Why Australia chose Henriques over Green

Give it a miss Don. Green is coming back from injury against arguably the worlds strongest cricket nation. The choices are fine. Green will get his chances to shine and most of us are sure he will.

Every team plays 5 bowlers or more, but not of the quality of NSW's attack. Henriques would be bowling a lot more for SA, for example. And, repeating my point for a third time, Green is recovering from injury, which necessitates his bowling load being managed. Nothing against him. The rest of what you wrote is deflecting. You do support players from all states, which is great. Clearly though, you advocate much more strongly for players from WA. That's your prerogative, but the bias is there. And my only anti-WA sentiment has been joining in a few jokes about Shaun Marsh. I have advocated for several players in the past, and will continue to do so as they continue to produce great talent. Ultimately, I still maintain that Henriques was the sensible choice given the lineup and the series still being alive, but Green is the future, already very good and potentially great (and his comparative over rate today undermines everything about managing his workload).

Every team plays 5 bowlers or more. If you read the cricket comments, you will see positive comments from me about cricketers from every state. I don't see why anyone needs to knock a cricketer, especially such a stunning prospect. Tim, your insistence that everything from WA must be rejected says nothing about cricket. It is strange.

They were from his teenage years. He is 21 and hasn't played ODD for 2 years. When he started his Shield career, people not following his cricket, just his stats, were raving about his bowling (you might have forgotten that time) but said his batting doesn't rank him as an all rounder. Now the statistical bandwagoners look at his batting and, with furrowed brow, sincerely say he has shown nothing with the ball. Thankfully, JL knows and George Bailey and Tim Paine have faced his bowling.

Green's got no international form so what other figures can I use? Of course they were from his teenage years and his early 20's, the guys only been in first class cricket for a short time. Who cares if Green open last game, he bowled hardly any overs and was mothballed and rightly so.

Of course you forget that Green has never, in his whole career, even conceded one run in ODI cricket. Beat that stat!

NSW play 5 bowlers, with most of them being current or past Australian players. Henriques' six over spell was his longest ever... I don't even have to bother looking that up to know that you just made that up. And Green is recovering from injury. Face it, you wouldn't even be commenting on this if Green played for a different state.

I hope he can get us a Shield first before embarking on his international career.

Have you heard of Jhye Richardson? Matt Kelly, by the way, is a 40 wicket a season bowler. Green won't be playing much cricket for WA for the next 15 years.

Green ooened the bowling for WA last game. Henriques last games you refer to were when he was a bowler. That was over half a decade ago. Interesting you quote Green's list A record. You'll find that was from his teenage years. Like to quote his recent List A games? Oh, wait!

ah Don, Henriques bowled 7 overs and has bowled that many or more 5 other times in a short international career. Green right now is not even a front line bowler for WA, so not sure how he suddenly becomes a go-to guy for an international against the number 2 team in world cricket with 7 list A wickets at an average close to 35.

India showed the folly of playing only 5 guys who could bowl in game 1, so there was no way Australia was going to play a guy who might have been needed to bowl 10 overs, but could not do so. You also go with the guy who is less likely to leak runs and Henriques meets that bill, going at less than 6 an over in international ODIs, which was crucial after the high scoring game 1.

I think it was the right decision. Henriques is an experienced player and on his home ground. He could adapt to play the role of Stoinis pretty easily. I feel that Green is in this team to be around the squad and get some exposure. Now that Warner is injured as well and also now that it's a dead rubber, I'd be comfortable to open with Labs or Carey and bring Green in for a pressure free debut.

There's always a reason to pick a Blue...

I think the selection was simply a case of choosing the team on merit, rather than potential. Green has played only 9 one day games, and hasn't yet demonstrated an ability to score quickly in any format. Henriques, by contrast, has a solid white ball record over a number of years. Yes, there is an argument for picking young players with 3 years until the World Cup, but with M Marsh and Stoinis unavailable, I think Henriques is part of the best XI. It's a pretty easy selection to understand.

Green should have played instead of Henriques because of the Future. Cameron Green will be around for Future world cups where Henriques will not be. It would have been the perfect time to inroduce Cameron Green aroudf experienced players. We used to always comment how England used to always pick over 30 year olds. We seem to be getting like that in Australian Cricket.

It was his home ground, he's a smart bowler on slow pitches so the results justified the selection.

Exactly. Don't mind Green's inclusion in the squad but Henriques is the better limited overs player at present. That could all change, of course.

Thought it was a pretty straight forward decision to play Henriques over Green. Green has not impressed at all in limited overs cricket whereas Moses has been a quality player in T20 and one day cricket for a number of years now. Selection was justified in the end as Henriques was fantastic with the ball.