The Roar
The Roar

Jeff

Roar Rookie

Joined June 2019

0

Views

0

Published

4k

Comments

Published

Comments

Jeff hasn't published any posts yet

Certainly helps sort the wheat from the chaff, in a general sense. Though is team-based. But yes, when there are standout performances in the 2nd division, how do they accurately assess suitability for national representation?

I wouldn’t be a Test selector for quids

# Brett A

I guess the point I was making there in the above post re England-qualified players is that each team is allowed 1 or 2 o/s players, the rest are English and so their comparative performances are probably indicative of the quality of the competition given most of the comp is made up of local players.

Div 1 has 8 teams and Div 2 has 8 teams. Div 2 is teams that are “relegated” to the lower division. So this is where the Div 2 FC stats can be misleading. The players aren’t actually being tested against the better half of available “talent” (as a collective), so the stats are probably elevated.

At least in Shield, a player from the bottom two teams still has their overall stats derived from performances against the top sides.

I wouldn’t be a Test selector for quids

“Since when is averaging 40 not test standard?”

Averaging 40 (in Tests) is absolutely Test standard in contemporary terms. For the last 2 or 3 years globally, less than half of Test batsmen (half of the available top 6 positions, that is) worldwide have averaged higher than the 30s in that time.

I wouldn’t be a Test selector for quids

Yes but Labuschagne’s performances were miles in front of most England domestic players, so Labu’s form did translate to Test performances because they were that far ahead:

Quick review of the Div 2 data to now:
-Alex Carey (O/S player) 125 ave (but only 1 match)
-Dwaine Pretorius (O/S player) 111 ave (but only 1 match)
– Dane Vilas (O/S player) 92 ave
– LABUSCHAGNE (O/S player) 65.53 ave
– Ryan Higgins 64 ave
– Josh Bohannon 61 ave
– Hassan Azad 54 ave (may have qualified for England selection?)
– George Garton 51 ave (but only 2 matches)
– Paul Stirling 50 ave (but only 2 matches)

The rest are in the 40s or below.

So Labu’s performance was was well above standard and there were very few England-qualified players averaging even close.

There some Div 2 teams that have decent attacks (when available), but equally there are more with sub-standard attacks.

I wouldn’t be a Test selector for quids

Yes absolutely. Banging the door down used to be one or two 1,000 plus run seasons averaging 50+. Admittedly Harris did that in 18-19 with about 1,200 runs at 70. The last before that I recall was Voges with 1,350 at 105.

Averaging 35-40 in Shield shoudln’t translate to more than 30-35 (maybe less? at Test level.

That’s a real issue for Australia at present. Not wanting to get drawn into the Paine debate, but it further emphasises the need to extend the batting depth down to No. 7 (of course there are limited FC keeping options available: Carey at 40.3 over the last two Shield seasons is probably the only realistic future option).

That said, I think only 25 batsmen have a Test average 40 and above over the last two years. That’s more than half of the “top 6” across all Test nations averaging in the 30s or below.

Seems to be a worldwide issue re Test batting. The days of 45-50 being the benchmark for a Test batsman seem long gone.

I wouldn’t be a Test selector for quids

Hi YotD.

The last few seasons have all had overlapping tours/ODI/T20s at the start and/or end of the Shield season, including tours of SAF, IND, NZ & UAE.

This year will be the same with the SL & Pak T20s overlapping the first part of the Shield matches and then T20/ODI tour of SAF over the back end of the Shield season.

I wouldn’t be a Test selector for quids

The FC cupboard is a bit bare at present Paul.

Shield batsmen with 500+ runs and an average of 40+
13/14 – 16
14/15 – 16
15/16 – 12
16/17 – 12
17/18 – 13
18/19 – 5

Centuries per Shield match:
13/14 – 1.5
14/15 – 1.9
15/16 – 1.8
16/17 – 1.6
17/18 – 1.5
18/19 – 1.3

There were only two batsmen who were able to score more than 2x centuries across all of last season.

I wouldn’t be a Test selector for quids

I expect he will keep in BBL again, but with Inglis in the Shield side, the opportunity presents itself for Whiteman to focus on his batting, but keep the gloves as an extra string to his bow in pressing for national selection.

Solving Australia's opening dilemma

oh.

Who should the Test selectors look at for the summer?

It’s a “victory” though (agree this can be a loose term and applied in different contexts) given where we had been for 12 months immediately before the series AND that we were away on tour.

Aussies should be disappointed with underwhelming Ashes

Agreed. And perception is such a moving target. It’s amazing how many players not in the Ashes squad have improved their standing/capabilities in the eyes of cricket observers/followers, without actually having played a match since before the series. Perception about how some of those in the squad have underperformed has elevated others to “couldn’t have failed” status.

Aussies should be disappointed with underwhelming Ashes

Their nominal time??

Who should the Test selectors look at for the summer?

Maybe Bayliss can relieve Langer of the ODI (maybe T20) coaching role. Though I’d hate to see a power play emerge between the two formats where ODI focus trumped or impinged on Test focus – e.g. England’s recent pursuit of WC success, seemingly at the expense of developing a strong Test side.

If you can't beat 'em? Bayliss open to potential Australia role

I think it’s that simple Rob. If he scores in the Shield matches (assuming he does play and is not part of the IT20s instead) then he’ll open in the Tests. If he fails in the Shield, then clearly he hasn’t recaptured his FC form and you would expect would not be selected for the Tests.

UNLESS, all of the other contenders (Khawaja included) fail to perform in the Shield.

Who should the Test selectors look at for the summer?

Whiteman had a decent return to the Shield, playing the last 4 matches as an opener. 38 & 30, 55 & 93, 12 & 44, 66 & 2.

He didn’t keep though. Josh Inglis had the gloves, except for one match where Bancroft kept (though Inglis still played). Inglis keeps and bats at 3.

Hard to know which way the gloves will go this Shield season. Both Whiteman and Inglis keep well. And both bat in the top 3, though in the past when Whiteman has kept he’s batted down the order. Both are likely to first picks in the first XI for the Warriors.

Solving Australia's opening dilemma

Agreed. A 10 man side playing an 11 man side is likely to produce weaker results. And when it is raised, there’s no discussion of inserting another batsman and the runs he may have scored.

We should move on from the “without Smith” discussion and focus on “but without Cummins’ wickets…”

Aussies should be disappointed with underwhelming Ashes

I guess we’ll see. Though Lyon picked up 8 in Perth last year against India, including 5 in the first innings.

The day/night description is a bit misleading I think. Sunset is at 7.15 but still twilight till 7.45pm. With a scheduled finish of 8pm, there won’t actually be that much play in “night” conditions. Perhaps not that much different to Adelaide, though much more play at night in Brisbane.

Who should the Test selectors look at for the summer?

Hi General, yes Labuschagne has to continue at 3 this summer to see if he can carry this Ashes form through. If so, we have that position sorted for the foreseeable future.

With the next 10 of 12 Tests being in Australia, there’s a good opportunity for batsmen to gain confidence/establish themselves. Hopefully that then enables them to develop their game before heading off on tours and being able to adapt to different conditions.

Aussies should be disappointed with underwhelming Ashes

Why the Perth Test?

Who should the Test selectors look at for the summer?

Paine isn’t a wicket-keeper batsman in the contemporary (last 15-25 years) sense, but he’s a keeper that can hold up his end and contribute with the bat on occasion.

But we all knew that going into the series, so retrospective analysis of his batting as somehow having failed Australia is not a correct assessment.

That’s not to say that Australia wouldn’t be better served with more runs from the number 7 position, but current alternatives/options are limited and there are other factors that negate/don’t warrant a switch from Paine right at this point in time.

Analysis of keeping is always subjective because it’s difficult to assess, so execution of it can be used one way or the other, depending on which narrative one wants to push. FWIW, I thought his keeping was fine.

He coalesced the team and kept them focused and implemented the culture and public engagement objectives of his employer, CA, as he was tasked to do. And he did so exceptionally well in all areas.

There was a poor call on one toss and questionable call on another, but that’s not all down to just the captain of the side.

At times there were some management of bowlers issues and field placement issues in-game. But not many 4 or 5 Test series are played out where there aren’t tactical missteps along the way. By both sides.

As for DRS, it amazes me how much is made of DRS decisions and how pivotal they seem to some commentators. Paine has issues with judging how to use the tactics of DRS to his advantage, but in the overall context of the match and all the things that go to making up the eventual outcome/s of a game, that advantage is not that material, especially considering a lot of it at times is guesswork.

I think Paine has done a fine job on the field and his overall performance as part of the team’s “executive” group (coaches, selectors) off the field has been very good.

England win despite stunning Matt Wade ton

Hi Lawrence, don’t assume that Wade would maintain his current batting output if he again to on the keeping. His FC only materially improved once he gave up the full-time gloves. Granted, he may have now added a few things to his batting which he could hold on to in the keeper’s role, but more likely his batting would suffer some what within a few months.

England win despite stunning Matt Wade ton

Except England should have lost a truckload of points for their slow over rates. The WTC rules are very clear on how this the points penalties are applied. England has not been penalised with the loss of a single point, thus far anyway. Wrong.

England win despite stunning Matt Wade ton

He’ll need a ouija board for that.

England win despite stunning Matt Wade ton

Hi TB

In regard to Wade’s century last night, his team may have checked out, but the English bowlers hadn’t. It was a superb century and the battle with Archer was epic.

England win despite stunning Matt Wade ton

Ooohhh no. The one day domestic comp starts next week!

England win despite stunning Matt Wade ton