Well, the fact is Lyon didn’t make it through the series and the Poms could only play against the team we fielded.
Winning sport is as much about physical fitness as skill.
Come on Gaz, nobody cares about the “what ifs”.
There are always variables, such as weather, injuries etc.
Let’s leave it to England to whinge about “what ifs” and “things coulda/shoulda been different if…”
Australia’s go is to accept the result and think about the future – not whinge about the past.

I’m surprised there’s no room for Gill in there.
I’m also disappointed that room couldn’t be found for Fraser-McGurk in the Aussie squad.
We need some fresh blood in the squad – the fearlessness of youth etc.
Everyone is saying he’s young, and I guess he is, but it’s a sign of the times when we’re saying 22 is “very young”.
There was a time when 22 was considered as moving towards the golden age for a batter.
19/20 was considered “young” and 32/33 was considered “old and about to retire”.
Now we are dogged by a surplus of middle-aged men like Warner (close to 38!) who are plugging up the system and postponing the careers of players like JF-M.
One factor that needs to be considered is that a squad laden with 30+ members is more likely to suffer the burden of injuries and be slower in the field.
We have a situation where our batting order has two of the top three recently injured and have been selected on their reputations and past performances.
Personally, I’d prefer it if Warner and Wade had been put out to pasture.
Stoinis is an interesting one. His T20 and ODI performances differ greatly. He shouldn’t be allowed near the ODI team again but T20 is different.
I’m not sure about Stoinis – need to ponder a bit more!

Under 6ft vs over 6ft – shorties vs tallies.

Talking of Aubrey Faulkner, what a pity he was born in December.
The same month as Tiger and Clarrie G.
Three leggies in the one team may be an overkill!
Faulkner would have been a shoo-in for most other months.

I’d definitely be giving Andy Flower the gloves and bringing in Vinoo Mankad for Knott.
Given the high standard of teams as opposition in this competition (and some impressive batting line ups), I believe a genuine 5th bowler is imperative.
Mankad’s stats are impressive. Averaging 31 with the bat (only 1 run less than Knott) and 3.6 wickets per match at 32 with his left arm orthodox spinners, would be very useful for this team. He would provide a complementary spinning duo with Murali.
Andy Flower achieved his impressive batting stats whilst also operating as a fine keeper. I don’t see this as a Kumar S or ABVD type selection.
Alan Knott was close to being the finest gloveman ever however, his improvement over Flower behind the stumps is outweighed by the benefit Mankad would bring as a genuine test standard spinner. He would provide some needed left arm variety and bowling depth.
My take is that, from a team-need aspect, Mankad brings more to the table than Knott – given Flower is in the team.

Yes, there has been a lack of new interesting reading for the cricket tragics!
Looking forward to your April selection.

Hey ADRAD,
How’s that April team looking?
I’m tuning in each day in the hope of seeing it.
Is it with the editors?
Hurry up fellas, it’s already April 04!

Really looking forward to the April team. I know of two bowlers and a batsman that are April born and will absolutely be in the team, given that they’d be front runners to make an all-time world XI!
I don’t know of any other April-borns other than two Aussies who may or may not make it, depending on the strength of the pool you rustle up.
I’m staying away from Prof. Google as I’m loving the read as you post them.
Which month will rule overall?
Now there’s a debate that should get many comments!

I understand your selection process ADRAD.
I think this March team really highlights what a special player Gilchrist was.
If Gillie were March born, then he’d slot in at 7 – tail SO shortened and batting strengthened. Bowling also strengthened by Herath or Swann.
Throw in Gillie and March actually becomes a strong team.
For me, the March selectors just have to accept that Bari is there (instead of non-March Gillie), and that they shouldn’t tinker with the bowling attack simply because of Bari’s lack of batting prowess.
A team will always struggle to win a Test without 4 strong bowlers, and certainly in this league.
This team can have 4 strong bowlers with a cracking 5th bowler in Al Hasan.
I reckon they should just carry a wickie that doesn’t bat to modern expectations.

I don’t think this team is as weak as is being made out. The top 5 are pretty good. Viv at no.3!
…and an excellent allrounder at no.6 provides a great 5th bowler.
The three fast bowlers are excellent, if not absolute top shelf.
The weakness is clearly at 7 and 8.
A keeper averaging just 15 with the bat doesn’t cut the mustard in a great team and I don’t think Giffen is a top 4 bowler.
For me, you just have to pick your top 4 bowlers and Giffen isn’t that nor is he good enough to bat in the top 6. I reckon it’s a bit of a Geoff Miller/Peter Willey/Simon O’Donell selection.
I’d be picking Swann or Herath and just going with the long tail.
Why weaken the bowling to inadequately improve the batting? Better of going with the strongest bowling you can and restricting the opposition runs rather than trying to score more yourself.
A false economy there.
Wasim Bari and the tail are just going to have to spend more time in the nets and learn how to wag more. The top 5 are going to have to really knuckle down, and the bowling attack has three good quicks and a good spin attack, that will have to bowl to their best.
Oh, and Bari will have to keep brilliantly to warrant his place, otherwise Grout comes in.

Will played that ball from Meredith SO badly. A fast bowler has to be able to deliver that sort of ball and expect it to be played better than that.
I don’t want to sound harsh here, but there is a clear problem with how he plays short deliveries. It seems as though he just gets cleared of his latest concussion and then sent back out to bat without the cause being attended to.
He is propping forward with his head moving in line with the ball. Great, unless you get an awkward short ball. He is turning his head away but not out of the line when confronted with a difficult short ball.
Personally, I change my technique when facing pace that concerns me. I go to good old “back and across”. It takes my head across the line of the ball – hence I can ride or hook the ball. I sacrifice authority off the front foot but find I can hook and cut quite readily and’ most importantly, not get hit!
Propping forward as your first move is good for fast medium and medium pace – but not against fast stuff.
I think Will obviously has a technique problem.
Having said that, I’d have no chance against Meredith and what I consider fast would be pedestrian for Will. However, it’s all relative.

Don, I agree that calling a dead ball would’ve been a good outcome, but I think you’re missing the real point here.
The umpires were simply not in a position to be able to call a dead ball. Maybe an umpire in a club game could get away with that, but at this level, that can’t be done. The umpires must follow a process. As with any appeal, it is assessed by the current laws of the game, not whether that umpire thinks the law should be applied or not.
The only way for the situation to have been avoided was for the umpire to ask if the captain wanted to maintain their appeal. Once the captain says “yes” then the appeal has to go through the same process as any other appeal.
It’s like a legal process. You can’t have a precedence where an umpire decides whether or not to apply a rule of the game. However silly the rule.
Whenever an appeal is made, a decision is made. A side can call for a review if they have that available. At no stage can the umpires refuse to make a decision or deny a review, and just call “dead ball”.
it just isn’t an option Don.

I think Tim Bresnan’s sentiment is right but his suggestion about it being the umpire’s fault is totally wrong. The umps are not there to interpret the rules, they are there to apply them. That means whether they agree with them personally or not.
They could well ask the captain whether he wishes to maintain his appeal or think more closely about it and withdraw the appeal.
I think once the Zimbabwean captain maintained the appeal the umps had no choice but to apply the rule. It was unfortunate and I’m sure the umps weren’t happy about having to apply it.
I think the rule is stupid but, given it exists, it seems to me that the umps made the correct decision.
I’m sure if you polled international umps there’d be a number of laws that they don’t totally agree with but have to apply. If they started applying their own interpretation of the laws, then I think they’d soon be out of favour and a job with the ICC.

I’m not convinced by this. I tend to think I’d rather have a better batsman adapting to opening than a specialist opener who simply isn’t Test standard.
I don’t think Harris is Test standard. We know what we’re going to get – he’s had a lot of chances. Perhaps Bancroft but I’d be going Renshaw of those three.
With Green, he doesn’t look comfortable at 6. He’s a top 4 bat – he looked good at 3 for Mumbai in the IPL. Yeah, yeah – I know we’re talking Tests.
I guess I’m saying I’d rather have a Langer, Katich or Watson adapting to open than a Harris or Cowan selected just because they’re a specialist opener.
If Green is assessed as a better bat than Renshaw and Bancroft then throw him in at the top. If it works then the payoff will be enormous!

Yep, I’ve read that.
Sounds like you think it’s fine to publicly announce what you’d like to happen, thereby implying that’s what you’d like that to occur and now it’s over to the selectors – which, of course it always is and was. Justifying your statement by expanding and explaining about how you have to keep scoring runs etc etc blah blah blah!
Surely, he’s taking the Mickey – as if that hasn’t always been the case and as if we don’t all I know it! Condescending and just crap.
As I said, past greats could’ve gone down the same path with the same “of course I have to perform” drivel, but they’re too respectful to the system, the public and their teammates to say such rubbish.
Warner is about Warner.
Every player has their personal “wish list” of how they’d like things to happen for them.
He isn’t special. It would get boring and self-centred if every player announced to the press what they want.
He should’ve played a straight bat down the pitch (as he should’ve been capable of doing to Broad) until the appropriate time arrived for such a comment.
It’s impossible to even watch the Back Page and get a critique of Warner as his wife, a panelist, acts in a PR role for him. The other panelists and guests know that criticising Warner on that show is a total “no go” zone.
Warner was great in the ODI WC – he has been terrible in Test cricket for more than two years now.
More than anyone, he illustrates how batters get a better deal than bowlers at the selection table. You have 6 batting positions and can carry an out of form performer for much longer than you can an underperforming bowler.
No doubt this irks Johnson who suffered his fair share of selection turnstiling.
Even the great Warne got dropped after three ordinary Tests in the Caribbean.
Put it this way, if Warner were a bowler, he’d have been dropped a long, long time ago, with the equivalent bowling stats, and he wouldn’t even be making headlines now.
He’s played many more tests than the equivalent bowler of his performance would have – and made the resulting money of course!
He certainly wouldn’t have even got through the 2019 Ashes series where he averaged 9.5 from 10 innings with a strike rate of 51 (which apparently is something great he brings to the table – an amazing strike rate?).
Compare it with his fellow “fighting-back-from-sandpapergate-mate” Smith in that series – averaged 110 and a strike rate of 64.
Warner should’ve been moved on from in Test cricket a number of series ago.
It was ludicrous that he was in India opening in Tests (predictably badly), and then in the last Ashes, he was praised for scoring a 40 in the first Test!
How low has our bar of expectation been lowered? He scores what used to be seen as the very lowest acceptable average for an Australian top order batsmen of any grunt – and he gets praised!
That’ll do me!
Goodbye Davey, you have well and truly overstayed your welcome. Good back in the day, but that’s a long time ago now.
Like many people before you in different fields of endeavour (John Howard!) you’ve failed “to read the room”.
I’ll be glad to see you out the door and to welcome a chance being given to a younger man.
Time for him to move into the next stage of his life and accept his waning skills with grace.

I think Ed’s comments are right on the money.
He is totally correct in saying that Johnson expressed what many people are thinking and saying “in the pub” – he suggests 90% of people.
Ed also correctly suggests that perhaps Johnson’s manner could’ve been better. Then again, that is Johnson’s style – we loved it when he unsubtly ended three English cricket careers (Swann, Trott and Prior) through “in your face” hostility.
In the cricket team I play in, Warner has zero supporters, and we are all amazed he’s still in the team.
Announcing to the world a year, and series, in advance when he will retire, is just so hilariously arrogant. He lost all of us.
So many far superior players (G.Chappell, Lillee, Warne, McGrath etc) informed the world a test or two in advance (during a series) when they were pretty sure their form was going to keep them in the team.
I dislike Warner’s overriding sense of entitlement and as a character in general. His disgruntlement last year, and open fight in the media, about being excluded from any captaincy role in the future was just ridiculous.
Seriously, just because he’d captained an IPL team, did he honestly think he was going to be in the running to captain an Australian team in any format? What a silly and deluded person!
How about justifying his place in the team first following absurd 5 test form in the 2019 Ashes and a major role in the sandpaper disaster!
The comparison with how Smith has behaved since banishment is stark.
Smith has earned his standing back through runs on the board (how amazing was his 2019 Ashes, in the face of a torrent of Pommy abuse?), his support of all his teammates, and keeping himself out of any headlines.
Since SA 2018, Smith has been class, while Warner has been crass.
That’s my take on it.
I certainly won’t be celebrating and cheering Warner at the Sydney test, which I’ll be attending.
I won’t jeer, but I’ll only give a small polite clap while thinking “great, now can we all move on from this bloke”.

I’ve seen Stoinis do this many times. Yes, he can hit big but he also can misfire. He’s way too inconsistent and seems to lack the ability to rotate the strike. He can sap up balls as he gets his timing going.
Inglis, on the other hand, can go from the first ball.

Definitely against the Windies. He had a bad string of ducks there, but it was nowhere near as bad as Warner’s run. It went a month or two at the most over one home summer.
Warner’s run in the 2019 Ashes was far worse than Chappell’s bad stretch…and Warner is not travelling much better this time around!
Seriously, Greg Chappell was a far superior player to Warner. Not even close.
Remember he was a mighty handy 5th bowler too. Test bowling average of 40 and first class average of 29. Not overly penetrative but could keep it tight and jag a handy wicket. Gave our fast bowlers a good rebuilding break and got us to the new ball when needed, in days when we often didn’t have a great spin option.
Chappell is right there with Ponting, Smith, Border, Waugh and Harvey in the ‘best since Bradman” debate. Quite possibly at the top of that list.
He’s in my all time Aussie test team at no.4
Warner aint on that list!

Enthralling day’s play. Wood was exciting but Marsh won the personal battle there. He batted so well he made Wood seem like another 130km English trundler. That pull for six was spellbinding!
The rest of the Australian handling of Wood is a concern.

Interestingly, there has been a slow bowler go down injured in each Test. Ali, Lyon and now the chest-beating Robinson.

Yes, a lot of English arrogance happening with the “we’re entertainers and saving Test cricket” attitude.
I’m sure their fans would like to have seen a few less ramp shots and a win delivered. That would’ve entertained them more.
A few points:
Australia hit 11 sixes in the match and England hit seven. So, we “out-entertained” them there.
For all the Bazball bluster, Ollie and co. couldn’t perform the basic Test match skill of dismissing a batting tail (even with a new ball), with plenty of runs to work with, to win a match.
It still came down to the age old Test skills of bowling to your field, and holding your catches and your nerve.
Funky fields, dodgy declarations and silly slogs (Root throwing his second innings wicket away to an innocuous Lyon delivery) lost them a Test match.
One thing I’ve noticed about Bazball is there seems to be no room for self critique, reassessment, intelligent application of varied skills, learning from your errors, or conceding that mistakes were made.
Personally, I wouldn’t find Test match cricket entertaining at all if every Team played like England and the wickets were just docile roads.
T20 provides for that market.
Test cricket is called such for a reason – it demands a wider range of skills and is far less predictable.
England need to play their own game and stop preaching to their opponent on how to play theirs.

Yeah. Billy is no fool.
Pity.

Fair call.

I’m a NSW supporter. I really hope Qld select Coates.
He’s a good athlete but a bad footballer.
He’s prone to defensive choice brain fades and doesn’t think when under pressure.
He looks frazzled and totally confused half the time.
NSW will run with numbers at his flank all night and he will make at least one very poor decision.
If you were signing players for an NRL team and you had Walsh, the Hammer and Coates available, all for same price but could have only one, you wouldn’t be picking Coates.
Please Qld, pick Coates.

The irony is that Kaufusi was attacking the head of a fellow Qlder!
Sorry, but I find that “shooting-yourself-in-the-foot” situation pretty funny.
Qlders should stop playing the bias card and start looking at the stupidity of the act.
Imagine if Kaufusi had injured Welch! He’d have taken himself and Welch out of Qld team selection contention.
Mind-boggling stupid from Kaufusi.

Clyde Walcott was a quality test standard keeper and a not too shabby bat!
I think he gave the keeping away because of a back problem but was definitely originally selected as a keeper/batsman. He was a fine keeper.
A test average of 56.7 from 44 tests also suggests a batsman of the absolute highest order. Indeed, he was noted as a batsman of devastating effect. A crunching hitter.
The most attacking of the famous three Ws.
He was a Gilchristesque player before Gilchrist. He did, admittedly, give away the keeping – something Gilchrist never did.
My point is that the notion of having a keeper that was also one of the team’s premier batsmen didn’t originate with Gilchrist.
It had been seen before but not for the same length of time that Gillie sustained.

Sometimes our assessment of cricket can be influenced by a prejudiced belief that nobody could have been as good or influential as those who have excelled during the last 20-30 years.
Statements such as “Three players have had more of a devastating impact on Australian test selection than anyone else in the game’s history” should be made carefully.
Flintoff had an effect on Australian selection greater than anyone else in the game’s history? What an extraordinary claim!
I think that claim needs some justification following an examination back to Botham, Lillee, Thommo, Tyson, Laker, Miller, Bradman, Larwood, and beyond. Many players have had a far bigger Ashes effect than 2005 Flintoff and selections/tactics in the following series.
Cricket didn’t start with Warnie’s Test debut in 1992.

“In the game’s history”. Wow!
I suggest a bit of cricket history reading.
The Gideon Haigh bibliograghy is excellent.
His “Story of Jack Iverson” tells how there was spin bowling before Jack and after Jack – they weren’t the same. He changed how people saw spin bowling and what was possible.
Australia has been searching for an allrounder since Miller and Davidson hence our dabbling with all sorts of substandard bowl-a-bit, bat-a-bit types through the 70s (Gary Cosier – perhaps the worst to keep being given a crack) and then the 80s after Botham’s 1981 Ashes efforts.
Peter Sleep, Trevor Laughlin, Tony Dodemaide, Greg Matthews, Tony Mann, Ian Callen, Phil Carlson, Simon O’Donnell, Shaun Young, Trevor Hohns. To name a few.
The obsession didn’t start following 2005 Flintoff. It just gained a respite due to our team being so strong in the traditional 1-6, 7, 8-11 set up for ten years.