The Dark Knight wrote:whufc wrote:Was interesting to hear Michael Clarke mention during the commentary (i presume he would have some small inside knowledge) that the selectors were toying with the idea of replacing Renshaw for Shaun Marsh for the upcoming India tour and that they would be taking a more horses for courses approach.
I wonder if that is completely off the cards now.
On the radio this afternoon Chris Rogers was on a crusade for Shaun Marsh coming back into the side, replacing Renshaw. He was saying it's horses for courses and that a senior player who is a proven run getter in the subcontinent in Marsh comes straight back in. Renshaw was 80 odd not out at that point.
I like Bucky on the radio and respect the majority his calls. On this occasion I couldn't disagree more.
Its a real tough one and you can understand why Rogers would make a call like that considering our horrible England Ashes performances while he has starred over there for years.
I would hate to see Renshaw dropped but the selectors are paid to pick the best eleven blokes who will win the next test match. If having Marsh in the side ahead of Renshaw on an Indian wicket means Australia are a better chance of winning i guess they have to make that selection.
Here is a thought:
-All formats of cricket have now changed that teams pick specialist line ups to suit that format
-All teams selector bowling lineups that best suit bowling conditions
Is the next step selectors pick batting line ups that best suit the upcoming conditions (its not really the done thing to the level of selecting a bowling lineup etc)
