Wade ready for Test cricket speculation

Fully agree on the whole "fails in 2 innings so drop him" mentality of people on the internet. If you pick someone, they get minimum 4 innings, preferably 6. But once again the fragility of our test lineup will mean a couple of mediocre shield batsman with career averages of 37-38 will fluke some runs and get picked and be found to be completely out of their depth at international level. Then the cycle continues, unless we pick batsman who have been scoring runs consistently for a long time over 15-20 FC matches, not 5.

Good pick up on the Burns consecutive Tests. I do think we are at a point where we have to pick and stick for a while. The Pakistan series should produce good results for the Australian players selected and I think that alone will probably give most a run of 5 Tests through the summer, except; the NZ series I think will be tougher than Pakistan and it may well be that come the Sydney Test, if Australia has lost the first two, there will be wholesale changes again. But, again, that will just add to the merry go round selection approach of recent times. It's a peculiarity of the times; I recall during the Ashes that even after just one batting innings by Australia midway through the First Test, commentators on The Roar were making judgments and calling for changes. Just seems symptomatic of the here now/24-7/instant gratification/short attention span time we live in. Burns, if selected, has the chance for 5 Tests this summer; I'm not sure if he would get picked to fill a middle order spot; more likely his opportunity will present itself in partnering Warner. It's all highly speculative at this point until we see the Shield/Aus A performances beforehand. I do think Burns can become a Test regular, though consistency will be his true test; he won't want one big score surrounded by low scores as he may get his card marked permanently. Anyways, the upside of the downside of Australia's Test batting line up issues is a real focus on the Sheffield Shield and I'm certainly looking forward to that starting in the morning!

Certainly a little inconsistent at Test level so far, but you have to factor in he’s obviously an opener, sometimes you cop a good ball early on, and the fact that he’s made 4 hundreds, so he can be a little hit or miss. But you know once he gets himself in, he goes on and makes a big daddy, match winning hundred. And he never played 12 consecutive, got dropped for the 3rd test against Sri Lanka, didnt play 1st test SA at the WACA then got picked for Hobart where he was a little unlucky but still failed, then gets dropped again, picked for the ultimate hiding to nothing in the 4th test against SA 2018. I think when a guy has made 3 hundreds in 10-11 tests as he had before he was scapegoated in Sri Lanka, you back him in for at lest another 7-8 tests. At the end of the day he’s outperformed Renshaw, Bancroft and Harris. I think that says something. Look you’re not that far off really, he is to blame, he should have scored more runs and took it out of selectors hands and cemented himself but that’s the past, we have to move on. I just really hope they give him the full 5 home tests to show his class, give him the faith they showed Bancroft in 2017/18. But we live in the age of Shaun Marsh playing 40 tests for AUS so there is still hope for Joe Burns lol

I can't disagree that it may be more difficult playing 5 games at the Gabba than only 1 for non-QLDers, but I don't think he has been as harshly treated as you say Ben. He has had his chances, however like Shaun Marsh, has produced flashes of brilliance with Test centuries but punctuated mostly by very lean returns. 12 of his 16 Tests were played consecutively across 5 series with scores of - 71, 129, 40, 0, 14, 11, 33, 126, 5, 26, 0, 170, 65, 3, 29, 0, 2, 1, 0, 0 So three good centuries and two 50s, but the rest was terrible; 11 scores under 15 including 5 ducks. It's very inconsistent. In the end, only Burns was to blame for being dropped. Yes, he did come back for the one Test v SL last summer and scored the 180, but then followed it up at FC domestic level (home and away) with (in reverse order) 8, 0, 19, 0, 133, 0*, 10, 31, 3, 11, 0, 28, 0. 18 0. That simply wasn't good enough to warrant selection in the Ashes squad.

Warner in for the first test also according to Paine.

Yes he made a ton against Sussex.

didnt Burns tonne up in one of the tour games pre-ashes?

Bob, I was familar with Wade's last Shield season of 1,000+ run season and 2x 100s and 8x 50s, however I went back and had a look and he did so at a SR of only 57, which surprised me. If that's the application he can bring into the Australian line up we'd be well served.

I completely agree about Damien Martyn, Bob. I loved to watch him bat and when he timed a cover drive, it fairly flew off the bat. It's sad that a bloke with as good a record as his, isn't better remembered. I'm bloody sure the selectors would kill for another bloke to play 67 Tests and average better than 46 at the end of his career.

Before Huss it was Damien Martyn. He had a rep as a flashy player but he definitely wasn't a one trick pony. He could, and did grind it out if needs be. A chronically under-rated player imo. There was a bloke called Ponting who wasn't a bad #6 either. With a bit more luck he might have made something of himself lol.. With Wade, I somewhat agree but I also believe he deserves a chance to prove us wrong. Just like Jeff, I really like the idea of a #6 being able to put the hammer down if that's what's needed. .. Fully agree re Stokes though. Love him or hate him he's a champ. Proved himself a smart player with a keen sense of the match situation too. He's the complete package really.

Time will tell Paul; I suspect Wade has the ability to tough it out and hold his wicket - you can't score Test centuries unless you can hold up your end in the first place (unless you slog your way to a hundred, but that wasn't Wade's case in the Ashes as such, though he did score quickly). He's had a few innings in the last two Shield seasons where he has been measured but scored. Wade had some low scores in the Ashes as most did; they were trying conditions and given the sample size of only 5 Tests, I don't read too much into him not having had a grind-it-out innings in that particular series.

hi Jeff, the two guys in recent times I've really liked at number 6 in Tests, have been Steve Waugh & Mike Hussey. Both had the capacity to get the score ticking over quickly, but could equally weather the storm if Australia was 4 down for not many. Wade is a class player, otherwise he wouldn't be in the side, but I'd like to see him gut it out when things are tough. He is a terrific attacking batsman but there will be plenty of times when this style of batting isn't what's needed. Totally agree about the Wade chirp. HIs manner of making comment verged on the aggressive IMO and we seriously need to get that out of our game. Have a yarn by all means, but don't get aggro about it. Wade would have been wise to talk with Ben Stokes ( only about how he goes about batting), because Stokes IMO, batted according to the situation presented to him. He's developed into a much better number 6 than Wade, simply because he is not a one trick pony, like I believe Wade currently is.

I like the idea of Wade as Australia's number 6. He has the ability to put the foot down and score quickly; I think Australia needs that type of number 6 if we want to take games away from opponents and win, not just sandbag against potential losses. Of course it helps if he has a platform from numbers 1-5 in order to do that. Personally I didn't much like the Wade chirp in the Ashes, especially at the end, however I also suspect that JL has the capacity to impose his death stare on Wade and pull him back into line if needs be.

A little bit from all of them maybe Paul. .. I was under the impression that Langer didn't want him anywhere near the team because of his attack dog role under the previous regime. Turns out that was very wrong and in a way I'm glad. I wasn't ever comfortable with a players perceived character figuring too heavily in the selection process. We obviously don't want a team full of ratbags but a players ability should still be the primary consideration when picking the side. It's Ok to have good blokes in your team, that's fine, but if you want to win games they should also be good players. I'm glad common sense has prevailed here.

hi Bob, I just wonder if someone from CA hasn't got in his ear and suggested he focuses on his batting if he wants to play Test cricket and gives away any thought of keeping? Or maybe he's seen what's happened to Bairstow's Test career by taking on the two roles? Or maybe he realizes he probably ain't a Test level keeper!!

"“My keeping days are probably gone in red-ball cricket unless the team are looking to play another batsman,” .. I thought he might be somewhere in the thinking as a potential keeper post Paine. He doesn't sound keen though. Probably for the best in the long run as his batting could end up being way better than his keeping ever was.

Burns is a natural stroke maker, and having watched him closely I do think he does struggle against the moving ball. He bats on middle-leg and doesn't fully cover the stumps whilst leaving and often gets enticed into following the fullish out swingers with his hands. But I do think once he gets in he scores big. Labuschagne, on the other hand, is a good leaver as we've witnessed throughout the recently concluded Ashes series. So, I'd try burns at 6 and see how he goes. Labu, without a shadow of doubt, loves the new ball. I'm not dropping him down the the order.

That's why Joe Burns is probably the worse treated first class batsman in the last 10 years. Opens the batting on probably the hardest, ( maybe behind Hobart) wicket in the country, averages over 40, still averaged 37/38 while battling chronic fatigue syndrome last season, has never played more than 7-8 tests in a row, makes a 180 in his last test and then still doesnt even make the squad. It's a joke. He deserves the entire summer and Bangladesh for 2 tests to settle in just as recompense for the crap he's had to deal with by selectors. Think about the mediocrities that have played test cricket while he was shafted. Aaron Finch, Maddinson, Travis Head, Shaun Marsh, Mitch Marsh. Burns should have played 30-40 tests by now if the selectors weren't disgustingly biased towards their old mates sons and hunch picks.

I'd go further and say that the tour match SL attack was even better than the attack SL picked for the First Test; they lost their entire pace attack (4) to injury prior to the First Test and 3 of the 4 quicks they ended up with, had 5 Tests experience between them. Hence I take the arguments about Patterson and Burns "scoring centuries in their last Test" and therefore should have been automatic selections for the Ashes, with a grain of salt. Both Patterson and Burns had dreadful finishes to the Shield season last year and couldn't perform on tour in the UK so missed squad selection; and justifiably so. That said, I think Burns has the capability (he does have multiple Test centuries), but his FC is punctuated by inconsistency. I think he'd be 1 or 2 scores away from selection v Pakistan. Re Patterson, I agree he's on the fringe of selection as a solid FC batsman, but I'm not yet convinced he's a solid long term Test prospect. As you say, he needs a more solid body of work behind him. But then it's back to the same issue of if Aus doesn't pick the likes of Patterson to fill a spot when it's required, who do they pick? We seem to be caught in a position whereby we can't pick just one "newbie" and give them time to develop in the Test team, because we have so many newbies and the batting is suffering, so they all end up on this merry go round of being dropped every few Tests trying to shore up the line up with yet somebody else. The fact is, almost all batsmen need time to hone their craft at Test level; it's a huge step up from domestic FC.

Those two centuries were against a B grade attack as well, Kurtis Patterson is a solid First-Class batsman, but the fact that he's made only 8 hundreds in 67 games is quite telling. I'm sure he'll get another opportunity in test cricket in a couple of years time but he needs to start converting 60s and 70s to 120s and he will be a shoe in for the Test team.