite of low early returns.

Not an endless supply of chances, but a pledge that a batters’ worth extends beyond a few low scores. Runs on the board, in both a cricketing and figurative sense, should count for something.

Too often have the selectors veered from one policy to the next, to the point where players – Glenn Maxwell and Matthew Wade perhaps especially – are confused by what is required for a call-up. Peter Handscomb’s treatment from the selectors this summer, for instance, was the antithesis of pick-and-stick. Shaun Marsh, others would argue, was a healthy beneficiary of it. Like anything, a balance needs to be sought, but most would agree that balance is yet to be found.

While there are examples of players performing when their position is on the line, there are countless cases where undue pressure (either overt or implicit) from selectors leads to failure.

Batsmen at the elite level, we’re told, perform best when they’re not overthinking things. Strolling to the middle knowing the next innings could be your last is an exceedingly difficult working environment.

Labuschagne’s selection over Will Pucovski is, for many fans, disappointing. After an enduring summer where losses have taken their toll, a two-test series Sri Lanka has done little to pique the public interest. Pucovski’s impending selection, however, had allayed indifference. A 20-year-old with an almost fabled ‘appetite’ for runs at junior and now senior level, his presence would have been arguably the most interesting aspect of day-night Test in Brisbane.

As it is, however, selectors opted to retain Labuschagne who showed promising signs during his SCG innings against India. While Pucovski’s absence is frustrating for those keen to see the young Victorian on the international stage, the selectors’ decision to refrain from another hasty switch is pleasing.

With one eye on the Ashes series later this year, whether the selectors ‘stick’ with Burns and Patterson when Steve Smith and David Warner return to the squad is unknown. Irrespective of whether they’ll be squeezed out, enduring presences in the squad are important.

It’s unlikely a team as mediocre as Australia would go through an entire UK series without changes to its top-six, thus Burns and Patterson – regardless of whether they’re selected for the first Test on August 1 – should theoretically play an important role throughout the series, be that in the XI or as back-up.

Sports opinion delivered daily 

   

Naturally, Australia needs players who can step in and do a job at the highest level. With over seven years experience apiece at first-class level, Burns and Patterson are two of the best options it currently has to succeed going forward.

The Crowd Says:

2019-01-25T01:36:12+00:00

boes

Roar Pro


please no...

2019-01-25T00:12:59+00:00

qwetzen

Roar Rookie


lol. Very droll Peter Warrington.

2019-01-25T00:08:15+00:00

qwetzen

Roar Rookie


I give up. What happened to *Krejza*?

2019-01-24T21:58:26+00:00

Chris Kettlewell

Roar Guru


I have ignored that possibility because I think it's a highly unlikely one. And with Burns failure in the first innings here, and Harris now 40 not out, I think it's become almost impossible. If Australia can post a decent first innings total, there's every chance they won't bat again in this test, and even a Burns hundred along with a Harris failure in the next test likely wouldn't be enough to push him above Harris in the order.

2019-01-24T04:56:15+00:00

Matt H

Roar Guru


I think Harris probably has credit in the bank even though his being the best bat in the Indian series still resulted in a sub-40 average. Burns would have to outplay him by a long, long way I'd think.

2019-01-24T03:11:13+00:00

Peter Warrington

Guest


Unless there are no tour games, then the old hand making county runs on top of a decent world cup becomes the popular choice... and thus Shaun of the Dead rises again...

2019-01-24T03:07:31+00:00

Don Freo

Roar Rookie


What did you mean by all that waffle. You said nothing. Try again, putting the words in the right order. I go on what Will says himself. You just might not have the information he and his support staff have. He might even know more about his feelings than you do.

2019-01-24T03:07:07+00:00

Peter Warrington

Guest


I think we should only stick when we have the right picks

2019-01-24T02:56:54+00:00

Don Freo

Roar Rookie


...and his health. It's good. Listen to what he says about it all. He knows more about his life than you do. I only go on what he has said.

2019-01-24T02:54:32+00:00

JamesH

Roar Guru


I agree that there has been a modern 'type' of batsman that seems to get more attention from the selectors. If you don't quite fit the mould - e.g. Maxwell, Patterson, Burns - then it seems to be tougher to get picked.

2019-01-24T02:50:40+00:00

George

Guest


"All systems go"? Clearly you're across the mental health continuum (as well as being the leading expert on how to watch sport). Observing risk factors and that one might need support is not stigmatising.

2019-01-24T02:46:04+00:00

George

Guest


There was no need to pick Pucovski, so it's an unnecessary risk. You've been claiming his health is fine ever since he's been picked - based on your superior knowledge no doubt.

2019-01-24T02:03:07+00:00

Is Don Is Good

Guest


Chris, you seem to have ignored the possibility of Burns outplaying Harris and taking his spot.

2019-01-24T02:01:40+00:00

Rowdy

Roar Rookie


And you'd have an excellent slipper and a an experienced campaigner in the ear of the skipper.

2019-01-24T01:54:34+00:00

Rowdy

Roar Rookie


Hobart 2016 was a selectorial debacle dropping players with very little chance to show their wares.

2019-01-24T01:51:49+00:00

Harvey Wilson

Roar Rookie


I wonder what Wade has to do. He could be played as a batsman only. I do think that most of the batting order will be nervous until it is known what happens when Smith returns.

2019-01-24T01:49:14+00:00

Rowdy

Roar Rookie


Thanks your experience trumps my distant perspective. ----- My point is that we don't go with people who fit our popularly accepted national persona. Instead we go with conservative types. A la Travis Head who may yet emulate Tubby Taylor in some way. ----- I have always admired the 4 Sub-continent countries picking players quite young. ------ I played on the same team as Slater and Taylor. They played 1sts and I only played 4ths.....because there were no 5ths

2019-01-24T01:28:57+00:00

Paul

Roar Guru


no worries, Don, you're clearly the expert who knows absolutely everything!!

2019-01-24T01:21:06+00:00

Don Freo

Roar Rookie


Working in an industry doesn’t mean you understand it. You absolutely do not…if these posts are any indication. In fact, these kind of issues do not require an industry to surround them…just humanity.

2019-01-24T01:07:32+00:00

Paul

Roar Guru


Get off your high horse Don. I worked in an industry for 30 years where I had to provide daily support for people with mental health issues. I am in no way stigmatizing anything. I'm simply saying these issues are not quickly or easily resolved.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar