Australia Vs India ODI series

You've made some good points in the last few posts Ice. I will make the below points, but generally speaking agree with what you say.

1. I'm a Mitchell Marsh fan, and for that reason I probably give him a bit more leeway than maybe he deserves, though I generally think the Aussie selectors don't stick with players long enough. Look at the records of Amla, Kallis and ABDV after 20 tests to see what can potentially happen to players when you stick it out. Who's to say the likes of Kwahaja and Hughes wouldn't have followed a similar course if they'd been stuck with. Instead, young talented guys were dropped for guys like Ed Cowan, who with all due respect, was in good form for a season or two, but was never going to be a long term option.
2. Putting Marsh in at 3 during the 4th ODI was a strategical decision. Not to win game 4 (you would have gone Smith at 3 and Maxwell at 4 if that was the case), but to give him some batting time in a dead rubber. I think you might be a little harsh in the assessment of him for game 5 given he scored a century of 80 odd, but I reckon he loses some leeway by virtue that they called India out the previous few days, so in that case you better not do the same thing.
3. I don't mind an all-rounder providing they are good enough. I think Marsh should be good enough to hold down a top 6 spot (especially given they have a reasonably solid top 7, so can afford an attacking player). I've actually been pleasantly surprised with his bowling, which before this season I considered crud. I don't think he needs to bowl many overs though. Look at SA. Kallis never really bowled that much - just enough to keep the other fast bowlers reasonably fresh.
4. Maxwell is crud at tests IMO. Not good enough to either be a batsman or a bowler. In fact, I reckon a test batsman would be embarrassed to be dismissed by Maxwell in a red ball game. Having said that, I'd definately have him in white ball cricket, just for his batting alone. IMO you pick as many matchwinners as you can in white ball cricket. It doesn't matter if they're inconsistent as hopefully a couple of them will do enough to win the game for you.
5. Faulkner isn't having a great summer, but I reckon that he's a good enough bowler to be in our regular white ball attack. His batting is an added bonus.
6. Can't understand the Tait selection. I haven't watched much of the Hurricanes this year but was he really that good in the BBL? Can't bat and can't field either, and is only going to head in one direction at this stage of his career. Admittedly, with no Starc or Johnson, our attack looks very military medium in Australia, so perhaps that was the reason. As soon as Starc is back surely he's the first to go. On that, last year we apparently had a plethora of young fast bowling talent. Still, Harris, MJ and Starc are missing and we end up with the likes of Paris, Boland and Tait. Perhaps the depth isn't as good as we made out.
7. Is Richardson the worst fielder in Australia? He'd have to go close. Remember that missed run out in the domestic season last year. That says it all for me. If you field that bad and can't really bat, then you'd better be McGrath like with the ball (which he isn't). It was also a captaincy error to have him fielding at Fine Leg if they were going to bounce the batsmen. Put Steve Smith there.
8. It goes without saying that Kwahaja had to be there. I don't know who you leave out, but he should have been one of the first 3 batsmen picked. The rest can fight out who to leave out. I also don't know what sort of message it sends to batsmen. Kwahaja is now 29 and close to the form batsman in the game and they still don't pick him. What are they waiting for? Until he turns 32? I would have been happier if the selectors on Monday added him to the squad and said something like "when we originally selected the squad we weren't 100% convinced he was a limited over batsman, and was still reasonably fresh in his recovery from injury. His performance in the semi and final of the BBL has convinced us that neither of those factors are an issue now and we just had to select him".
9. Bad luck on a couple of LBW's last night. Still, even the most ardent supporter would admit our batsmen (Smith aside) don't look good against spin and that's going to be a problem going into the T20 WC. Still, with our spin stocks, guys like Lynn, Head etc probably won't get better in aussie domestic cricket, so we should stick with them. Getting back to Kwahaja, he never looked that great against spin, but in the semi he looked like the first guy all year untroubled by Rashid.

Dip wrote:You've made some good points in the last few posts Ice. I will make the below points, but generally speaking agree with what you say.

1. I'm a Mitchell Marsh fan, and for that reason I probably give him a bit more leeway than maybe he deserves, though I generally think the Aussie selectors don't stick with players long enough. Look at the records of Amla, Kallis and ABDV after 20 tests to see what can potentially happen to players when you stick it out. Who's to say the likes of Kwahaja and Hughes wouldn't have followed a similar course if they'd been stuck with. Instead, young talented guys were dropped for guys like Ed Cowan, who with all due respect, was in good form for a season or two, but was never going to be a long term option.
2. Putting Marsh in at 3 during the 4th ODI was a strategical decision. Not to win game 4 (you would have gone Smith at 3 and Maxwell at 4 if that was the case), but to give him some batting time in a dead rubber. I think you might be a little harsh in the assessment of him for game 5 given he scored a century of 80 odd, but I reckon he loses some leeway by virtue that they called India out the previous few days, so in that case you better not do the same thing.
3. I don't mind an all-rounder providing they are good enough. I think Marsh should be good enough to hold down a top 6 spot (especially given they have a reasonably solid top 7, so can afford an attacking player). I've actually been pleasantly surprised with his bowling, which before this season I considered crud. I don't think he needs to bowl many overs though. Look at SA. Kallis never really bowled that much - just enough to keep the other fast bowlers reasonably fresh.
4. Maxwell is crud at tests IMO. Not good enough to either be a batsman or a bowler. In fact, I reckon a test batsman would be embarrassed to be dismissed by Maxwell in a red ball game. Having said that, I'd definately have him in white ball cricket, just for his batting alone. IMO you pick as many matchwinners as you can in white ball cricket. It doesn't matter if they're inconsistent as hopefully a couple of them will do enough to win the game for you.
5. Faulkner isn't having a great summer, but I reckon that he's a good enough bowler to be in our regular white ball attack. His batting is an added bonus.
6. Can't understand the Tait selection. I haven't watched much of the Hurricanes this year but was he really that good in the BBL? Can't bat and can't field either, and is only going to head in one direction at this stage of his career. Admittedly, with no Starc or Johnson, our attack looks very military medium in Australia, so perhaps that was the reason. As soon as Starc is back surely he's the first to go. On that, last year we apparently had a plethora of young fast bowling talent. Still, Harris, MJ and Starc are missing and we end up with the likes of Paris, Boland and Tait. Perhaps the depth isn't as good as we made out.
7. Is Richardson the worst fielder in Australia? He'd have to go close. Remember that missed run out in the domestic season last year. That says it all for me. If you field that bad and can't really bat, then you'd better be McGrath like with the ball (which he isn't). It was also a captaincy error to have him fielding at Fine Leg if they were going to bounce the batsmen. Put Steve Smith there.
8. It goes without saying that Kwahaja had to be there. I don't know who you leave out, but he should have been one of the first 3 batsmen picked. The rest can fight out who to leave out. I also don't know what sort of message it sends to batsmen. Kwahaja is now 29 and close to the form batsman in the game and they still don't pick him. What are they waiting for? Until he turns 32? I would have been happier if the selectors on Monday added him to the squad and said something like "when we originally selected the squad we weren't 100% convinced he was a limited over batsman, and was still reasonably fresh in his recovery from injury. His performance in the semi and final of the BBL has convinced us that neither of those factors are an issue now and we just had to select him".
9. Bad luck on a couple of LBW's last night. Still, even the most ardent supporter would admit our batsmen (Smith aside) don't look good against spin and that's going to be a problem going into the T20 WC. Still, with our spin stocks, guys like Lynn, Head etc probably won't get better in aussie domestic cricket, so we should stick with them. Getting back to Kwahaja, he never looked that great against spin, but in the semi he looked like the first guy all year untroubled by Rashid.

1. I don mind Mitch and maybe I am a tad harsh, but my mane issue is when better players miss out because of the false perception that an all rounder is required. His bowling is on the improve, no doubt, but I honestly don't ever think his batting will be test quality. Agree 100% about Usman and Hughes and sticking with them. I never had seen Usman before his first test, but as soon as I saw him I got excited. He just reminded me of Lara and looked classy, just needed the team to be patient with him. I never quite got that sense with the unorthodox Hughes, but what he did was plunder runs and would have only got better if he stayed within the system.
2. Don't get me wrong, Marsh's 100 was solid and scored at a good clip, but he simply failed to grasp the importance of runs over person glory at the death. 17 from 18 isn't good enough and he was the set batman who should have done better but he didn't. My issue is that that 100 will probably see him a certain starter for some years an I'm not convinced that is good for Aus cricket.
3. Exactly my point (talking mainly test level), if they are good enough, but I don't think he is. We aren't more like to score runs with him than even his brother, and we are no more likely to take 20 wickets with him. He isn't a test number 6 NOR is Phil Neville. I can't come at this argument that we can carry a poor 6 cause of Neville. Neville isn't anywhere near the batsman Gilly or Haddin where and they rarely if ever batted at 6. I like Neville, much prefer him in the test set up to Wade and he can forge a very good career as a keeper, but again, he is not a test 6. That said, again, Marsh's bowling has improved to the point where it is more valuable than his batting, but not good enough to be selected for it alone.
4. Agreed re Maxwell at tests and but not sure on your comments on "Match Winners"? What is that? Who is a match winner, a guy that might get the odd 50-100 in double quick time and bowl a bit? Or a solid bowler who might be a good finisher with the bat on occasion? I think it matters if they are inconsistent as what happens if they are ALL inconsistent at the same time? Usman has shown he is a match winner in the shorter forms and he is just a batsman.
5. Agree re Faulkner I also think he is good enough to be there for his bowling alone. NO dramas with his selection and Im not sure why he isn't pressuring Mitch for the test birth more either.
6. Tait selection is a joke End of story. We lack depth given injuries no doubt about it.
7. Yep
8. 100%. Cant believe his is 29. He should have 100 ODI's and 50 tests to his name already.
9. Garbage decision by Fry clearly pressured into it by the worst behaved side in International cricket. If that was the Aussies charging the ref, or Warner doing the chirping hand signals like Kohli, can you imagine the field day the media would have had today about poor sportsmanship etc. what a joke.

We are going to get creamed at the T20 WC given our form against spinners.

2. Yeah difference of opinion here. I reckon M Marsh can average low 40's batting at 6 at test level, and at the moment I don't think there are many specialist batsmen not already being picked that could do that. Certainly not be so much more that it outweighs the positive influence his bowling has on the team. Admittedly Mitchell's actual results don't indicate he's a 40 average batsman yet. IMO you really need to be a 40+ average batsman to play in the top 6. If you're not that good then you have to justify your position as a bowler. The worst examples are times like when we picked White at No 8 as a specialist spinner in India. I think we both agree with each other about this, just our opinion on Marsh's abilities as a batsman differ.
4.My definition of matchwinner doesn't mean they have to be an allrounder. I really mean that I can accept a bit of inconsistency. If they have 3 games where you might rate them 4/10, but then play a 9/10 game in the 4th game, I can live with that as opposed to someone who is a solid 6-7/10 performer every week. (Note that this only applies to limited over cricket. In tests I'd take the solid performers in most cases because they can grind out, or stay in a match). I think Maxwell and Watson are good examples of what I call a "matchwinner", and someone like Boland, Hastings and James Hopes are not. Note that not all matchwinners are inconsistent, hell for 10 years we had about 10 consistent matchwinners in our team. Also not everyone who is inconsistent is a matchwinner, particularly if their best is okay and their worst is terrible (ala Tait)
9. The behaviour of Ashwin and Dhoni before the Finch dismissal was terrible. Ashwin should have been warned for running on pitch and over zealous appealing. I have no doubt that as a result of their behaviour, the umpire took the path of least resistance when Finch was given out next ball. I was surprised the ball pitched so close to the stumps tbh. Right arm around the wicket is usually enough to discount lbw unless it is plumb, and this certainly wasn't. The Head decision was worse. You could see middle and leg stump, so it was clear he was outside off when struck. Sharma has been pathetically slow in leaving the field also all summer. He should have been fined on more than one occassion.

Ice wrote:

We are going to get creamed at the T20 WC given our form against spinners.

If I was the BCCI, I'd be instructing their curators to prepare fast, flat, pitches in the group stages, then revert to spinning wickets in the knockout stage. India should go through the group stages on any pitch, but in the knockout stages on a spinning pitch I reckon they'd be better off playing Australia, England, SA and NZ than someone like West Indies or Sri Lanka. Any of those teams could easily lose to WI on a spinning wicket.

2. With all due respect Dip, Mitch is not ever going to come close to a 40 test average, if he does, he will go down as a top 5 all rounder of all time. He will be lucky to average 30 for mine.
4. Fair points all.
9. Agreed

And that's why Lynn is a domestic cricketer at the moment

How badly balanced is this T20 team? The selectors and coaches have no idea at the moment. Finch is not a good T20 player let alone captain, everyone may talk about his 70 odd today but he was extremely lucky with 5-6 missed chances, he faces way to many dot balls and that puts pressure on his teammates to play big shots early. Tonight he raced ahead in the power play but then his last 20 runs took 24 balls right at the time most T20 sides are actually getting 8+ runs an over for no risk. The fact the team is looking at winning a WC on the subcotinent yet picking a team on batsmen that cannot play spin and a group of bowlers who have no idea what to do on flat pitches is a massive worry.

The team should be

Warner
Khawja
Watson
Smith
Maxwell
M Marsh
Paine
Faulkner
Zampa
Tye
McKay

I don't think I've seen such a pathetic display of bowling as I have in these t20s. I just can't understand what they were thinking and the whole series was summed up in that last ball. Everyone is brought up on offside to save the single, everyone is back to save the 2 on onside so the ball had to be full and at the legs, what do they do??? Short and wide outside off!!!! Idiots

Steve Smith also confirmed as a proven sook.