... maybe you guys should just do a First, & a Second 12,,, but done in batting order....

best No 1, & 2nd No 1

best No 2, & 2nd No 2

best @ 3, 4, 5, wicket keeper, bowlers..

If you do them seperately, then some discussion can be made about each positional selection.

Not a bad idea Dee-luded. As Macca said, could be on the cards for the summer I reckon...

Symonds got rid of himself. His form dropped away and his personal problems also came to the fore.

Katich's demise could also focus on form. His last 10 Test innings yielded around 240 runs at around 20 a piece. And I am not sure where you pull "the best batsman in the world for the previous 2 seasons". But it sure is a nice bit of hoopla. Well done.

And it's hardly Clarke's fault that neither Watson nor Warner can behave like responsible human beings.

You have a naive and self serving view of LEADERSHiP.

You have carried ad nauseam about it but given nothing but your personal grudge and an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

Don't get me wrong I love a good conspiracy theory. I just prefer them with a few facts and evidence.

his last 10 tests yielded 786 runs

read the roar after he was dropped

also google katichbinglesymonds

btw I was talking about LEADERSHIP, not whether MC is a good bat good bowler good bloke or good tactician

anyway the trouble starts now with warner making 196

Yeah, some excellent teams there TD. I'd only make a few changes with the bowling (Thommo and Garth to swap with Merv and Billy) but you've done well with the rest of the line-ups. Monty Noble and 'The Big ship' Warwick Armstrong would find their way into my XI's as well. Charlie Macartney was another player with strong claims.

You'll be giving HT some more ideas about 'Best XI's ! (which passes the time nicely in the Holiday period whilst we're all watching the 'Big Bash' )

This one's for you Macca

5th XI

Clem Hill http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/5662.html

Bill Woodfull* http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/8246.html

Justin Langer http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/6256.html

Norm O'Neill http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/7015.html

Dean Jones http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/6044.html

Warwick Armstrong http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/3982.html

Monty Noble http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/6936.html

+Bert Oldfield http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/7003.html

Charlie Turner http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/7990.html

Bill Johnston http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/6041.html

Jack Saunders http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/7564.html

Got them in an XI for you Macca, outside Langer & Jones this XI's a bit more old school. In fact on paper, this XI may actually be superior to who I had listed in my 4th XI.....

This one's for you Macca

5th XI

Clem Hill http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/5662.html

Bill Woodfull* http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/8246.html

Justin Langer http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/6256.html

Norm O'Neill http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/7015.html

Dean Jones http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/6044.html

Warwick Armstrong http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/3982.html

Monty Noble http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/6936.html

+Bert Oldfield http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/7003.html

Charlie Turner http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/7990.html

Bill Johnston http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/6041.html

Jack Saunders http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/7564.html

Got them in an XI for you Macca, outside Langer & Jones this XI's a bit more old school. In fact on paper, this XI may actually be superior to who I had listed in my 4th XI.....

I'm quite big on history not being ignored. The AFL's team of the century did not include one player who played prior to 1930. In my book that makes it a flawed team. In cricket, we've got all the numbers for proof and let's not forget that batsmen played on uncovered wickets back then. Any batting average above 35 - 40 would have been some sort of achievement. Couple all that with the fact that there isn't a person alive who saw any these past greats (prior to around about 1920) and they can easily be overlooked. All we've got is the history books and the numbers but I trust the accounts of the day.

Liked all your teams though TD. Test Cricket has a very rich history. Btw, Victor Trumper only averaged 39.04 but he is widely renowned as one of the greats. Blokes like Macartney, Noble, Armstrong and others had excellent numbers (all things considered)

TD, no jack Iverson?

macca, early eighties, Ogilvie,sergant, toohey

Edited July 25, 201311 yr by jazza

Interesting article here featuring some ideas, comments and a way forward from Greg Chappell ... rather enlightening and it's not all doom and gloom according to Greg. Just might take a few years by the looks of it. We unearth 2 star batsmen and everything can change. Just need to find them

... The thoughts of GS Chappell

He claims Australia was slow to react as the game changed and says there are no quick fixes, comparing the current situation to the mid '80s."It took us a couple of years in the mid '80s and I think we’re looking at a similar sort of process here,"

"I think I’ve been through at least three of these periods in Australian cricket and it’s not much fun at the time," Chappell said. "On each occasion we’ve come out the other side of it very positively. That’s what we’ve got to look towards. "We’re in England for three more Test matches. We have to show faith in the guys who have been chosen.

"The under 19 program has been beefed up in recent years to include more international competition. "We've beefed up the Australia A program. "The centre of excellence program has been altered and restructured to include a lot more playing opportunities.

TD, no jack Iverson?

macca, early eighties, Ogilvie,sergant, toohey

Nice obscure one there Jazza.

Didn't play enough to make a sound judgement on just how good he was. Kind of like Brad Hodge who has a test batting average in the 50's or Stuart Law who made a 50 on debut but has no test average. Just don't know how good they really would have been at that level?

Edited July 25, 201311 yr by Tall Defence

Interesting article here featuring some ideas, comments and a way forward from Greg Chappell ... rather enlightening and it's not all doom and gloom according to Greg. Just might take a few years by the looks of it. We unearth 2 star batsmen and everything can change. Just need to find them

... The thoughts of GS Chappell

Good article Macca, and I am optimistic that the tide will turn. Will just take time.

As has been said by many on here I think we're good for bowlers and we're even developing a few spinners also (Agar, Zampa, Muirhead). We just have to wait for the batsmen to come through to. With any luck the likes of Silk, Burns, Maddinson etc will establish themselves over the next few years.

Greg Chappell left a gaping hole in our batting when he retired after the 83/84 season, as the batsmen around him were no world beaters (apart from Border and to a lesser extent, Hughes)

In some ways, it's history repeating itself with Clarke being our only established star these days. We need 2 star batsmen to emerge (3 would be even better) and we'd be right up there again. If Ahmed or at least a gun spinner emerges at the same time along with a fit bevy of top quality fast bowlers, we'd soon return to being a power again.

Here's a possible future XI (circa 2014/15/16)

Silk

Khawaja (can't see another opener yet and Usman could probably open the batting anyway)

Maddinson

Doolan/Burns

Clarke

Mitch Marsh

Paine

Pattinson

Starc

Cummins

Ahmed / Agar

I reckon we will find that a couple of the above who haven't debuted yet will get their chance soon enough. Maybe as early as when England visit our shores in November.

Bringing in 1 new player for every new series for the next 5 or 6 series' is maybe how they'll do it. Protecting a new player against a top nation is fraught with danger. Whether it's a soft start or a tough start shouldn't be a huge factor. At some stage the selectors have to bite the bullet.

If any of Smith, Warner, Hughes or Watson can turn their careers around then well and good. I can't see Rogers or Cowan being long term solutions but happy to be surprised. Khawaja does have good technique but needs to learn how to go on with it.

There may well be 1 or 2 other batsmen (or bowlers) who could emerge in the next couple of years. Every 10 years or so an absolute star batsman emerges. Sometimes you might get a couple.

Since Greg Chappell retired we've had more than our fair share of top batsmen surface. The last one was Michael Hussey and he's already retired (Hussey debuted after Clarke)

Edited July 25, 201311 yr by Macca

Greg Chappell left a gaping hole in our batting when he retired after the 83/84 season, as the batsmen around him were no world beaters (apart from Border and to a lesser extent, Hughes)

In some ways, it's history repeating itself with Clarke being our only established star these days. We need 2 star batsmen to emerge (3 would be even better) and we'd be right up there again. If Ahmed or at least a gun spinner emerges at the same time along with a fit bevy of top quality fast bowlers, we'd soon return to being a power again.

Here's a possible future XI (circa 2014/15/16)

Silk

Khawaja (can't see another opener yet and Usman could probably open the batting anyway)

Maddinson

Doolan/Burns

Clarke

Mitch Marsh

Paine

Pattinson

Starc

Cummins

Ahmed / Agar

I reckon we will find that a couple of the above who haven't debuted yet will get their chance soon enough. Maybe as early as when England visit our shores in November.

Bringing in 1 new player for every new series for the next 5 or 6 series' is maybe how they'll do it. Protecting a new player against a top nation is fraught with danger. Whether it's a soft start or a tough start shouldn't be a huge factor. At some stage the selectors have to bite the bullet.

If any of Smith, Warner, Hughes or Watson can turn their careers around then well and good. I can't see Rogers or Cowan being long term solutions but happy to be surprised. Khawaja does have good technique but needs to learn how to go on with it.

There may well be 1 or 2 other batsmen (or bowlers) who could emerge in the next couple of years. Every 10 years or so an absolute star batsman emerges. Sometimes you might get a couple.

Since Greg Chappell retired we've had more than our fair share of top batsmen surface. The last one was Michael Hussey and he's already retired (Hussey debuted after Clarke)

Not a bad future line up there Macca.

Fingers crossed the players can develop well, and I think part of the reason for our current state is because some of the players we expected to develop through the Shield eg. Callum Ferguson, Cameron White, Chris Lynn just haven't developed like we probably expected them to, where as someone like Mark Cosgrove although often maiing runs has fitness issues which have held him back. I wonder if he'll get an opportunity?

Update of the Australia A v South Africa A match:

Stumps Day 2

Australia A 5/474 dec

D. Warner 193

G. Maxwell 155*

A. Finch 51

K. Abbott 2/83 (25)

M. De Lange 2/129 (23)

S. Van Zyl 1/45 (9)

South Africa A 4/276

D. Elgar 135*

J. Ontong 60

R. Hendricks 47

F. Ahmed 2/81 (18)

M. Henriques 1/34 (10)

J. Hazlewood 1/42 (17)

Looks to be a very good batting wicket but you'd have to say we're slightly in front if anything. Won't expect a result obviously, but if we can bowl them out for under our score and then make some good second innings runs then it's a good performance. Great to see Fawad grab a couple of wickets again. Going at about 4.5 an over, but considering we batted at a rate of 4.42 an over and South Africa A are going at just under 4 then it's pretty reasonable in the scheme of things. Pat Cummins not playing by the way, I'm assuming rested.

If Fawad grabs 4 or 5 could we see another last minute inclusion for the 3rd test?

Not a bad future line up there Macca.

Fingers crossed the players can develop well, and I think part of the reason for our current state is because some of the players we expected to develop through the Shield eg. Callum Ferguson, Cameron White, Chris Lynn just haven't developed like we probably expected them to, where as someone like Mark Cosgrove although often maiing runs has fitness issues which have held him back. I wonder if he'll get an opportunity?

Update of the Australia A v South Africa A match:

Stumps Day 2

Australia A 5/474 dec

D. Warner 193

G. Maxwell 155*

A. Finch 51

K. Abbott 2/83 (25)

M. De Lange 2/129 (23)

S. Van Zyl 1/45 (9)

South Africa A 4/276

D. Elgar 135*

J. Ontong 60

R. Hendricks 47

F. Ahmed 2/81 (18)

M. Henriques 1/34 (10)

J. Hazlewood 1/42 (17)

Looks to be a very good batting wicket but you'd have to say we're slightly in front if anything. Won't expect a result obviously, but if we can bowl them out for under our score and then make some good second innings runs then it's a good performance. Great to see Fawad grab a couple of wickets again. Going at about 4.5 an over, but considering we batted at a rate of 4.42 an over and South Africa A are going at just under 4 then it's pretty reasonable in the scheme of things. Pat Cummins not playing by the way, I'm assuming rested.

If Fawad grabs 4 or 5 could we see another last minute inclusion for the 3rd test?

Whatever the reason might be, we are just not producing Test class batsmen and haven't really produced one since Michael Hussey debuted. All others since then either haven't come on or were good for a while and then fell away.

Since Greg Chappell retired we've had a number of top bats or gun bats. I'm not telling anyone here anything new when listing the following batsmen (age on debut in brackets) ... Border (23) , S Waugh (20), Boon (23), Marsh (26), Jones (22), Taylor (24), M Waugh (25), Ponting (20), Slater (23), Hayden (22), Langer (22), Martyn (21), Gilchrist (27), Clarke (21), Katich (25) and Hussey (30) were all either gun bats or top bats who could be relied upon.

It would be easy to point the finger at t20 cricket but the South Africans are living proof that that can't necessarily be the reason. Most of their players play in the IPL and their own domestic t20 comp (as well as other comps in some cases)

That article with Greg Chappell as the centrepiece did outline a number of reasons for our dearth of talented batsmen and I guess we just have to wade things out until good batsmen emerge. Happy to be proven wrong on our current lot (apart from Clarke and maybe Khawaja) but I reckon we've seen a big enough sample size with a few of them.

If Warner comes into the side and bats at no.6 then he will be facing Swann 1st up. That's the reality and most other Test nations now know that probably our biggest issue is the ability of our batsmen to play good spin bowling. Out of Warner, Hughes, Smith and Watson, I can maybe only see one or 2 of them surviving long term. And it's a fairly big maybe. Rogers and Cowan need big runs right now to survive.

From all accounts the Manchester wicket takes a bit of spin so there will be no respite. There was some talk that Panesar might play as well but that would mean that Prior would have to bat at no.6. (a 7,8 and 9 of Bresnan, Broad and Swann is fairly handy though!)

Edited July 26, 201311 yr by Macca

Ryan Harris, I hadn't seen what he was capable of in Aus... but I'm now a fan. seeing his nice control & subtle swing.

I see why everyone has been on his side. & an old fashioned goer it seems.

macca

I think cowan has been overlooked by a lot of people, his technique is better than most in the team atm

Clarke will stay

smith gets another 3 tests at least

warner will be back

wade not sure he will be anything but a stopgap batsman

interesting shield opening this year with a lot of players asking their skippers if they can bat in the top 3.knowing that places are open will generate a free for all at shield level

Does Watson play any shots behind the wicket? or is he all drives?

macca

I think cowan has been overlooked by a lot of people, his technique is better than most in the team atm

Clarke will stay

smith gets another 3 tests at least

warner will be back

wade not sure he will be anything but a stopgap batsman

interesting shield opening this year with a lot of players asking their skippers if they can bat in the top 3.knowing that places are open will generate a free for all at shield level

Lost in translation probably jazza ... I don't have an issue with Cowan's technique (although, like most of the others in the squad, he's not great against spin) It's his possible inability to become a bona fide top batsman going forward. He's not alone though, as apart from Clarke and perhaps Khawaja, the rest of our batsmen in the touring party have one issue or another.

At some stage the sample size becomes big enough where we can start making a reasonable appraisal. My reckoning with batsmen is if they are not a 'Star' by the time they reach the age of 26 - 28 they probably never will be. Hussey was a star at that age - he just wasn't playing Test cricket. Ditto for Gilly. To my way of thinking, a player must be a potential star when they get picked for the Test side.

'Ok's', 'all right's', 'role players', 'fill in player's' and 'NQR's won't take you anywhere in the long term. It's not like footy where you have to put up with those sort of players. In fact, the comparisons to a footy side are often largely irrelevant. You can often end up with a whole team of NQR's if you continue to accept 2nd best.

Graeme Wood played 59 Tests and in the end only averaged 31.83. He always seemed to make a big score to save his bacon but on an overall basis, he played far too many Tests. There are a number of other examples where the selectors have shown too much faith. Sometimes they don't show enough faith. It's a fine balance.

I'd be making changes to the Test side now (from outside the squad) My reckoning is that we're most probably going to have to make those changes sooner or later and you don't necessarily want to be doing that at the start of an important series (like the one starting in November this year) We probably will stick pat with the current lot but what happens if they continue to get smashed? We'll then start the November series in a real quandary.

Graham Wood was a master of quick running between the wickets though .

Ask Laird ,McCosker ,Darling,Dyson,Wessells and all the other guys he ran out.

Graham Wood was a master of quick running between the wickets though .

Ask Laird ,McCosker ,Darling,Dyson,Wessells and all the other guys he ran out.

How's it go, Biff ...

...yes, no, wait, oh .... !

his last 10 tests yielded 786 runs

read the roar after he was dropped

also google katichbinglesymonds

btw I was talking about LEADERSHIP, not whether MC is a good bat good bowler good bloke or good tactician

anyway the trouble starts now with warner making 196

Lets compare his paltry last Test 10 innings with his last 10 Tests and what does that say about form.....ummmm.

There is a sports opinion site called the Roar which actually writes about Katich. The article is dated Dec 2011. It actually uses a few facts and figures. At his best Katich was a good but never a great Test batsman who was on the wane when finally dropped.

So what if he had spat with Clarke. Differences in the changing rooms have been present since The Don and Bill zo Reilly agreed to disagree. They only become public when times are tough. Or in Katichs case when he can't control himself in public ( a constant issue) as he continues to burn relationships through the Australian cricket scene.

And you weren't talking about leadership at all. You just repeatedly wrote it in CAPS without any due cause. You have to tried to bizarrely claim that a past fall out between Clarke, an abrasive senior player in Katich and an off the rails wing nut in Symonds as some slur on leadership. You have not put up anything more plausible than irrelevant scuttlebutt.

Ok you don't like Clarke. Fine. But I am not sure if its dislike of Clarke or your lack of nous about leadership that makes you think you are onto something.

If Warner is focused and in form he could be just shot in the arm this limp batting line up needs.

At this stage, Watson, Rogers and Hughes are one more poor Test each from Test oblivion. For Watson(32 + fragile body) and Rogers (35) it could be final hurrah in a test cap. Hughes could e a long time in the cold.

A rejuvenated Warner could an important jolt for the Australia effort in this series.

If Watson and Rogers survive the series in anything less than acceptable I would expect they will be passed over.

Given the dire state of the batting, Cowan would do well to post a good 3 figure score in Hove. A few past misdemeanours could be forgotten. With Clarke out and Watson resting his front pad it's interesting Cowan is leading the side. There's a lack of leadership within the side in general (no Clarke No leadership) and Cowans status validates that.

At this stage, Watson, Rogers and Hughes are one more poor Test each from Test oblivion. For Watson(32 + fragile body) and Rogers (35) it could be final hurrah in a test cap. Hughes could e a long time in the cold.

A rejuvenated Warner could an important jolt for the Australia effort in this series.

If Watson and Rogers survive the series in anything less than acceptable I would expect they will be passed over.

Given the dire state of the batting, Cowan would do well to post a good 3 figure score in Hove. A few past misdemeanours could be forgotten. With Clarke out and Watson resting his front pad it's interesting Cowan is leading the side. There's a lack of leadership within the side in general (no Clarke No leadership) and Cowans status validates that.

You make a good point there Rhino about Cowan being picked to captain the side. I would of thought they would have made Smith acting captain given he's captained NSW and Sydney Sixes at different times and if anything you'd expect he'd be more of a chance to play the 3rd test in the No 4 position then Cowan is.

As for the match in Hove, can be followed here: http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/engine/match/566930.html

Good start for Hughes up the top of the order. Would it kill them to try and go at 3 an over though?

Cowan out for 66 and Hughes out for 84 in the tour match against Sussex ... currently 2/171 ... scorecard

Further to that list of top bats or gun bats to emerge in the last 30 years is the age of the players on debut.

S Waugh (20)

Ponting (20)

Martyn (21)

Clarke (21)

Jones (22)

Hayden (22)

Langer (22)

Slater (23)

Boon (23)

Border (23)

Taylor (24)

M Waugh (25)

Katich (25)

Marsh (26)

Gilchrist (27)

Hussey (30)

Cowan out for 66 and Hughes out for 84 in the tour match against Sussex ... currently 2/171 ... scorecard

Further to that list of top bats or gun bats to emerge in the last 30 years is the age of the players on debut.

S Waugh (20)

Ponting (20)

Martyn (21)

Clarke (21)

Jones (22)

Hayden (22)

Langer (22)

Slater (23)

Boon (23)

Border (23)

Taylor (24)

M Waugh (25)

Katich (25)

Marsh (26)

Gilchrist (27)

Hussey (30)

more recent times the age appears to be going up

is this a reflection of the distractions of 50/50,,,, 20/20,,,,, & other forms of cricket played lately?

more recent times the age appears to be going up

is this a reflection of the distractions of 50/50,,,, 20/20,,,,, & other forms of cricket played lately?

I reckon it might be because the selectors are taking the 'safe' route. Or what they perceive as the safe route. I doubt that many of the players I listed who were aged 24 or younger when they debuted, were dominating at Shield ranks at the time (apart from Ponting?)

It's a bit like hugging the boundary line in footy, I see that as high risk, not low risk. Picking older blokes in cricket is probably a higher risk in cricket (unless they are an obvious star like Hussey or Gilly)

T20 is a lousy excuse and is another way for people to look for an easy way out. The South African players play just as much t20 cricket and it doesn't seem to effect them. In fact, all the countries play t20 except perhaps England (who invented the game). 50 over cricket has been extremely popular since the late 70's so that's another excuse.

It comes down to technique, temperament, attitude and placing faith in youth. (except perhaps in the case of spinners)

Oh and 'dl', I might try and find out the aggregates and averages of those listed players before they debuted. At a guess I reckon their averages might range between 35 and 45 (with the odd exception)

Right now, the young batsmen in the Sheffield Shield may not be setting the world on fire but I'm guessing that's nearly always been the case (except for maybe Ponting and 1 or 2 others)

Terrible results from the Sussex game. Cowan 66, Hughes 84, Smith 98*, Khawaja 40.

Smith may go on to make a 100, which will save his spot, but what do we do about the rest? Can we drop Hughes after making an 84, to go with his (superb) 81* at Trent Bridge? Can we drop Khawaja for only making 40, despite being better than Smith and Hughes at Lord's? Can we drop Watson despite not giving him a chance at Hove?

Warner's 193 now also looks just OK given the South Africans' batting.

You'd expect Warner to get back in, which means someone has to go. I think it should be Watson but surely he can't be dropped without getting a chance at Hove, so if it's not him, I'd pick Hughes, even though this 84 is good. Khawaja looked maybe like he was getting comfortable at number 3.

If Lyon bowls well, don't be surprised if Agar gets 'rested' or something along those lines (I maintain he never should have been picked). Bird and Starc have Pattinson's spot to play for, too (maybe they'll both play if Harris isn't fit).

I reckon it might be because the selectors are taking the 'safe' route. Or what they perceive as the safe route. I doubt that many of the players I listed who were aged 24 or younger when they debuted, were dominating at Shield ranks at the time (apart from Ponting?)

It's a bit like hugging the boundary line in footy, I see that as high risk, not low risk. Picking older blokes in cricket is probably a higher risk in cricket (unless they are an obvious star like Hussey or Gilly)

T20 is a lousy excuse and is another way for people to look for an easy way out. The South African players play just as much t20 cricket and it doesn't seem to effect them. In fact, all the countries play t20 except perhaps England (who invented the game). 50 over cricket has been extremely popular since the late 70's so that's another excuse.

It comes down to technique, temperament, attitude and placing faith in youth. (except perhaps in the case of spinners)

Oh and 'dl', I might try and find out the aggregates and averages of those listed players before they debuted. At a guess I reckon their averages might range between 35 and 45 (with the odd exception)

Right now, the young batsmen in the Sheffield Shield may not be setting the world on fire but I'm guessing that's nearly always been the case (except for maybe Ponting and 1 or 2 others)

.... makes me think of the Cats at present & how they've transitioned so far from their aging stars, & managing to bring on their kids whilst maintaining the elite level of play.