Kurtis Patterson and Joe Burns have missed out on the Ashes squad, with Michael Neser, Mitch Marsh and Matt Wade making the 17-man group.
Rarely has the makeup of Australia’s best XI for an Ashes series been so unsure up until just over a week before the first Test. But Australia’s 12-vs-12 intra-squad match in Southampton this week made things clearer.
Despite both scoring tons in their last Test, indifferent recent form saw Patterson and Burns axed from Australia’s 17-man man squad.
My team for the first Ashes Test at Edgbaston
1. David Warner
2. Cameron Bancroft
3. Usman Khawaja
4. Steve Smith
5. Travis Head
6. Marnus Labuschagne
7. Tim Paine
8. James Pattinson
9. Pat Cummins
10. Peter Siddle
11. Nathan Lyon
Squad reserves
12. Mitchell Starc
13. Josh Hazlewood
14. Mitch Marsh
15. Matthew Wade
16. Michael Neser
17. Marcus Harris
The most obvious takeaway from the intra-squad match was that, on a traditional seaming English pitch, Mitchell Starc’s waywardness outweighs his startling speed and bounce.
As Irish seamer Tim Murtagh demolished England with precise 120km/h seamers yesterday, it became even clearer Australia need to prioritise accuracy over pace when picking their quicks to play on moist pitches. James Pattinson and Pat Cummins, the men I’d pick to partner Siddle in the first Test, possess a rare combination of both.
Pattinson and Siddle combined to take 9-80 from 47 overs in the intra-squad match, showing the benefit of having dominated in county cricket over the past two seasons. Starc and Josh Hazlewood, meanwhile, were unable to exploit the moist pitch anywhere near as well, together taking 3-108.
Australia’s quicks too often wasted favourable conditions in the past two Ashes. Time and again the likes of Starc and Mitch Johnson were unable to find the line and length necessary to make the most of the lateral movement on offer. This time around, Australia cannot repeat the mistake of failing to tailor their attack to the conditions.
Starc should be held back for any Tests played on flatter decks, on which his ability to make something from nothing is priceless.
For pitches like Edgbaston, which is typically seam friendly, Australia need a more accurate, reliable pace unit. Hazlewood, meanwhile, is battling for form after a long injury layoff. He has played just two red-ball matches in the past six months, and before that had averaged 37 with the ball from his previous seven Tests. The tall right-armer remains an excellent option in Tests when in form, and could still play a pivotal role at some stage in this Ashes.
So, too, could Burns and Wade, who I would have as my two back-up batsmen. Burns is very unlucky not to make my starting XI. He has a fine Test record and made 180 in Australia’s last Test. But Burns has now had four failures in a row against the only two strong attacks he’s faced on this tour – the England Lions and the Brad Haddin XII.
If Australia are to spring an upset in the Ashes, they need to pick cricketers who are in form right now, and who are accustomed to the conditions. That’s partly why I’ve favoured three men who have played plenty of county cricket the last few months and done well in the process – Siddle, Pattinson and Bancroft.
In his four county matches over the past month, Bancroft piled up 513 runs at 73. One performance, in particular, swayed me to include him in my Ashes XI – his double of 77 and 92* against Lancashire, who boasted England swing superstar James Anderson.
Anderson has tormented Australia in England in the past and has destroyed county cricket this season, with 30 wickets at 9. Yet Bancroft was able to neuter Anderson in the first innings of the Durham vs Lancashire match on his way to 77.
Bancroft was then the standout batsman in the intra-squad match with scores of 93* and 17. What was particularly significant was the amount of balls he soaked up. On an extremely difficult pitch against elite bowlers, Bancroft faced 242 balls while being dismissed just once. The other three openers in the match – Warner, Burns and Harris – combined to face fewer deliveries (222) while being dismissed six times.
The West Australian is dour. Bancroft’s greatest attribute as a first-class opener is his ability to blunt the new ball and bat for time.
That was underlined five months ago in his first-class comeback innings following his ban. Against a solid NSW attack featuring Trent Copeland, Steve O’Keefe and Sean Abbott, Bancroft carried his bat, facing 358 deliveries as he made 138*.
His grit and powers of concentration are fantastic. Combined with his success and experience in the UK, where he’s played 25 first-class matches, this makes him a suitable foil for the aggressive Warner. At number three, Khawaja is an automatic pick if fit. Ditto for Smith at four.
Number five Head failed in both innings of the intra-squad match. But he holds his spot due to his good Test record (663 runs at 51) and his wonderful 139* against a strong England Lions attack last week. Patterson is the Test incumbent at number six and made 30 and 114* in his two innings in his debut series against Sri Lanka.
In his last seven red ball matches, however, including this intra-squad match, Patterson has averaged just 18 with the bat from 13 innings. Patterson definitely has a future as a Test cricketer, but he’s lost touch at the worst possible juncture.
By comparison, Labuschagne has struck form right when it matters and is battle-hardened in English conditions, with five tons in county cricket over the past three months. He also offers Australia a valuable fifth bowling option, having taken nine wickets at 27 so far in Tests, and grabbed 19 wickets from ten county matches this season.
Labuschagne’s followed at seven by captain and keeper Tim Paine, then the horses-for-courses bowling attack of James Pattinson, Pat Cummins, Peter Siddle and Nathan Lyon. Overall, this is not a world-beating Test XI. While the attack looks threatening, there are major questions about the ability of this batting line-up to handle lateral movement. England should be confident of rolling them, even after their shoddy performance against Ireland.
But this is the best line-up Australia can pick to play on what I expect to be a relatively moist pitch at Edgbaston in the Ashes opener.
Old mate
Roar Rookie
Time will tell :)
Pedro The Fisherman
Roar Rookie
unreliable but ACCURATE!
Old mate
Roar Rookie
I do not think it is odd. The point is that you used a statistic to support your argument when it is very likely to be unreliable due to the small sample size. Of course anyone can have an opinion about a cricketer even after just 1 innings but using a stat after 1 innings to support the argument is unwise. Stats like averages become more reliable as a measure of ability as the number of innings increases - say above 40. Are you with me? BTW Head just scored a ton in the tour game!
Pedro The Fisherman
Roar Rookie
Yes Shaun Marsh not Mitch (my bad) but the point is the same … why do all left handers become “slashers” outside off stump when they get out when right handers do not seem to suffer the same fate/analysis. I am not a leftie BUT I would suggest that right arm bowlers bowling to left hand batsmen open up the covers and point area for expansive shot selection which makes ALL left handers look a bit “loose” outside off when they edge one (but fluent when they middle it). With an average of 51 (14 innings only) I would suggest that Head has been middling a few! Head’s 14 innings is all that we have to guide us which, by your reckoning, is enough to determine that a player is a “slasher outside off” but not enough to highlight an average of 51? Odd that!
Old mate
Roar Rookie
The comment referred to MM's bro. His first name is Shaun. In any case: You are using Head's average based on 14 innings to argue your point? That sample size is not large enough for the average to be a reliable estimate of his ability. Wait until Head has played say 40 innings then his average will be a better indicator of his ability
DingoGray
Roar Guru
Yep, i too would pick Siddle. His partnership with Pattinson is really important. Plus it makes Starc sweat a bit and hopefully fires up when he's unleashed. (he get an opportunity later in the series.) For me Khawaja is straight up in if he's fit. 6 is different, i tend to think Labuschagne will get 1st crack but wouldn't be too disappointed if Wade got an opportunity
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
For guys like that, it may come down to what they focus on. If their primary focus had been bowling instead of batting they may well have turned themselves into top quality test bowling allrounders, instead of top quality test batting allrounders. They chose right though! While bowling allrounders are of some benefit, I think a genuine batting allrounder, who is a decent quality bowler while being one of the best batsmen in the team, is much more valuable, allowing you to have the fifth bowler without sacrificing batting at all. If you also happen to have one of your bowlers is a pretty decent batsman coming in at 7-8, then that's a pretty great bonus, giving a long batting lineup. But using a bowling allrounder to add a fifth bowler will always mean weakening the batting.
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Last time we tried to hit sure of the wicket, without discipline to be attract in 13 and 15 we got walloped. Not sure on this I think Smiths record as captain was pretty good overall. Ill take a whitewash of england any day. Im just not sure smith was good at managing the players. Clarke created more disharmony than smith though. ! In any event he's unlikely to captain any time soon due to the ban . I struggle to find a better captain the side than smith though . Finch was pretty amazing as captain in the one days int he last six months but thats irrelevant as he's not in the test team. Paine surely can't stay in the role too long just don't think cummins is ready quite yet
Peter Warrington
Guest
I am not knocking his batting except in the last 2 months and he himself said it was the burden of captaincy across the formats that was making him lose concentration and not bat with the intensity he needed to i am talking about the 17-18 captaincy, against a pathetic England, where we played joyless cricket in my opinion. so many opportunities to play with some freedom. all eschewed in the name of a whitewash. yet the same team, fresh from the horrors of Perth and hobart, went like the clappers to do Pakistan 3-0 with unfeasibly high run rates. Warner a century before lunch etc. one loss in Bangladesh and we were reborn as some 1950s grinding machine of domination. boring boring boring. we should never go back to that. play hard. play attractive cricket. we have the talent.
Pedro's rational mind
Guest
Currently, everyone bar possibly India (only on a good day) is a minnow by your standards. The only teams that would come close to this would be the two-three best sides the world has ever seen. These are impossibly unrealistic standards. India is the only side clearly better than NZ currently. Certainly not Pakistan who NZ have beaten home and away. Nor England who have been lucky to draw series with NZ and lost the last one, and the last tests series SA played aginst NZ, SA were saved from certain defeat by two days rain. While Australia's record against NZ is good (helped out by massive umpiring errors) recently, Australia (consistently) lose to sides NZ do not lose to. Few attacks in history would have had the 4th seam option average below 30. Few sides would have had their 6th batsmen ave above 40 except for that crazy period between 2000-2015, which was a historical anamoly for batting averages. CDG averages better than Lyon with the ball, so I'm assuming you wouldn't have Australia pick him. Stokes ave 33 with the bat and 32 with the ball, so worse than CDG in both disciplines, so you wouldn't pick him either. He averages better than many of the batsmen you've named in the Aussie 11, so you wouldn't be picking them either. Botham ave 28 with the ball as third seemer and 32 with the bat, often batting higher than where CDG bats. I'm assuming you wouldn't have picked him either. Kapil Dev 31 bat, 29 ball. The list goes on. Your criteria bear no relationship to reality, not here now, which is really what's relevant, not historically either. The fact is that you'd never have a squad of 11 by your standards, barring one or two nations for a decade or two over a 140 year period. So, you wouldn't have test cricket, and you couldn't possibly judge those other three or 4 sides because they'd be playing against minnows constantly as no other team during that period would have players good enough for an 11 either. Your criteria aren't realistic, it just doesn't match historical reality. And if it bears no resemblance to reality...
Pierro
Roar Rookie
The bowlers were furious with what warner did by all accounts as was nearly every player. Its pretty clear for me but we can never be totally sure. I just can't see smith , a lover of the game on all levels and so allegiant sancitioning any such plan. He just had some poor judgment in handling it after. I think theres a lot of speculation in what you are saying, players have taped their hands for years and had a go. Moreover atherton with dirt and rocks in his pocket, rabada with a coke top bottle, all escaped bans. One year for me was a joke save for the fact that Warners an idiot and should have copped a 6 months minimum for making the team look so bad and Bancroft and Smith deserved various sentences for following instructions and in smiths case not being decisive and fully explaining what happened after the fact. We can certainly go on whats clear. The ACB went further than any other cricket board in history. Most cricket boards in the past have found ways to deny it, or over turn any small one match bans. Granted there was extra negligence in the handling of it all after the fact though which could increase the bans a bit but thats for off field behavior in reality with Smith
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Interesting jeff but it seems to indicate Smith had no intention and per the article was not charged with the development of any plan to cheat. "So it seems Smith might have heard discussion about it, or seen warning signs, but hadn't realised it was going ahead. Or hadn't wanted to know. Or that he realised something was up while out on the field, but didn't put a stop to it." I think this is whats relevant i.e. he had no intention to cheat for me but rightly as you point he bought the game in to disrepute as his reaction after knowing was to try and protect the players and water it down changing the facts. I guess many captains would protect their players at all costs and it seems that cricket australia and only perhaps lehman was consulted on how to react to warners idiocy. Did Smith deserve a year I don't think so myself if he had no intention but he did make a bad error of judgement by trying in the aftermath from the looks of it
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Not sure on that look at Smiths batting average pre ban. He was the only guy alongside rogers and warners (second innings only) holding australis batting up in 15. I can't recall what year he was made captain but he certainly wasn't captain in any other ashes in england and we clonked england in australia under smiths leadership. he did shame maxwell though . Warner was clearly running riot and creating problems though and smith could not contain him which was an issue
Jeff
Roar Rookie
A few lies in the press conference after play on day 3, including that it was sticky tape with "granules" (sand) attached. The CA investigation afterwards revealed that Smith has been lying to the media and public and it was that for which he was charged with bringing the game in to disrepute as Australian Captain. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-29/a-year-ban-is-what-smith-and-warner-deserve-lemon/9599928
Pierro
Roar Rookie
A lot of speculation there. No worse than the coke bottle top rabada used or the dirt and rocks caught on film that atherton used. Both received no ban or rabada got one game and got it overturned. Not in the nanny state of australia though we go for the jugular and lay down a years ban instead of 1 match. To my knowledge smith had no knowledge they used sandpaper , even then be lucky if it was used once . Stupid Warner ! They got over penalized in any event
Pierro
Roar Rookie
What was the lie jeff remind me. From what I remember he said he saw warner and bancroft talking looking sheepish and literally just said I don't want to know. Ie he was negligent in not questioning them if they looked a bit sheepish. To my knowledge smith had no knowledge sandpaper was going to be used and did not sanction use of external material to wear one side of the ball.?
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Smith's problem was he lied about in the press conference. If he hadn't, CA may not have given him much of an additional penalty at all to the one ICC did.
Peter Warrington
Guest
nah we played some of the most boring cricket under his watch in the Ashes. despite jaunty efforts the summer before and in India and Bangladesh. something changed in him. he went public saying he couldn't hack it all. after he shamed Maxwell, that is. was batting trash in SA. CA stuffed up by not hearing his call for help until it was too late. Greg Chappell #2
Peter Warrington
Guest
never sure about Jacques. his record is ok. average 33 almost and strike rate almost 70 he was either a handy 4th seamer or a part timer who was bowled way too much we never got to see what he could do as a pure seamer. he did have the nice outie and i understand he was a 150-er when young, he certainly was strong enough Sobers - I just think he bowled himself or was bowled way too much.
Peter Warrington
Guest
Beefy did well from 5-7. he was at 7 in 81 when he got the two tons, because england played Peter Willey as the spinner backing up the 4 quicks - Willey batted at 6 that series, probably due to Botham's form going in . (in the 5th test england, holding the Ashes and suddenly being 2-1 up, stacked the batting with Botham at 7 and Knotty at 8, and 50's from Allott and Emburey tipped us over the edge : ( ) i think packages of allrounderism from 6-8 are probably the gamechanger, rather than one standalone allrounder Australia did it with Benaud, Davo, Slash and Johnny Martin and with Watson and Invers as well as Marsh in 72 and with North, Haddin, McDonald and Johnson in Sa in 08-9 England are doing it now. Freddie really just let them have the option of Giles, who was their Trevor Hohns that series.