SA Footy

RB wrote:

whufc wrote:I guess what im trying to say is yes his batting well but I don't think his fixed any of the deficiencies that failed him at test level.

Did he fail that badly though? I agree he had a bad habit of throwing his wicket away, but an average of 39.75 isn't terrible.

At the end of the day you pick the best team available. You can't exclude a bloke on the basis of his deficiencies if you don't have anyone better.

Yeah 40 for me is the pass mark so he didn’t fail over a long period. When he was dropped though I’m sure he wasn’t averaging 40, was well under.

I do think if he wants a long term test career he does have to improve on what he has produced so far. Like I said there are to many periods in a career where you get out to the unplayables/decent balls that you can’t get afford to get yourself out to often at test level. I don’t think it’s any surprise he has got out a lot between 20-40 a test level. Even when Head is settled in as a bowler you would feel you are still a big chance to get him any given delivery.

He will play the first test but do we think his on last chance saloon. How many times has been dropped and back in now…..3 gets dropped a fourth time at 27 years old and selected will most likely pigeon hole him

20 years ago an average of 39 would have got you dropped from the state side.
Lehmann, Love, Siddons, Law etc would be laughing at his average.

whufc wrote:He will play the first test but do we think his on last chance saloon. How many times has been dropped and back in now…..3 gets dropped a fourth time at 27 years old and selected will most likely pigeon hole him

If his surname was Marsh, he'd have about twenty more chances.

amber_fluid wrote:20 years ago an average of 39 would have got you dropped from the state side.
Lehmann, Love, Siddons, Law etc would be laughing at his average.

Agreed. Meanwhile, we're apparently set to pick Marcus Harris.

whufc wrote:3 gets dropped a fourth time at 27 years old and selected will most likely pigeon hole him

Lol talking about debuting Carey @ 30 but pigeon holing Head @ 27.

Anyway, Head's test innings working backwards (thanks Cricinfo):

India
38 (second top score)
17 (fail, but more than Smith, Burns & Paine)
7 (Wade & Burns made 8, Smith 1, Green 11)

New Zealand
10
114
28 (2nd innings setting up a result - everyone got around 30)
56
5

RB wrote:Agreed. Meanwhile, we're apparently set to pick Marcus Harris.

When Harris fails, whose next to come in?

RB wrote:

whufc wrote:I guess what im trying to say is yes his batting well but I don't think his fixed any of the deficiencies that failed him at test level.

Did he fail that badly though? I agree he had a bad habit of throwing his wicket away, but an average of 39.75 isn't terrible.

At the end of the day you pick the best team available. You can't exclude a bloke on the basis of his deficiencies if you don't have anyone better.

To his defence he needs to play rash shots playing for the Backs as he'll be left stranded on f*** all while everyone around him falls over.

The Bedge wrote:

RB wrote:Agreed. Meanwhile, we're apparently set to pick Marcus Harris.

When Harris fails, whose next to come in?

I would've gone Usi from the get go.

RB wrote:

amber_fluid wrote:20 years ago an average of 39 would have got you dropped from the state side.
Lehmann, Love, Siddons, Law etc would be laughing at his average.

Agreed. Meanwhile, we're apparently set to pick Marcus Harris.

I don’t get the love for Harris.
He just doesn’t look up to the standard.

His numbers just don’t stack up.

At least Burns and even Renshaw showed a bit when playing.

The Bedge wrote:

RB wrote:Agreed. Meanwhile, we're apparently set to pick Marcus Harris.

When Harris fails, whose next to come in?

Langer or Hayden

Lightning McQueen wrote:

The Bedge wrote:

RB wrote:Agreed. Meanwhile, we're apparently set to pick Marcus Harris.

When Harris fails, whose next to come in?

I would've gone Usi from the get go.

Agree
Usi opens and Head plays at 6

amber_fluid wrote:

RB wrote:

amber_fluid wrote:20 years ago an average of 39 would have got you dropped from the state side.
Lehmann, Love, Siddons, Law etc would be laughing at his average.

Agreed. Meanwhile, we're apparently set to pick Marcus Harris.

I don’t get the love for Harris.
He just doesn’t look up to the standard.

His numbers just don’t stack up.

At least Burns and even Renshaw showed a bit when playing.

I'll remove half of my like because of your Renshaw reference.

amber_fluid wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

The Bedge wrote:

RB wrote:Agreed. Meanwhile, we're apparently set to pick Marcus Harris.

When Harris fails, whose next to come in?

I would've gone Usi from the get go.

Agree
Usi opens and Head plays at 6

You just gotta be difficult dont cha?

The Bedge wrote:

whufc wrote:3 gets dropped a fourth time at 27 years old and selected will most likely pigeon hole him

Lol talking about debuting Carey @ 30 but pigeon holing Head @ 27.

Anyway, Head's test innings working backwards (thanks Cricinfo):

India
38 (second top score)
17 (fail, but more than Smith, Burns & Paine)
7 (Wade & Burns made 8, Smith 1, Green 11)

New Zealand
10
114
28 (2nd innings setting up a result - everyone got around 30)
56
5

So dropped averaging 35 over a two series period is not completely unreasonable whilst still being in the unlucky category. I also think the selectors decided to forget the NZ series and look purely his performances against that Indian attack was the standard he was going to continue to produce against them. Was some very very soft dismissals against India as well, does that count and should it….??

Was theee an England series before the NZ one where he failed badly and then the NZ series kind of resurrected him or am I making that up.

whufc wrote:So dropped averaging 35 over a two series period is not completely unreasonable whilst still being in the unlucky category. I also think the selectors decided to forget the NZ series and look purely his performances against that Indian attack was the standard he was going to continue to produce against them. Was some very very soft dismissals against India as well, does that count and should it….??

Was theee an England series before the NZ one where he failed badly and then the NZ series kind of resurrected him or am I making that up.

Testing my memory, but I recall Wade opening the batting because Warner(?) was injured early in the series against India. When he was available there was a lot of chat between who out of Wade or Head made way for him, given their numbers were similar and they were viewed as the two that weren't locked away.

Wade had a couple of innings that showed "ticker" and he was given the nod for the remainder of the series at the expense of Head.

Can't recall if his dismissals were soft against India, but again from memory he was one of the few that batted reasonable time.

England in England is the series you're thinking of I believe back in 2019

The Bedge wrote:

whufc wrote:So dropped averaging 35 over a two series period is not completely unreasonable whilst still being in the unlucky category. I also think the selectors decided to forget the NZ series and look purely his performances against that Indian attack was the standard he was going to continue to produce against them. Was some very very soft dismissals against India as well, does that count and should it….??

Was theee an England series before the NZ one where he failed badly and then the NZ series kind of resurrected him or am I making that up.

Testing my memory, but I recall Wade opening the batting because Warner(?) was injured early in the series against India. When he was available there was a lot of chat between who out of Wade or Head made way for him, given their numbers were similar and they were viewed as the two that weren't locked away.

Wade had a couple of innings that showed "ticker" and he was given the nod for the remainder of the series at the expense of Head.

Can't recall if his dismissals were soft against India, but again from memory he was one of the few that batted reasonable time.

I remember the Wade ticker call getting him the nod then following up with getting caught off the spinner skied at mid wicket with sun burn to his retinas. I also recall there being an ashes amongst all that which Wade did actually do well, maybe as a replacement for Head iirc

whufc wrote:I also recall there being an ashes amongst all that which Wade did actually do well, maybe as a replacement for Head iirc

Wade had a couple of brilliant innings in England in 2019. I don't recall any Australians other than him and Smith hitting centuries.

That series deservedly bought him a couple more series, but he's been junk since Pakistan in Australia 2019-20.

RB wrote:

whufc wrote:I also recall there being an ashes amongst all that which Wade did actually do well, maybe as a replacement for Head iirc

Wade had a couple of brilliant innings in England in 2019. I don't recall any Australians other than him and Smith hitting centuries.

That series deservedly bought him a couple more series, but he's been junk since Pakistan in Australia 2019-20.

Yes, they were the only 2 Aussies to score hundreds in the 2019 Ashes. Smith made 3 hundreds and Wade made 2.

I'm not sure what Whufc is on about, maybe it's worth actually looking it up and doing some reading rather than just guessing. Wade never replaced Head in the team in that series, Mitch Marsh did in the 5th test. Head batted 5 and Wade batted 6 in the first 4 tests until Head was dropped for the 5th test and Wade batted 5 and Marsh 6.

Both Kelly boys named to play in today’s one day game

South Australia XI: Henry Hunt, Alex Carey (wk), Travis Head (c), Jake Lehmann, Nathan McSweeney, Thomas Kelly, Nathan McAndrew, Corey Kelly, Daniel Worrall, Wes Agar, Lloyd Pope