Got the Ashes, now get the number one ranking

Fair enough, I'll bow to your superior knowledge as to what constitutes a different bowling attack and move on.

And for the last 4 of those, they made one change, so the core of the attack was unchanged.

Last 5 Tests Australia has played, there has been 5 different bowling attacks.

Jhye Richardson and Pattinson are front runners and who ever gets the nod for the First Test should get a run for the next 4, assuming they maintain fitness and form. Starc needs to be considered because he's obviously starting to let them go pretty well. "They have a horses for course mentally where bowlers have been pigeonholed and they are sticking to it." That's a strange comment, given there's at most one bowling spot up for grabs for the First Test. Cummins, Hazlewood and Lyon will all play, assuming they're not injured in the next few weeks, so it's up to J Richardson, Starc or Pattinson to do enough to get the 4th slot. There's nothing horses for courses about that. I'm also assuming Australia will keep the same bowling squad if they don't lose form and they stay fit. I've certainly heard nothing from Hohns or Langer to suggest that won't be the case.

Pattinson and Richardson ready to go? I’m a huge fan of Pattinson, but he’s spent the last five years injured or coming back from injury, which is exactly why he should be in and kept bowling til his body fails. Are you talking about Jhye or Kane Richardson, because I’m fairly sure Jhye is coming back from an injury which kept him out of the Ashes. As for Starc, taking wickets – therefore being in form – doesn’t matter to this hierarchy, that’s my point. They have a horses for course mentally where bowlers have been pigeonholed and they are sticking to it. Once Pattinson played in England he shoulda kept being thrown the ball while in form, likewise Starc. They’re over thinking it, to the detriment of players form and their ability to perform on all surfaces. Speed merchants Thomson and Lee learnt from experience as they got older, this batch of bowlers aren’t being given the same option because apparently the selectors believe there’s an embarrassment of riches and the preventative backroomers who have too much importance. Meanwhile if a horse isn’t on the right course in Dec – Jan, he can always bowl 4 overs in slogball to maintain or find that form and rhythm to hit the ground running for the next stint of 40+ overs in 5 days!

The problem with people dismissing Starc ( and I've been guilty of that to a degree) is, he's the type of bowler who needs work, to really come good. Guys like Richardson and Pattinson seem to be "on" already, whereas Starc needs a game or two, or quite a few overs, to get the radar right, get his rhythm on song, etc. He bowled two deliveries in that Tassie innings that would have gotten any batsmen in world cricket, IMO. There was that tailing yorker and the ball to Paine, both the sort of balls only this guy could bowl. I still like Richardson for the third seamer, but the variety Starc brings to an attack cannot be underestimated, especially if he can get any reverse swing. All he can do is keep taking wickets and see what the selectors think.

thats a very good side you picked nudge.

So Starc should do a Gayle or Bravo? Or head to NZ and try for a fast track citizenship to play Tests? NZ, no 2 ranked Test nation, would he get a game? Or are the wickets too green, in light of the reasoning for leaving him out in England when in form? Is his recent form against Tassie irrelevant? Or are we going to hear that he only cleaned up the tail? With all due respect to the Aussie captain coming off a ton, who received a bog ordinary delivery. Anyway, 50 Tests, strikerate of 49, forget him!

Wade paid his dues in the Shield, was picked and had the 3rd best series for a batsman from about 7-8 tried. Waugh knows full well he isn’t going to ever bat in Smith’s spot, so his comment comes off as a Warne media self promotion reminder. Wade has to play the home Tests. As for getting number one ranking? All you can do is beat teams above you for credibility and build experience and belief. But is number one the be all? Surely with the WTC now, whoever wins the final in a couple of years time is world number one? Anyway, the Australian team will only be nominal no 1 in the next 12 months if other countries get weaker, as our surfaces are dumbed down, batsman become incapable of adapting to foreign pitches given the additional problem of ‘hit and run’ tours.

5, I reckon.

My team for the First Test vs Pakistan 1. Joe Burns/Usman Khawaja (Either one will be better than Harris and Bancroft) 2. David Warner (can't drop him for a home test series) 3. Marnus Labuschagne 4. Steve Smith 5. Travis Head (should be recalled, don't need a batting all-rounder) 6. Matthew Wade 7. Tim Paine (c) (wk) 8. Pat Cummins 9. Mitchell Starc (maybe James Pattinson, if Starc doesn't regain his form) 10. Nathan Lyon 11. Josh Hazlewood

I think yes Wade deserves to start the home season at 5/6, has probably done enough without anyone to trump him.

Jhye Richardson would provide more variety to the attack than Pattinson, but I think Starc deserves to play. At least for the two tests against Pakistan.

“ With a career batting average below 30, Wade should not be considered for Test cricket anytime soon.”. While I would agree with you for specialist batsmen who have played a decent number of Tests, I don’t think it applies to someone who plays a lot as keeper. E.g. Brendan McCullum averaged 34 as a keeper, 43 as batsman; Sangakkara 40 with the gloves, 67 without; Clyde Walcott 40 as keeper, 65 as specialist bat. So with Wade, it’s more relevant to look at recent form in Tests and in first class, where he lifted his game to a level that demanded selection (not that he’s shown enough in England to cement a place by any means). NZ have been very impressive over the last couple of years but their second place on the rankings is a bit misleading. They’ve had several series wins at home mostly against the likes of Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and the Windies. They edge into second place thanks to an away win vs Pakistan and a draw in Sri Lanka. But they have lost all series vs Australia, South Africa and India since 2012 bar one (1-0 in 2 test series vs India at home in 2013-14). Unlike the ICC player rankings, the Test rankings don’t take account of the quality of the opponents.

Yeah, he has got a bit of the Ryano about him now that you mention it. Not quite in the same class yet but he's in that mould isn't he. A good honest toiler with a generous splash of brilliance thrown in. .. good times with the bowling. Just a pity we haven't got the same depth with the batting. I do believe it's slowly coming around though. I have high hopes for guys like Head, Labs and Pucovski. Just a couple more young blokes coming good would make a world of difference.

Once again, a case of the right sort of bowler born a few years too late. I reckon he would have been an ideal replacement when Ryan Harris was suffering those knee injuries a few years ago.

It's good to see that shoulder pop hasn't affected Richo's action and/or pace and swing. I forgot about him tbh and yes, he's a great option for us. I do like Nesser though. He's an old school sort of player and looks tough as nails to me. There probably isn't a place for him if everyone is available but it's nice to have him in the queue just the same.

IMO, Richardson's done more to date Bob. Very impressive figures do far, especially his run rate, which shows he's bowling accurately as well as picking up wickets. Scary good choices to have though? Pattinson or Richardson? Either will do a job I reckon.

Hi Matt, great to see another person throwing their hat into the writing ring and this article is a pretty fair summary of where Test cricket hopefuls currently lie. I'm not sure how the title ties in with the rest of the story? It's safe to say we need to win both series against Pakistan and New Zealand to progress, but we have a very fragile batting lineup and a win, particularly against the Kiwis, will be a very difficult proposition. We also have a very long way to go before we can hope to match it with India, either in Australia or overseas. Yes we have a quality seam attack but our batting, with the exception of Smith and an emerging Labuschagne, is frail in comparison to India's top 7. That said, you've covered off most of the guys in contention, though I do have to disagree with one comment; "Marsh would have almost certainly maintained his spot in the side with match figures of 7/86 including a five-wicket haul in the first innings of the fifth Ashes Test". The reason given for his inclusion in that last Test was to give support to the bowlers and there's no question he did that, but even if he were fit, why would we need to include a 5th bowler on a Gabba deck that so far, has allowed plenty of Shield wickets to be taken by those who really bend their backs? If anything, we badly need a good number 6 batsman and you've provided some good options in that regard.

I’d be happy if Wade keeps his spot. As you mentioned DB he did a decent job in England even if he was inconsistent. I think he needs to make a score in this current shield match or the next one. That goes with Head as well. I think Pucovski should be ahead of Head and Wade at the moment, as long as his mental health is in a good position and from all reports he is in a really good place. I’d be looking something like this. Harris Warner Labuschagne Smith Pucovski Wade Paine Cummins Pattinson/Starc Lyon Hazlewood