How are the CA-contracted players going in the Shield?

Thanks for that comment Ernest. And yes, it does seem his career is flickering away. I think back to two summers ago (after the India series) where he made a century against Sri Lanka in Australia and it seemed we at last had that opener position sorted. So much of this game is played above the shoulders and he must be at a stage where confidence and therefore technique have abandoned him. Like you I find it sad. Once the test team is picked and with the likely outcome of him not being in it, that may remove some pressure for him and perhaps he will get on and respond with some worthwhile Shield scores later in the competition. Thanks again .

Hi Peter, I think that Joe Burns' test career is over and I'm sure that he knows it too! Joe will not make the extended squad to take on India, obviously based on current form and to the selectors he will then be 'out of sight, out of mind' as this new opening combination of Warner and Pucovski gets underway. Khawaja will take his spot, talk about 'coming from the clouds' as the extra batsman who can 'float' anywhere in the top order. Twice in the shield this season Joe has got out next ball after hitting a boundary, and to really poor shots, he's mind is scrambled at the crease. Today's dismissal being of an attempted hook shot was that of a man who has lost his nerve at the crease, where speculation of his position has got to him. As a fan of Joe's I have found it sad and hard to watch of his sudden demise, as I was hoping to see him really step up this summer and consolidate his position in our test team, alas it is not to be. He and Warner will now finish with 1365 runs together in 27 innings at 50.56 with 6 century stands, not too shabby in anyone's book! Have always thought Joe would have made an excellent number 5 at test level, where he could have had a long career; always been just too iffy early against the new ball. Joe was never a true opener in my mind, but gee didn't he have the most splendid cover drive when he was up and going.

Katich, Chanderpaul, Botham, Greig, Lehmann, Paul Nobes, Wayne Andrews (a great batting coach), Sehwag, Gayle, Maxwell...

Only one flaw. He would have one of the soundest defensive techniques; back foot and front foot. His flaw is that very productive leg deflection. It gets him many runs but the bandwagoners notice it gets him out...only the bandwagoners. That's when the Chinese whispers kick in. Voges and JL have a better handle on this than the columnists and posters who repeat each other but don't actually watch him play.

Thanks for this analysis Sideline. Joe Burns lack of form is what keeps me up at night. I remember in the Boxing Day test when he was out cheaply against New Zealand before the Australians went on to make a significant score. He must have been kicking himself over missed opportunity. In an ideal world I would have preferred to see Pucovski and Harris establish themselves further at Shield level. They are doing everything asked of them but it is such a step up from that. I will say I liked what I saw about Harris when he opened against India a couple of summers ago, but he couldn't push much past those late teen scores which could have been a concentration issue. But I felt there was potential and he did make a seventy something towards the end of the series. With Bancroft possibly in the mix, hopefully it's merely a matter of time before we see someone really own that position.

I think Burns is more trouble then a Werribee Duck. Not sure you can ignore Pucovski any further

Bancroft sound technique..... Please Don, I hope you don't coach Cricket if that's your definition of a Sound Technique.

Marnus has had two ducks on the trot. I would say that he's probably not in his greatest form right now.

And he didn't bowl well in the first Shield game either. His bag of wickets contained a lot of rabbits, he had the highest rpo of all the NSW quicks in *both* innings and he failed to take a wicket with the new ball in *both* innings. Some people may not like these statements, but they *are* facts.

Agree that it's actually too far out to contemplate, really. There could be players in the frame by then that we simply would never suspect currently. I still think there's a case for choosing the best XI to handle the conditions and location, but form behind them is a non-negotiable. Right now I still doubt if AUS could put together a side to win in India, but they'd probably go even closer than last time.

He just managed in two innings to equal Bradman's score in one.

Yes. A lot is made of "technical flaws" but most commentary has a healthy helping of Chinese whispers. Bancroft plays so many very long innings because of his very sound technique. Sure, his dismissals around the leg slip area get great publicity but he has probably scored close 700 or 800 runs in that area too over the past 3 or 4 years. To pick folk for England or for India is simply a media concept. Pick the player who has earned selection. They earn selection because they have performed. They perform because they are good. Because they are good, they are the players best equipped to adapt. The other aspect is that we should never (and we don't) pick a side for 3 or 4 years time. Pick a form team. When a player gets too old and the form is no longer there, pick the replacement from the form Shield players. Cricket is not like footy where you have to bring players on. Test cricket and Shield cricket is already the same level.

The Blues don't need to panic just yet. Their fast bowling will improve when the Test players are absent...

Starc has also only played one match this season, the most recent match against Queensland. His results were good considering it was on a pitch that the Queensland spinner Swepson took ten wickets, and as ever will be in Test contention. He’s taken five wickets at 26.40 And after Starc's I1 performance against Tassie I'd like to post something accurate about his SS bowling this season

I guess given we'd be talking three years away. Trying to think of players with the style to negotiate opening in the UK. These guys can bat (very) long periods. I agree Weatherald deserves to be higher on the ladder - deliberately excluded I guess pending his personal situation. TBF I think Bancroft has the grit and patience required too, should have added his name. Even though his technique is questioned a lot, there is time to tighten that. Think he has plenty of qualities to carve a 50-60 test career still.

Why Renshaw? Harris is streets ahead. Why Street? He can't do anything but pat it defensively to a fieldsman. Hunt would be behind his opening partner, Weatherald, who is a bit behind the rest.