Definitely true for Starc and Cummins, but Josh hasn't played since the India home series and is being shown up by Pattinson in particular in the lead up Australia A games so far. If you watched him and Siddle skittle NSW in the Shield final in overcast conditions, I reckon you might be quite a bit less convinced about Josh playing. If the third seamer spot isn't genuinely up for grabs even after you remove Neser, Bird and Tremain from the mix, there's something wrong in the here and now.
It's probably true for the bowlers, even if Pattinson, Siddle, Neser and Holland (or another bowler for Australia A) crush Australia it's doubtful they will get a game first test.
Agreed. That's why I don't accept the argument of "...but Patterson has a Test average of 144. He'd be unlucky to miss out on selection". Yes he does have that average from two Tests. But against a woeful second-string Sri Lanka bowling attack. Post a follow up 100 vs WA, his subsequent first class scores across 10+ innings have been terrible, in both Australia and in England recently.
Most disagree that Carey should get a spot - even though his FC average over the last two Shield seasons is higher than Patterson and much higher than Labuschagne - and all of them with 2x 100s. But any player that can demonstrate consistent ability to score big runs consistently against the world's best bowlers, and in high pressure situations every time, must be considered. As should Wade.
The Ashes is here and now. Pick the players performing in the here and now.
Completely. The idea that someone some has some sort of equitable right to a Test spot based on a few Tests over here six months ago just causes me to sigh. Sure, they earned it, absolutely. But that was then. We're in the here and now. And what's worse is when guys just go from bad to worse in the team when out of form. It doesn't do anyone any good. I think we should treat our Test team less like the House of Lords and more like a squad, and get used to more flexibility in how we pick teams. Pick and stick is overrated in my view. It works when players are in form, but it's also an excuse for inaction too often when it's glaringly obvious that a change is needed, for the sake of the team and also the player in question. Going back to the Shield isn't being sent into exile, shunned or disenfranchised. It's our elite domestic competition. It's simply part of the selection process, and we should just drop all the angst about it. Players come in, they go out, in any team sport. You don't break up the band if you replace the sax player. Those who are demonstrably better than their peers and have shown it over a long period have "incumbency" status. This means only Smith, Warner and probably Khawaja at the moment (at least since his Pakistan series first Test, if you'll forgive the India series when he had some off field stuff to deal with) among our current batsmen. For the rest, the selectors have to rely on the most contemporaneous form lines they have. We want our most competitive XI for 1 August, in the here and now. If you have the crux of your team settled, all your key position players holding it together, it's a licence to get on with it. Go with where the runs are coming from.
Hi Jero. And as it should be.
Since India, a two match series v Sri Lanka 6 moths ago, at home, is barely sufficient in terms of a form guide for the Ashes in England.
Hence why the discussion of incumbents who have "earned" their spots from that series frustrates me. Adopt that principle and we have to wait at least two Tests before any individual failures force a change - and by that point the series may be as good as lost.
Yeah, just a meaningless sound byte. He can't say anything else really, without being drawn into a line of questioning he doesn't need right now. It's exactly why this fixture is on the schedule. For everything to be on the line for the spots up for grabs.
Neel
Roar Guru
Australia vs Australia A concept would help in the near future.
Big Daddy
Guest
Why not call it a practice match because basically that's all it is. If the selectors haven't made up their mind by now they never will.
Jero
Roar Rookie
Failing which, there's always the Alexander Pearce model.
Peter Warrington
Guest
so the Hunger Games have finally arrived and we get to see if this great idea is a great idea after all
Peter Warrington
Guest
Louise Elliott
Jero
Roar Rookie
Definitely true for Starc and Cummins, but Josh hasn't played since the India home series and is being shown up by Pattinson in particular in the lead up Australia A games so far. If you watched him and Siddle skittle NSW in the Shield final in overcast conditions, I reckon you might be quite a bit less convinced about Josh playing. If the third seamer spot isn't genuinely up for grabs even after you remove Neser, Bird and Tremain from the mix, there's something wrong in the here and now.
Gee
Roar Rookie
It's probably true for the bowlers, even if Pattinson, Siddle, Neser and Holland (or another bowler for Australia A) crush Australia it's doubtful they will get a game first test.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Agreed. That's why I don't accept the argument of "...but Patterson has a Test average of 144. He'd be unlucky to miss out on selection". Yes he does have that average from two Tests. But against a woeful second-string Sri Lanka bowling attack. Post a follow up 100 vs WA, his subsequent first class scores across 10+ innings have been terrible, in both Australia and in England recently. Most disagree that Carey should get a spot - even though his FC average over the last two Shield seasons is higher than Patterson and much higher than Labuschagne - and all of them with 2x 100s. But any player that can demonstrate consistent ability to score big runs consistently against the world's best bowlers, and in high pressure situations every time, must be considered. As should Wade. The Ashes is here and now. Pick the players performing in the here and now.
Jero
Roar Rookie
With all due respect to Clarence Clemons and Bobby Keys.
Jero
Roar Rookie
Completely. The idea that someone some has some sort of equitable right to a Test spot based on a few Tests over here six months ago just causes me to sigh. Sure, they earned it, absolutely. But that was then. We're in the here and now. And what's worse is when guys just go from bad to worse in the team when out of form. It doesn't do anyone any good. I think we should treat our Test team less like the House of Lords and more like a squad, and get used to more flexibility in how we pick teams. Pick and stick is overrated in my view. It works when players are in form, but it's also an excuse for inaction too often when it's glaringly obvious that a change is needed, for the sake of the team and also the player in question. Going back to the Shield isn't being sent into exile, shunned or disenfranchised. It's our elite domestic competition. It's simply part of the selection process, and we should just drop all the angst about it. Players come in, they go out, in any team sport. You don't break up the band if you replace the sax player. Those who are demonstrably better than their peers and have shown it over a long period have "incumbency" status. This means only Smith, Warner and probably Khawaja at the moment (at least since his Pakistan series first Test, if you'll forgive the India series when he had some off field stuff to deal with) among our current batsmen. For the rest, the selectors have to rely on the most contemporaneous form lines they have. We want our most competitive XI for 1 August, in the here and now. If you have the crux of your team settled, all your key position players holding it together, it's a licence to get on with it. Go with where the runs are coming from.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Hi Jero. And as it should be. Since India, a two match series v Sri Lanka 6 moths ago, at home, is barely sufficient in terms of a form guide for the Ashes in England. Hence why the discussion of incumbents who have "earned" their spots from that series frustrates me. Adopt that principle and we have to wait at least two Tests before any individual failures force a change - and by that point the series may be as good as lost.
Jero
Roar Rookie
Yeah, just a meaningless sound byte. He can't say anything else really, without being drawn into a line of questioning he doesn't need right now. It's exactly why this fixture is on the schedule. For everything to be on the line for the spots up for grabs.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Not a play off. Sounds like a contradicting message to the one that was out out there a few weeks ago...