Matt Wade and Marcus Harris deserve their chance in the fifth Ashes Test at The Oval, while Travis Head is tremendously unlucky to have been dumped for all-rounder Mitch Marsh.
Australia last night made the shock decision to call up perennial under-performer Marsh for the final Ashes Test at the expense of Head, who averages 43 with the bat after 12 Tests.
I went into great detail last week as to why I thought it would be foolish to play Marsh in this series
Although Head has faded in the past two Tests, after making a good start to this Ashes, his excellent beginning to his Test career surely should have earned him greater patience from the selectors.
It is especially baffling for him to be dropped for a player in Marsh who has averaged ten with the bat and 59 with the ball in his past six Tests.
It is not as though Head has stood out as a failure with the bat in this series – 10 other batsmen across both sides have also had shockers. It has been a series dominated by bowlers.
Australia have struggled to unearth good young Test batsmen over the past decade so it was folly to dump Head after the first form blip of his career. Labuschagne, Smith and Head look as though they could be a long-term three-four-five combination for Australia. Nothing about Marsh, meanwhile, screams “long term”.
Mitch Marsh (AP Photo/Themba Hadebe)
In any case, the failures of Australia’s batting line-up in this Ashes means the likes of Kurtis Patterson, Joe Burns and Will Pucovski could press hard for selection in the upcoming home Test series against Pakistan.
Wade, in particular, faces a pivotal moment in his Test career in London. Soon to turn 32 years old, the left hander was not picked on his potential to become a long-term Test batsman.
Instead he was chosen due to a belief he could make an immediate impact in this series – that his rampant form at lower levels had to be exploited.
For this reason his Test future should be, and I imagine will be, viewed differently to the likes of Harris, who is five years younger than Wade.
After making a ton in his previous Test, 26-year-old Kurtis Patterson was dumped to make room for Wade. There was some sense in making that call on the basis of Wade’s scorching touch and the need to pick an Ashes squad for the here and now.
If Wade fails again at The Oval, though, there will be no justification for retaining him against Pakistan. The here and now selection strategy was an attempt to end Australia’s long run of failures in the UK. It is not a wise long-term approach.
Australia need to try to build the core of a quality Test side, one that can become consistently excellent. The likes of Head and Labuschagne have showed signs in their brief Test careers they may become pillars of Australia’s top six.
Patterson, Burns, Pucovski and Matt Renshaw are four more batsmen who are young enough and sufficiently talented to potentially become fixtures of the Australian side. That is why Wade has no time to waste.
Warner, meanwhile, is almost a year older than Wade. The key difference is that the opener has an extraordinary record in home Tests which makes him an automatic pick against Pakistan, regardless of what happens at The Oval.
From his 38 home Tests, Warner has piled up 3,698 runs at 60, including a phenomenal haul of 15 tons. Of course, that record in no way guarantees him success this summer.
His form has been so dire in this Ashes that it could well carry over into the two Tests against Pakistan. Time will tell.
Meanwhile, Burns, Harris, Cameron Bancroft and perhaps even Usman Khawaja will soon engage in a Sheffield Shield shoot-out to claim the second opener’s spot.
There will be four rounds of the Shield before Australia name their squad for the series against Pakistan, which starts on November 21.
But first, of course, there is a fifth Ashes Test – the time is now for Harris and Wade.
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Id agree with a three test series a bit more meaningful. One of test at a random time may go unnoticed a bit if foreign teams play in england
To tell you the truth it should be played as back to back to back 3 test series between the top two teams. It would actually have a lot of meaning and atmosphere about it then.
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Its just a bit random as a one off match in a final particularly if its foreign teams playing in england it may lack a bit of spark as a final but will be intriguing to watch it . If it motivates more test play great. I was responding more to the fact that Australia may not play back in england for four years against england. I noticed the WTC Final has been scrapped a few times so it finally may get a go.
How is it a strange concept? Gives meaning to every test teams play over a two year period. The team will play for the title of best team in the world and probably a hefty chunk of cash to go with. Makes sense and motivates players to prioritise test cricket.
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
Oh. And Wade has scored a ton in his last innings.
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
"Warner, meanwhile, is almost a year older than Wade. The key difference is that the opener has an extraordinary record in home Tests which makes him an automatic pick against Pakistan, regardless of what happens at The Oval." Ahhhh. Remember the days when 'If you failed for Australia *anywhere* you got dropped'? This line of 'Keep Warner for Pakistan because of his great home record' is badly flawed. 1. It destroys the integrity of selection and opens the door for suspicions of bias & favouritism. 2. Where does this poor logic stop? Do you pick someone for the Adelaide Test because they've got a good record there? And then drop them immediately regardless of their Adelaide 200? 3. A blinding obvious flaw. It is picking a player who is out of form. And one other obvious thing that the OP has managed to overlook; While stridently outlining why WADE MUST GO (in Roar vernacular) while giving Warner a free pass for the Pakistan Tests, he's ignored the manner of Warners' dismissals. Iirc, all bar one time to a RH quick going around. That's a technical fault the size Sir Geoffreys' ego. Imagine the media savaging the Oz selectors will get if Pak get him out cheaply twice by the same method in T1?
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
The series was retained through the remarkable performance for Steve Smith and some good bowling by Cummins and Hazelwood. Good support from Labuschagne who might never have played a test if not for Smith's concussion.So yes, well done Langer and co for picking the World number 2 test batsman and World number 1 ranked bowler at the start of the test series. This series has been a success in spite of Langer and the selectors, not because of them. The riches of our pace bowling and the brittleness of the English batting (Burns and Stokes excepted) has allowed the selectors to pick anyone with good results and they have done so at their whim. Our batting, apart from Smith and Labuschagne has been poor, yet selectors' solution is to weaken it further by selecting Marsh over Head. You can concede whatever you want. The selectors have done Paine few favours with the batting line-ups this season although they sure got lucky with Marnus, although technically the credit there belongs to Joffrey Archer.
Waggers
Roar Rookie
I also say well done selectors and coach, minus the sarcasm. This is the first Ashes series in England we haven’t lost since 2001. From where we were 18 months ago I think it’s a terrific result. I’m prepared to concede that Langer, Chappell and Hohns have a bit more of an idea about selections etc than those of us sitting at home in our armchairs and in front of our computers.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
It was 30 innings in which Hayden scored 842 runs with 2 not outs and five scores over 50, at an average of 30. Not good by Hayden's standards but exceptional when compared to our openers this series. Of course, prior to those 30 innings, Hayden scored back to back centuries in Sri Lanka and had a test average of 58. That probably justified some grace with selectors. In those 30 innings, Hayden was dismissed with the score less than 50 nine times, including a runout and being the 5th man out with the score on 48, after making 24 which was our top score in a total of 93. 17 times in those 30 innings the score was 50 or more when Hayden was dismissed. Just for a little context.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
That's far more than a fair go when those selectors and coach are proven wrong again and again when it comes to the player in question. Play Marsh and bat him at 8 if you expect knowledgeable cricket fans to be supportive. You don't weaken an underperforming batting line up by dropping a batsman averaging 40 and replacing him with Mitch Marsh. Perhaps those at 'ground level' are too close to remain objective in their selections. The result: A mediocre score by England becomes an 80 run lead despite the efforts of Smith and Labuschagne...again. They dropped Khawaja for making starts but no big scores and now Head for the same, yet Warner is safe averaging 9. Starc and Pattinson aren't picked despite playing little of the series and offering far more than Siddle who gets the nod. Well done selectors and coach!.
Waggers
Roar Rookie
A fair go in that if the selectors and coach believe he is the best man for the job (after all they are at ground level and are slightly more informed than us about where Mitch is at), then we should get behind him.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Pretty much, yes.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
Can you qualify 'give him a fair go"? It's a vague phrase and many would suggest that 30 tests is more than a fair go for the returns Mitch has delivered. Joe Burns, for example. Joe has scored 4 test hundreds and averages 40. Only 16 tests... Of course, if Mitch bats at seven or eight, then maybe its a more realistic selection, although I think Wade at five and Paine at six is a strain on the top four, especially when the two openers couldn't find runs with a GPS and Sat Nav.
Jero
Roar Rookie
Fair point. Though Jeff Crowe hit 1,601 runs in 39 Tests at 26.24. Maybe the 1980s NZ team was the fairer analogy. Or the Australian Test team of the mid 80s to be even fairer.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
Bit harsh on the likes of Bevan Congdon there, Jero. Batting average of 32.5 and bowling average of 36 would have made Mitch redundant even in an early 1970's New Zealand side.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
Marsh opening? What were you on when you thought that? Could your logic have been something akin to the following? Ours openers are scoring three fifths of bugger all, which is not too tall an ask for Mitch at test level. Put him there and nobody will notice a difference?
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
Jeff... you may be right but that's a tough message for the selectors to sell when they bring Mitch Marsh back into the side. It might not hurt Head to be dropped but a tough call when there are at least a couple of worse performing batsmen still in the side.
Rob
Guest
Also a good stride forward and Broad would be zero chance of getting the big left hander out LBW.
sheek
Roar Guru
Don't you just hate it when you vehemently oppose some guy's selection then, lo & behold, he gets Australia out of a pickle. 4/35, cop that Australia! Chuckle, chuckle, chuckle, chuckle, chuckle.....
Waggers
Roar Rookie
What poor selection and favouritism are you talking about specifically?