northerner wrote:Think Bancroft v Harris dilemma might become clearer after the Worcestershire clash this week. Bancroft as a short leg is indeed capable of manufacturing a wicket from nothing and is RH but that doesnt seal the deal.
Pattinson should stay. His energy is high around the field and he is the best bat of our bowlers...prob the closest thing we have to an all rounder.
Siddles selection is interesting and you could sensethe critics were about to unload on the non selection of Starc and Hazelwood if we lost. But the role Siddle had was not one that Starc could have reliably handled. Maybe Hazelwood, but he needs to have a big one this week to show hes back in the groove.
I cant stand Siddle but have to admit he played a very solid role in that victory.
With Pattinson and Cummins you have two bowlers who imo are at their best when they can attack with both field placings and line and lengths. Not only did Siddle sure up the other end which im sure was his role but he looked threatening throughout, especially in the second innings. If he cant get 5cm of movement out the pitch he can be dangerous.
If Siddle was to go, he needs to be replaced by Hazelwood. I don't think you can get away with Cummins, Pattinson, Starc. If you tried that it means Cummins or Pattinson have to become your stock bowlers. Cummins is our most dangerous wicket taker and you will break Pattinson if you expect him to be the workhorse.
