The Dukes ball has made Ashes selections a whole lot easier

True Chris - unfortunately Aaron Finch didn't quite make the transition from the short form to tst cricket - even though the signs were there against the UAE. And Renshaw is a pretty good example - he has proved himself in the longer form and surprised with is aggression in the BBL recently. Hopefully that is a catalyst for better performances in upcoming shield matches. I don't think we will really know if Stoinis can cut it a test level until he is given a chance.

I agree with all you've written Chris, but I'm betting someone from outside the squad might make a "guest appearance". For example, I can't see Australia taking Renshaw on tour, but if he makes the sorts of scores in County cricket he did last season and if there's an issue with the openers, it wouldn't surprise me to see him slot in for one or more Tests. The key is either being selected in the squad or being in England and in form

It will be interesting to see if Maxwell actually gets to play any first class cricket in the county stint he signed. I believe it's mostly one day matches that he's likely there for, but possibly a couple of first class fixtures. If he does, and can do well, then it might help his case. But it's a tough situation for him. Clearly the selectors think of him, in test cricket, more as a good player against spin. Hence considering him for some sub-continental tours, but never considered at home or in more pace-bowling friendly places. That doesn't help his case either.

I do think that, considering he came into the India test series in pretty much sublime form in all his lead-up matches, both Sheffield Shield and ODI's, only to still fail miserably in tests, that it should be incredibly hard for him to get back in. Why should the selectors believe any form, whether first class, or ODI's should be able to be translated into the test arena considering not only his history, but specifically what transpired this summer. And with some major "experience" set to return to the team and the fact Marsh will be 36 by the time the Ashes starts, I think it's well and truly time to move on. And I think the selectors have finally had enough of giving him "one more try" also.

I think with Shaun Marsh, when he came into the test side this summer clearly in awesome form, having scored lots of runs in both the Shield and the ODI's, only to still fail yet again at test level, and considering his age, I think it's probably time to move on, and I think the selectors may finally be of the same opinion.

I wouldn't say it's unfair. It's unfortunate they don't get to play Shield. But while in Australia we do very much value the Ashes, the World Cup is a big thing, and it's reasonable that the selectors want to be scheduling in a bunch of ODI's to try and prepare for that, and these players are part of the ODI squad. So they are aren't being hard done by. It's just how things work. If you put lots of focus on your short form play and earn international selection in that before you've earned it in test cricket, then that can be a great thing, but it will mean you will have more limited chances to play first class cricket. So if you want to push for test selection you really need to make every post a winner when you do get that chance.

I don't see that people don't rate BBL form. But there is so much difference between T20 and test cricket. If someone has shown they are a good first class cricketer, but are badly out of form, finding form in something like the BBL can sometimes translate into just being back in form, and then they can take that into first class cricket. So Renshaw's big innings the other day might bode well for him having found some form that he can take into the Shield. At the same time, until the last couple of years where he improved a lot, Aaron Finch had an awesome record in ODI's and T20 internationals, while simultaneously being absolutely rotton at first class cricket. So in that case, you couldn't extrapolate anything from form in white ball cricket. So there are cases where form in BBL could be a good indicator for certain players. But that's very much a player by player situation.

Paine’s selection was basically the test selectors looking around and struggling to see someone keeping in any Shield team who they were happy to select. There was no way they were going to pick Wade, and they basically decided that Paine was always someone who would never let anyone down. The fact Paine was a much better keeper than Wade, and yet Wade still had the gloves when playing for Tassie even when both were in the team, because his more recent playing for Australia somehow gave him seniority in that, made it tough, so they picked Paine for the CA XI match to confirm they were happy that he was the right player, then picked him for the test side. It’s weird what happens with keepers. You can only have one keeping in a team, so when you are in a situation where two are selected, one just as a specialist batsman, you think the one who’s known to be the better keeper would take the gloves, but often that doesn’t happen. (Similar situation to Tassie, I find it funny that England are picking Buttler and Bairstow in both test and ODI teams, and with the exception of a few games that Foakes has played, in tests Bairstow keeps, in ODI’s Buttler keeps. Surely one is a better keeper than the other. So if Buttler is a better keeper, why doesn’t he keep in tests, and if Bairstow is a better keeper, why doesn’t he keep in ODI’s? But it comes down more to politics. Bairstow was in the test team as the keeper, and didn’t want to give up the gloves, so when Buttler came in it was as a specialist bat. And pretty much the reverse in ODI’s. It’s politics more than anything. Just as it was for Wade taking the gloves over Paine for Tassie back then).

I don’t think anyone here despises allrounders, just the idea of picking someone who’s not good enough with bat or ball. Mitch Marsh for most of his time in the Australian setup was actually of of the best ODI players in the team, while consistently being a failure at test level. So I’d be very careful about using T20 cricket as an indication of form to play an Ashes in England. Just as England have a very powerful ODI batting lineup, but are struggling badly to put a test batting lineup together, those two don’t go hand-in-hand. It’s good that he’s done better in the Shield so far this year than previously. Averaging 42 over the last four matches is a good improvement over averaging sub-20 the last two seasons. But guys like Nick Larkin and Daniel Hughes are both averaging high-40’s in the Shield this season, yet nobody is talking about them for test honours, and quite rightly, because it takes more than just a good half-season in the Shield to make someone a test quality player. Stoinis suffers from the same issues as Maxwell, being in the national teams for ODI’s and T20’s makes it hard to play lots of first class cricket. So it will make it hard for him to really push his case. But I still don’t think he’s done enough. It’s possible they will like the idea of taking one “allrounder type” in the squad at least, even if they don’t play, and Stoinis seems to have overtaken Mitch Marsh in that category, so it’s quite possible he will make the squad.

Not quite, especially if one of the incumbents completely falls in a heap. But you might find a few of the guys from the Sri Lankan tests will be in the Australia A tour along with the guys pushing for their spots and may have a bit of a battle for those spots. In all likelihood, the battle will mostly be for the backup spots. I would think, at this point, Burns, Khawaja, Head and Patterson should probably be the four to keep going to the first test in England. But I wouldn't be surprised if one, or more, didn't make it to the end of that series. So being in the squad gives a player a very good chance of getting into the team at some point during the series.

The thing with Pattinson v Cummins is that Cummins is a few years younger, and seems to have managed to grow beyond the really injury ravaged part of his career (he's a fast bowler, so he's going to have to deal with minor injuries throughout his career, but so far seems like the really major ones he's got past). While Pattinson, at his current age, to still be having such major injury problems, makes him a big worry that he'll never truly get past them and be more of a Shane Bond type, who seemed so promising, but had what looked like being a great career completely cut down by injury. It would be great to see Pattinson get past the injuries and have a good few injury-free years of playing top flight cricket, but I do worry that won't ever happen.

I agree with the "why bring in someone who hardly deserves a place in his shield team", but "players who statiscally are banging the door down for test selection" pretty much don't exist at the moment. An average of 40-42 isn't banging the door down. It's being the best of a poor bunch at most. The closest to banging the door down of late has been Wade this season, but when you have a history of being selected in the national team and completely failing to replicate domestic form at international level, then, unless your surname is Marsh, you generally need to bang harder for longer than someone who is yet to be tried and failed at international level.

Great article. It features logic, reasoning and common sense - a rare thing in Oz cricket these days. I doubt the selectors could even process this info.

Are we ever going to give up this fetish for playing second-rate all-rounders at #6? Six batsmen, four bowlers, and a wicketkeeper. Jeez.

There aren't many around like Pajura who only play test cricket. So according to your logic if you only get to play BBL to impress the selectors and perform better than anyone else in that comp you aren't good enough to play test cricket.

Absolutely. I think someone has to be in form to be picked, but they also have to have a strong record over recent seasons. Anyone can have a few good games, just as anyone can have a few bad ones.

You forget the old adage that form is temporary, class is permanent. Your chosen saying of "you are only as good as your last game" doesn't work in cricket. Anyone who has played the game and been run out by a nervous batting partner, or given out lbw by a suspect umpire, or received a Jaffa on ball 1, knows this to be true. You are what is wrong with the current setup. The whole "he got some runs in the BBL last game so lets get him into the Australian team" approach is a failure, and will continue to be so.

Come on Geoff. Handy 40's at a quick rate don't win Test matches. Did you see Pujara this summer?? Which BBL team is he doing well for at the moment??

Yes the famous DRS dismissal. Isn't cricket a funny game? If he gets the right decision there, who knows what happens? Bit like the Patterson out for 0 (if someone can hold a simple catch), instead of an unbeaten 100 in Canberra, makes a big difference to a career.

Stats, stats everyone talks about stats, we talk about career stats, but the only stats we should be talking about is the present season's stats whilst players are still playing, they are the stats one should or should not be selected on. Career stats are just that, they have nothing what so ever on the present day form of players, some players do improve and as most of you keep highlighting and keep bringing into your arguments is what they have or have not done in previous seasons, there is a relative saying, you are only as good as your last game or in most cases your last effort.