stan wrote:Trader wrote:While I don't buy the argument we must pick an allrounder, I do see it as an easy way to "drop" maddinson without actually dropping him.
Talk about bowlers work rate, then replace him with an "allrounder" who averages more with the bat than maddinson, and doesn't really bowl much.
I think the selectors were hoping that Head really got going this season. If he was smashing the door down averaging 45+ with the bat then they would pick him striaght away as he provides the No.6 who is a genuine bat but also more than handy with some part timer off spin.
M Waugh said on Inside Cricket after the Hobart test that there isn't really any batsman banging the door down with a weight of runs. the two blokes who have really stood up over the past year really are Handscomb (shield final in particular) and Renshaw (to a lesser extent but stood up when it counted)
You could throw a blanket over the rest, Patterson, Maddinson, Ferguson, Head, Bancroft, Harris etc
Blokes like Stonis, Burns, Doolan etc have fallen away
White, Bailey, Voges, Christian too old
You could argue that blokes like Dean, Harris, Lehman, Weatherald etc the selectors would liek to see another year of consistant run making to get a shot at it.
In many ways, and this was admitted by Waugh, Maddinson was a speculation pick (gut feel so to speak) Better cricket brains than us on here think he has the ability to make it so was picked more on potential rather than performance as no one else really has the performance to warrant selection over him (save maybe Patterson). Cartwight in the same boat too.
This would be different if we had three or four blokes banging out back to back to back 800-1000 run 1st class seasons like we did in the 90s (Cox, Siddons, Lehmann, Law etc) deamnding to be picked.
No one is really doing it ATM
Let that be a lesson to you Port, no one beats the Bays five times in a row in a GF and gets away with it!!!