1st Test Border Gavaskar Trophy November 22-26 1350hrs @ Perth Stadium

[Gough]

No.

We don’t appreciate how good Lyon has been over the journey. 500+ wickers bowling finger spin on some relatively unhelpful pitches.

It was the Phillip Hughes Test here ten years ago where he got seven in the fourth innings that made him. Before that game it felt like he was fighting for his spot every time he played, bowling us to a win like that changed the perception around him completely.

 

[Cmarsh]

Jesus man, this thread!

Our last series we beat NZ away from home. We had the weird draw against the WIndies, but before that we whacked Pakistan at home and retained the Ashes away in an all-time series.

But we're sacking the whole team after 2 shitty days?

Who are we replacing them with? We couldn't find one opening bat who looked convincing in the whole Sheffield Shield, and the bloke we did end up picking out of position looked rougher than most of the guys this thread wants sacked.

It's wild to me that you'd drop guys who are proven at test level in favour of guys who, in some cases, are barely proven at Shield level. We're not England, you don't hand out baggy greens on the back of 2 or 3 good first class performances, hoping you might find some sheckles of silver on the way.

And within those two days India were bowled out for 150.

 

[TommyD13]

He was sub fielding which is decent practice given he won't be wearing the gloves if he is selected.

Can get some random WA non-selected shield player to sub field, not a big deal

 

[Lunchtime]

If you remove his 334* which was clearly the exception, not the rule, for the last 5 years of his career Taylor averaged sub 35. Prior to that he averaged 62.

Punter 38 over his last 4 compared to 61 prior.

We've got a long history of giving blokes years based on reputation rather than output. And in the past we've had other guns to carry them.

We don't have that now.

As the stats below show, for the last 5 years of his career, Mark Taylor averaged 40.64, which is still an acceptable average for a Test Opening batsman. Prior to his final 5 years, Taylor averaged 45.71, so I'm not sure where you're getting this "prior to that he averaged 62"


Mark Taylor - Final 5 Years: Test Cricket

1995
Innings: 21
Matches: 12
Runs: 945
Average: 49.73
Not Outs: 2
Ducks: 0
50s: 6
100s: 2
50+ Scores: 8
Highest Score: 123

1996
Innings: 10
Matches: 5
Runs: 234
Average: 23.40
Not Outs: 0
Ducks: 0
50s: 0
100s: 0
50+ Scores: 0
Highest Score: 43


1997
Innings: 25
Matches: 15
Runs: 704
Average: 29.33
Not Outs: 1
Ducks: 1
50s: 3
100s: 2
50+ Scores: 5
Highest Score: 129

1998
Innings: 22
Matches: 12
Runs: 1112
Average: 58.52
Not Outs: 3
Ducks: 1
50s: 4
100s: 3
50+ Scores: 7
Highest Score: 334 not out

1999
Innings: 2
Matches: 1
Runs: 4
Average: 2.00
Not Outs: 0
Ducks: 0
50s: 0
100s: 0
50+ Scores: 0
Highest Score: 2

Total
Innings: 80
Matches: 45
Runs: 2999
Average: 40.52
Not Outs: 6
Ducks: 2
50s: 13
100s: 7
50+ Scores: 20
Highest Score: 334 not out

Yes Taylor was on a decline but not as bad as you (or anyone else) is assuming it was.

 

[boncer34]

As the stats below show, for the last 5 years of his career, Mark Taylor averaged 40.64, which is still an acceptable average for a Test Opening batsman. Prior to his final 5 years, Taylor averaged 45.71, so I'm not sure where you're getting this "prior to that he averaged 62"


Mark Taylor - Final 5 Years: Test Cricket

1995
Innings: 21
Matches: 12
Runs: 945
Average: 49.73
Not Outs: 2
Ducks: 0
50s: 6
100s: 2
50+ Scores: 8
Highest Score: 123

1996
Innings: 10
Matches: 5
Runs: 234
Average: 23.40
Not Outs: 0
Ducks: 0
50s: 0
100s: 0
50+ Scores: 0
Highest Score: 43


1997
Innings: 25
Matches: 15
Runs: 704
Average: 29.33
Not Outs: 1
Ducks: 1
50s: 3
100s: 2
50+ Scores: 5
Highest Score: 129

1998
Innings: 22
Matches: 12
Runs: 1112
Average: 58.52
Not Outs: 3
Ducks: 1
50s: 4
100s: 3
50+ Scores: 7
Highest Score: 334 not out

1999
Innings: 2
Matches: 1
Runs: 4
Average: 2.00
Not Outs: 0
Ducks: 0
50s: 0
100s: 0
50+ Scores: 0
Highest Score: 2

Total
Innings: 80
Matches: 45
Runs: 3008
Average: 40.64
Not Outs: 6
Ducks: 2
50s: 13
100s: 7
50+ Scores: 20
Highest Score: 334 not out

Yes Taylor was on a decline but not as bad as you (or anyone else) is assuming it was.

Sorry I included 94 as well. I didn't think a 1 test sample in 99 constituted a whole year.

 

[Lunchtime]

Sorry I included 94 as well. I didn't think a 1 test sample in 99 constituted a whole year.

1989 to 1994: 4526 runs @ 45.71

1995 to 1999: 2999 runs @ 40.52

 

[boncer34]

1989 to 1994: 4526 runs @ 45.71

1995 to 1999: 2999 runs @ 40.52

I'll change mine to 6 year just for you so nothing I said was wrong, if you want to approach it differently go for it.

 

[two blue tiger]

Smith has well and truly earned the right to leave on his own terms, but Marnus? He has just lost all form - seven single figure scores in his last eight innings. Another failure failure in the second innings here and we just have to look elsewhere. But, as everyone points out, there's basically no-one waiting. That said though, something has to give.

 

[MisterMarcus]

Thing is even armchair experts could see this happening and nothing was done.
Cummins even joked same old team besides a new opener.

To be fair, they did go for McSweeney over the 30+ year old Harris.

And Green would be a walk up start - probably ahead of Marsh - if he was fit.

 

[Cmarsh]

Smith has well and truly earned the right to leave on his own terms, but Marnus? He has just lost all form - seven single figure scores in his last eight innings. Another failure failure in the second innings here and we just have to look elsewhere. But, as everyone points out, there's basically no-one waiting. That said though, something has to give.

What I would like to know is how did Australian cricket find itself in a position from the 90's when there was such a wealth of great players waiting the wings, to now where there is basically nothing but unimpressive options?

 

[Cleavy]

Would have expected Inglis to be released from duty to play shield… would be good if he could have applied even more pressure to the non-performers by (hopefully) making a score in the shield. Boland also, helps keep the quality of the shield up a bit too

with Inglis, I think we could make the case that if the SA vs WA Shield game started on the 24th like the other 2 games, it could have been possible to include him.
with Boland, the Vics Shield game starts today (24th to 27th) but selected for the PMs XI game on the 30th, so that might be "overworking" him?

But overriding both these points is that we probably need to keep a spare batsman and bowler on hand, in case of a concussion sub requirement.

 

[Manbearpig77]

Smith has well and truly earned the right to leave on his own terms, but Marnus? He has just lost all form - seven single figure scores in his last eight innings. Another failure failure in the second innings here and we just have to look elsewhere. But, as everyone points out, there's basically no-one waiting. That said though, something has to give.

We’d honestly be better playing Harris as the opener and dropping McSweeney down to #3.

 

[Gough]

What I would like to know is how did Australian cricket find itself in a position from the 90's when there was such a wealth of great players waiting the wings, to now where there is basically nothing but unimpressive options?

I think some of it is the players who came through in the 90s grew up when summer was pretty much cricket and tennis, or rowing if you went to a private school, and there wasn't international sports beamed live into your lounge room 24/7. Nowadays cricket faces so much more competition for kid's interest than it did thirty years ago.

 

[gordo2016]

The bowlers have a lot of credits in the bank, even going back to the first innnings of this test. The batting is absolutely depressing. One need to be dropped and to be honest, that needs to be Marnus. He needs to to go back and find form and come back a better player. Smith will quit if he is dropped and is quickly running out of credits as well, he can go back to open ,allowing McSweeney to go to 3. This is series that needs to be won still so i would be looking at players such as Handscomb or Inglis comimng into the middle order. so I would go Khawaja, Smith, McSweeney, Handscombe, Head, Marsh Carey and the bowlers for the next test.

Don't think they will bring Handscomb back. At his age, you need a mountain of runs to be recalled, such as what Khawaja did. He has been solid enough but these Indian quickies would be all over him.

 

[sherb]

Lyon - wouldn't get a game in a stronger era of Australian cricket. Good bowler but that's it. It's through his longevity that he has taken so many wickets.

I rank MacGill ahead of him in terms of best spinners in Australian cricket over the last 40 odd years (Warne clearly number 1).

I find that thinking to be a bit odd.

His longevity has occurred because he is taking wickets - he is currently averaging just over 4 wickets per Test.

 

[BGman]

i saw Thommo in 75/76. No way was anyone close in pace.

So did I. He was deadly. Johnson was a passenger by comparison.

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

We’d honestly be better playing Harris as the opener and dropping McSweeney down to #3.

 

[Manbearpig77]

To be clear. There are no good options. We’re in trouble.

 

[Xtreme]

There is no next generation.

Every Sheffield Shield + Big Bash player dislikes this post!

 

[BGman]

so I would go Khawaja, Smith, McSweeney, Handscombe, Head, Marsh Carey

If anyone is cooked it is Bison. He has had about the largest decline in run scoring in past 12 months than any one, perhaps other than Trav. So if anyone is jettisoned it has to be that pair. I'd bring in Webster or Hardie for Marsh and Inglis for Head.

 

[BGman]

There is no next generation.

That is oh so not true. Aussies won the Junior Ashes last year both here and in England, that seems to have escaped your attention.

 

[Lunchtime]

I find that thinking to be a bit odd.

His longevity has occurred because he is taking wickets - he is currently averaging just over 4 wickets per Test.

There's been another good spinners. Lyon is still good we all know that but go back to the 1990s/early to mid 2000s...there was more depth with spinners.

Like i said, if Warne isn't around then MacGill plays more Test matches.

 

[Lunchtime]

If anyone is cooked it is Bison. He has had about the largest decline in run scoring in past 12 months than any one, perhaps other than Trav. So if anyone is jettisoned it has to be that pair. I'd bring in Webster or Hardie for Marsh and Inglis for Head.

In a stronger era of Test cricket....he doesn't play Test cricket at all.

 

[Richard Pryor]

There's been another good spinners. Lyon is still good we all know that but go back to the 1990s/early to mid 2000s...there was more depth with spinners.

Like i said, if Warne isn't around then MacGill plays more Test matches.

I don't know if I'd call one other Test standard guy extreme depth. Who was there other than MacGill? Peter McIntyre?

 

[sosos]

‘stronger’ era: what era are we talking? The eras when the 3-4 better spinners in Australia’s 150 year history have been around?

I don’t even like the guy but this sort of flippancy is just ridiculous.

MacGill was a big-turning leg spinner who yes, could bowl some ridiculous deliveries but could not maintain any pressure and profited an incredible amount from what he had at the other end for the majority of his career.

People love quoting the ‘he outperformed Warne when they were in the same team’ stat but rarely bother trying to figure out that 90 per cent of batsmen are inherently going to go after the guy that can’t land two balls on the same spot when there’s a leg spinner at the other end who puts 11 out of every 12 balls exactly where he wants them.

Warne was a genius. But MacGill was your traditional leg spinner who's method is to buy wickets.

Lyon's flight and pace are very consistent, and the stategy is containing the batsman, until they make a mistake.

But if you compare him with Ashwin, you will see the speed is slightly slower, and the flight above the eyeline.

Lyon is probably the best offie we've ever fielded. But he would benefit, in my opinion, with more flight.