Australia must continue with Head

You are missing the point. True what you say about their (allcomers) records but Boof was picked at the end of his physical prime. If it were not for the lesser Waugh he would've had a much better go at it. Simpson's role in Boof's non-selection was a 'bus stop' short of vindictive. There were player's selected who hadn't put in a 1,000 RPY in consecutive seasons who'd get in whereas Lehmann missed one season in a decade virtually drawing blood to get in. -------- Ok, so maybe he was suss against a certain type of fast bowling but he excelled at spin bowling. Prob the best in a 20 year span. And the sobriquet that he only scored those runs against weak team doesn't stand up because we had more experienced test players who covered themselves not in glory by performing less than average against those very same teams.

The way to judge players is not how they do against weak opposition but against stronger opponents. The players you mentioned may not have done as well in those particular series but overall, they were better...apart from possibly Katich. They also have the record to show it which Lehman doesn't. The fact that they were picked regularly while Lehman wasn't shows that the selectors thought so as well. McGill tended to take more wickets when he played in the same matches as Warne....did that make him a better bowler? Ironically the same thing has been said about Head...someone on commentary said that if you take out his ton vs SL who were outmatched 2 years ago, his average after 2 years is barely above 30. I don't know if Head is the answer or not..my point is that he is in a long line of lefthanders from Adelaide who have been wanting at Test level.

Sorry, I should have written poor shot selection THEN execution. Head just outside off stump, epitomises that expression Damien Fleming used to bang on about - corridor of uncertainty. As a left hander of less than stellar talent, I get his issues, but all he has to do is commit to doing something, be it letting the ball go, playing a defensive shot, maybe a glide through slips, what ever. Once he's made up his mind what to do, he then needs to allow his technique to match the decision. When he gets out, it's because he's not committed to doing anything which leads to him waving bat at ball at hoping!

Isn't technique and execution more or less the same in his case? If he was more technically correct then he would execute his penchant for cutting much better I think. He seems a bit too open . Not balanced. Only how I see him. That's why he gets the field that he does. But he is a seasoned player and one would like to see him take it up to the Indians

"Lehman was a fine player of spin and yes scored a couple of good centuries vs SL..the rest were against a weak WI and Bangladesh." ------ Your point here is weak. Hayden, Ponting, Langer, Katich performed below average in those tests. Put another way, if Boof was taking candy from a baby, why weren't the others? ----- Maybe you didn't read the part where being selected so late in his career he was past his physical prime. ------ And I'll say it another way why did those l mentioned not get the runs Boof did in those series if it was so easy. He was not given the chances when younger because 'Shakespeare' had to make his poetic 103s and 108s every so often.

He got dropped after scoring 98 in his first stint as he was leaden footed against the English pace bowlers...when he came back in 2002, he was even worse against them. Yes, he scored lots of runs in Shield cricket but that plays into what I said earlier about the SA lefthanders who monstered at first class level but could never quite cut it in Tests.

To say Head is “proven” is a stretch because we’re literally arguing about him not proving himself by his inability to cement his place in the side by making the consistent runs (albeit consistent runs with scores over 40: where he should be making consistent 50’s & 100’s, but just isn’t doing it) he should be doing at his stage of his test career. I’m not sure what Green has done to upset you, but if there’s any “golden haired boy” (as you’ve referred to Green) you should be worried about, it’s your favourite one Will Pucovski, who clearly is a batting prodigy, but one that seemingly struggles with the pressures of expectation and fear of potential health problems through being hit in the head. So not sure how he’s going to cope with bouncers moving forward.

Because Green is a two-game newby with an obvious upside who wasn't required to bowl in the second innings in Adelaide; showed a temperament with the bat in Melbourne that should embarrass the more senior players in the team, including Head; and hasn't had a chance to pump up his batting average by flogging the Sri Lankan bowling attack to all parts of the field?

Head had around 25 first class 50s before his first ton. His concentration has always been a problem

You shortchange Boof. He ‘ad-nauseamed’ the 1,000 RPY missing one season in 10 or 11. I could hear the AO short-boundaries argument implicitly in what you first wrote. —– He was XII Man and 9 years later made it into the XI. From memory he was dropped after making 98 in his first stint in tests. —— He could only score in those test matches because that was his opportunity. Waugh and Ponting got cheap centuries too. Pidgeon and Warne got cheap 5 fors. And he did it with an aging (prematurely) body. —- If you look at the record of those 4 Tropical tests Boof tops the Aggregates. Hayden, Ponting, Langer, Katich all performed average or less than ok against those weak teams. And they had all played more tests than him meaning they were more experienced. —– But his biggest impediment was Simpson. Both are born 2 days apart and this is the energy of two hammers clashing. Simpson had the power to veto Boof ….and he did.

Absolutely. Another way to look at it is, he's had one good innings with the bat and done little with the ball. Why wouldn't he be under the same scrutiny as a guy proven at Test level with a Test average nearly double Green's?

So he top scores in his third test innings, there's already an upwards trend with him, and you think he deserves as much scrutiny as a relative veteran like Head?

I think your missing my point. Green has had 3 starts with a top score of 45 at an average of 22 and is yet to do much with the ball. In other words, I've just analysed his figures and in normal circumstances, I'd be questioning his place in the side. As it stands, I'd keep him, mostly because I hate seeing a raft of changes made to any side unless these are forced by injury and he's only had 2 Tests. I doubt greatly too many others have done the same sort of analysis. Most seem to think he's a lock for number 6, when he should be under exactly the same scrutiny as the rest of the team.

The guys you compared to Head all had good First Class averages. Therefore, there was plenty of upside. Unfortunately for Head, he is averaging the same in test cricket as he is in Shield cricket. It seems 39 is a fair reflection of his talent, he is mediocre. They were far more talented.

Lehman was a fine player of spin and yes scored a couple of good centuries vs SL..the rest were against a weak WI and Bangladesh. When he was pitted against quality pace bowling, or maybe not even top quality like Craig White, he was leaden footed and edged or parried...basically didn't score much which was a big reason why he got dropped in 1998 and didn't get picked for 4 years. There are similarities to Hookes and Head in this respect...maybe it has something with the Adelaide Oval where these 3 played the majority of their first class innings- flat pitch, short square boundaries. Head may be better but right now, the jury is out.

He top scored for the team in only his third innings of test cricket, in yet another dismal team batting display! Head is an experienced test batsman now, so it's only fair he should be put under more scrutiny now. When Smith & Warner are either out of the side, or not doing as great as they usually do (like Smith now), then it's only fair the public expect the output from others, like Head, to increase to pick up the slack.

Sorry, but when has he been out playing the cut shot this summer? I agree he doesn't mind wafting at the ball, but that's got nothing to do with his technique playing the cut and everything to do with poor shot selection and execution

I disagree Paul. He does have an enormous technical issue in the way that he plays the cut shot. He does it without weight transfer and so can't get on top of the ball. Hence he's constantly out "wafting" outside the off stump.

Now hearing reports that Shardul Thakur, might be in line to play the next test,which i feel might be the worst option to go with from a bowling perspective(though he can bat a bit better than the others). Think they are using the same principle of incumbency which saw Shaw play ahead of Gill here as well, if these rumors turn out to be true, as Thakur technically already made his debut against the Windies (bowled 10 deliveries, conceded 9 runs and then limped off ). Given how well Siraj has went in his first test, i would have personally picked a couple other quick like him,who were going well in domestic and been part of the india A side recently ,over Thakur or the relatively inexperienced Natarajan. It seems like the recent ipl performances played a role in selecting the net bowlers/reverses,as i would imagine the Selectors, never thought they would need backups for the test team, given that they had 3-4 quality quick and a promising one in siraj waiting in line. As much as Smith's performance against Ashwin will be crucial ,i feel how Warner does against him would be even more significant, in deciding which team ends up on top, as Ashwin has the most dismissals against lefties in test cricket(192 of his 375 test wickets being lefties, compared to the 191 off the 800 by murali and 186 out of 600 by anderson). Given the relative inexperience of the likely pace attack(no matter who the 3rd quick end up being) i am expecting Australia to bounce back and get the win. Though i wont completely rule out India's chances either,especially if Bumrah and Ashwin keep on performing well and Rohit manages to get a big score, if he makes the 11.

really interesting comment dat. Umesh will be a big loss for India. There's little point Bumrah applying serious pressure at one end at the start of an innings if that pressure's going to be released by the bowler at the other end. Who ever replaces Umesh has to really bowl well from ball one. Agreed Ashwin is key to both sides chances, but I wouldn't discount the importance of Jadeja's bowling. I don't see him as a potent attacking force, but if he can tie up an end once the ball loses it's shine, Rahane can bring pressure from the other end with Ashwin & Bumrah in particular. Agreed it's a more even contest with Umesh out, but India will still have fond memories from the last time they played at the SCG.