I hate Langer's language use. Handscomb wasn't "brutally unlucky". He didn't use brutality. The word JL is looking for is desperately.
----
However what JL did to him was brutal.
The obvious change to make is Marsh out and Handscomb in. Marsh’s mostly a opener and number 3 and those spots are taken so that reasoning is used to rule out Handscomb, I don’t know.
Marsh is injury prone, a slow starter, and a poor fielder. Everything Handscomb isn’t
I'm not really buying the "Smith took his place" excuse.
1. Handscomb offers a lot more than just being 90 SR middle order player, he's a handy backup keeper if Carey gets injured and is a superb fielder as well
2. What's wrong with having 2 of the same sort of player in one team? If that sort of player is perfectly accustomed to ODIs like Handscomb and Smith are, wouldn't you want to maximise the number of those players you pick, rather than those that need time to get going?
3. What if Smith - heaven forbid - isn't adjusting to international cricket quite as well as we think he will? What if he re-aggravates his elbow injury? Wouldn't it be smart to have a backup?
Langer drunk with a little bit of power again after winning a couple of ODI series.
He was knocked down a peg or two after the disastrous Indian Test series and forced to drop the Marsh boys and Finch as opener (when he wasn't even an opener for Victoria).
Forced into play Burns and Patterson and they all performed well.
Back to jobs for the boys
I would have had the pecking order:
Marsh
Hando
Smith
And langer focussing on smith’s Claims may be evidence that they too saw it as a choice of Handscomb v smith?
Josh H
Roar Rookie
I'd sooner take out a fast bowler (Behrendorff or NCN) to put Handscomb in but otherwise I agree
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
I hate Langer's language use. Handscomb wasn't "brutally unlucky". He didn't use brutality. The word JL is looking for is desperately. ---- However what JL did to him was brutal.
Peter Warrington
Guest
Smith out.
U
Roar Rookie
The obvious change to make is Marsh out and Handscomb in. Marsh’s mostly a opener and number 3 and those spots are taken so that reasoning is used to rule out Handscomb, I don’t know. Marsh is injury prone, a slow starter, and a poor fielder. Everything Handscomb isn’t
Peter warrington
Guest
but if it IS true, it says form from 3 years ago is more valued than form from last month therefore expect.... anything!
Josh H
Roar Rookie
I'm not really buying the "Smith took his place" excuse. 1. Handscomb offers a lot more than just being 90 SR middle order player, he's a handy backup keeper if Carey gets injured and is a superb fielder as well 2. What's wrong with having 2 of the same sort of player in one team? If that sort of player is perfectly accustomed to ODIs like Handscomb and Smith are, wouldn't you want to maximise the number of those players you pick, rather than those that need time to get going? 3. What if Smith - heaven forbid - isn't adjusting to international cricket quite as well as we think he will? What if he re-aggravates his elbow injury? Wouldn't it be smart to have a backup?
anon
Roar Pro
Langer drunk with a little bit of power again after winning a couple of ODI series. He was knocked down a peg or two after the disastrous Indian Test series and forced to drop the Marsh boys and Finch as opener (when he wasn't even an opener for Victoria). Forced into play Burns and Patterson and they all performed well. Back to jobs for the boys
Peter warrington
Guest
I would have had the pecking order: Marsh Hando Smith And langer focussing on smith’s Claims may be evidence that they too saw it as a choice of Handscomb v smith?
U
Roar Rookie
Had to get his mate Shaun in there though