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.

exactly right Jero.

hi Lewis, you’re absolutely right about the juxtaposition of social history with cricket. A simple example was the difference, in the 19th century, between the so called amateurs and professionals, the latter being treated as quite inferior to those who supposedly played the game for fun. The professionals predominantly came from working class backgrounds and used cricket as a means to break away from jobs like coal mining. They were still treated as a second class citizens, even having to use a different gate to enter the field and I remember reading one quote where the professionals had to wait till the amateurs had finished before being able to use the same bath water!!.

Even the game itself is a reflection of the times. Short form cricket, especially BBL & IPL is immensely popular because of the showmanship that accompanies the games, plus a result can be obtained in a few hours, which is important to a time poor population who also want instant action.

It’s a really thought provokinge first piece Lewis and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Many thanks for putting this article together.

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.

Arvind, the point you’re making is, winning the toss and batting first will probably give you a better chance of winning and that’s fair enough, but it doesn’t mean winning the toss and batting second is wrong completely, as some would like to make out.

I agree, especially in this day and age where pitches are at their best on the first couple of days, batting first makes sense most of the time, but there are occasions where that tactic badly misfires as well.

The last Test in the Ashes in ’74/5 saw Chappelli win the toss and bat first on a pitch that was damp at one end. Result – Australia was fired out for 152, England piled on 529 when the pitch dried out and Australia lost by an innings.

There is a skill in deciding what to do at the toss and simply batting first all the time will cause sides to come unstuck. Not often for sure, but it only has to happen once and that might be enough to gift a series to the opposition.

Smith was struggling as a leader before the incident in South Africa. That was clear from his body language though the Ashes series and in South Africa before the sandpaper incident, he was struggling to cope and when he captained the ODI team at the end of the Ashes, he was poor at best.

I don’t disagree Paine made mistakes but to suggest he was completely to blame for the side only drawing this series is wrong IMO. Injuries to Siddle and Lyon didn’t help in the last Test, nor did the batting failing, including Smith.

It’s interesting how much you and others have made about his decisions to send in the opposition, branding him a poor Test captain for doing so. Guess what Ian Chappell did when he won the toss in his very first Test as captain? Yep, sent England in, yet I don’t recall too many saying he was anything but a great captain.

I’m wondering who else shares your opinion? Langer? Ponting? The selectors? Haven’t heard a negative word from ANY of these sources who are closer and way more knowledgeable about Test captaincy than you or I?

I look forward to seeing how he does this summer as captain. Will he still be a bad captain if he takes the series off Pakistan & New Zealand?

You’re terrific at making sweeping statements but I see zero evidence to support your claims that “Paine has demonstrably, clearly failed”. This hopeless leader in the field managed to take a Test off the world’s best team, 2 Tests off Sri Lanka and another two off the Poms in England. How did he manage that – by fluke?

Sorry Rowdy, but I think you’re completely wrong in your assessment of what a leader should do and my evidence is the support he’s getting, not only from his team mates, but from the selectors. There’s no way they’d continue to pick him if was as bad as you say. More to the point, he would not have achieved the results he has to date

I have no interest in what the British press have to say about cricket in particular or anything in general. I was listening to Atherton, Hussein, Gower and other ex-Test players and certainly they were critical of aspects of his work in the Ashes,but overall agreed he did an excellent all round job.

I get the feeling you think he needs to be perfect and that ain’t going to happen. So what if he got DRS calls wrong, how many bad decisions did the umpires make in the series – and that was their only job? Inote you make no mention of how many bad calls Root made either, nor any mention of his golden ducks at crucial times.

Again, I have no idea why you have issues with Paine,but you’re welcome to your thoughts.

Pierro, I have no idea what point you’re trying to make, but deciding Carey would have done a better job when the guy hasn’t even played a Test makes exactly zero sense.

The guy is first and foremost a wicketkeeper. He is not a recognised batsman. Yes he had an ordinary series, but to suggest that the rest of the team did a whole lot better when only two blokes averaged more than 33 again makes zero sense.

I gather you have no time for him and that’s fine, but IMO he’s done a great job both as captain and keeper, with the occasional good innings which is what I’d expect from a number 7 bat. He is in no way considered a stop gap keeper or Test skipper, based on comments from the Australian coach and again, I agree with his thoughts.

TB, I was under the impression the law around playing the ball had been changed to say something like, “the ball has to be played with the foot or the person playing the ball must be making an effort to play the ball with the foot”.In other words, guys can’t simply stand up and tunnel ball the footy to the dummy half.

Happy to be corrected.

shows poor judgement if he can’t thump something without damaging himself!!

Just kidding.

fair enough Rowdy, but who’s batting better than he is that deserves to take his place in the Test side?

I’m hoping he’ll get a few runs in the lead up to the Brisbane Test and justify his place, which he was dead unlucky to lose in the Ashes series.

I think your suggestion would make a lot of sense if Puckovski was put into a stable & strong batting lineup, Tanmoy. As it stands though, I see that move being the equivalent of throwing him to the lions.

Better to give him a full summer in Shield cricket and hopefully our lineup settles down. He can be considered for selection in 12 months, assuming he can keep making runs and a vacancy opens up.

I think there are two separate issues Jero. The first is whether we should have a rotation policy and IMO, the answer would be; not unless the bowler was injured, even slightly.

If,for example James Pattinson is chosen to play in the Brisbane Test he should expect to play in ALL Tests that summer, assuming he’s fully fit. If how ever he cops a niggle and in the opinion of the relevant medical staff, it may cause him problems down the track, by all means replace him, but don’t do that if he’s fully fit, on the off chance he MIGHT have an issue next game.

The second issue is whether Stoinis should play and IMO, you’re suggesting putting in just an average Shield player as a safety blanket for the bowlers, when our batting is still fragile. Yes we SHOULD make more runs in Australia than we have overseas, but batting is our Achilles heel, not the bowling.

By all means, selectors should consider Stoinis but only in terms of his claims as a batsman for the number 6 spot. If he has a killer Shield season with the bat and the other candidates fail,he should get a chance through weight of runs, but should he get a chance ahead of Head, etc, when he averages 34 with the bat and 42 with the ball in FC cricket? These numbers suggest he’s just a middling player, not one who is Test quality, IMO.

😂 Who knows what other scary ideas are lurking, just waiting to be foisted on an unsuspecting cricket loving public??

Your idea about extra overs has merit Randy, especially for 50 over games. Maybe a super over for T20’s.

As for the NRL, call me old fashioned, but I have no issues with two sides playing a draw, except in the finals. If however the powers that be want to break the dead lock, 5 minutes each way should be the way to go.

I can understand how easy it would be to leave anyone out of a list like this Scott. You’ve got a ton of players to consider, so one or two slipping under the radar shouldn’t surprise anyone.

Totally agree Finucane should have been playing SOO before this season. He’s such a good player and would probably stand out more in a lesser team

hi Adrian,

You’ve made a number of interesting comments. First of all, you suggested O’Brien could have knocked back the offer to coach the Knights. There’s no way he would have done that, unless they made an insulting offer for his services. There’s not a coach in the game who doesn’t want to have a crack at first grade and O’Brien now has the chance to show what he can do.

A key issue is the squad he inherited from Brown. It may take him the full 3 years to get the squad HE thinks can make the finals. On paper he has plenty of guys who should be able to get the team into the 8 this year, but again, the Knights may need to shop around for a season or two, until they get the right combination, similar to what Ricky’s done in Canberra over the past 2 or 3 years.

You suggest the side has plenty of leaders but I’m not so sure the side does. Klemmer leads by example and is a great role model for the side with his work ethic and energy but I question whether he’s an onfield leader. Ponga & Pearce can both be great at what they do, but can equally go MIA when the pressure’s on, which is the last thing you want from a leader.

IMO, the two best leaders in the NRL at present are Hodgson and Cam Smith. Interestingly, both play at dummy half so can control the game to a large degree, but both have a real presence which demands others in their respective sides to listen to them. This is the sort of leadership the Knights need and a top notch dummy half might go a long way to fixing your spine issues.

I hope O’Brien is given a real chance to show what he can do and isn’t shown the door if the Knights don’t immediately challenge for a top 8 spot in 2020.

I fail to see the problem here. A coach from one code thinks a coach from another code has something he can offer in order to help a team win the biggest tournament in World Rugby, so he invites him to observe. It’s not as though Ricky is going to completely take over the England squad and tell them how to play. Stuart might also get over there and Eddie Jones uses nothing Ricky offers. At the end of the day, this is a nothing and Cheika is being silly to even comment about it.

hi Scott, I place a lot of weight on captaincy and this where I think Sam Burgess let down his Club and as a result was rated too high, IMO. He’s clearly one of the best forwards in the game, but his time off the field for completely stupid acts did both him and Souths no favours. I’d have thought a top 40 spot for him given his failings as a skipper, but of course these sorts of things are totally subjective.

I’m certainly looking forward to your top 20. IMO, Dale Finucane should have been a tad higher, but I guess we’ll see!

I think the selectors would not be doing their jobs properly if they did not at least consider Stoinis. In equal measure, when they look at the team overall, they should consider guys like Nic Maddinson, Sean Marsh, plus anyone else who MIGHT have a claim to a Test number 6 spot.

Hopefully though, they come to the realization we need both batting stability and a quality player who is going to make a lot of runs for Australia over a 4 or 5 year period at Test level. IMO, Stoinis does not fit this bill because there are at least 4 or 5 guys who are simply better batsmen – Head, Puckovski, Patterson even Joe Burns, if the selectors pick Khawaja to open with Warner.

I also believe the selectors need to consider WHY they might need a 5th bowling option in any Test. That might have been viable when we only had a few Test quality bowlers even a season ago, but now we seem to have adopted a bowling management strategy so guys are moved in & out of the Test side, but we also apparently need another guy to rest these blokes during a Test?

The reason why we can have a rotation policy is because we have so many good bowling options waiting to play. There should be no need for a 5th bowler when we have this bowling depth, unless of course that player can hold their place because they’re proven at Test level, eg Ben Stokes. IMO we don’t have anyone in Australian cricket that fits that bill.

The same Sri Lanka team then went to South Africa and took a series off them, when the Saffers had a much stronger side than they do now and were playing at home.

As for his captaincy and field placing, I clearly recall England commentators talking about how well he was going with his field placing and how he was trying to make things happen, in contrast to Root who, to quote Nassar Hussein “had run out of ideas”.

You clearly have a different opinion to mine, so I guess we’ll see who’s right after this summer.

This is something that could hurt MM moving forward. I gather he punched the wall for getting out, not because he copped a poor decision. Selectors are going to wonder if this “easy going” bloke is going to do something similar in a Test, especially if he gets fired at a critical time in a Test. It might go against him if there’s tight call on who to play at 6 in the future.

That said, it should leave Head as front runner to take back his spot.

nice call Dillon. My only change would be Jhye Richardson in place of Starc. IMO, he would have been an automatic choice if he did injure his shoulder earlier in the year