Why Agar?Report is Lyon struggled in the tour game.
Sure he did alright with the bat on debut and has not really done anything since. But he is picked as the spinner, but clearly, his return of just 2 wickets at a average of 124.00 is not enough for the front line spinner He should never have been picked ahead of Lyon, who took 9 -right handed wickets in his last test match and one reason for leaving him out was the thought that Agar would be more effective than Lyon to Right handed batsmen, which was clearly wrong.
Now Lyon isn't the best batsmen, but he faced more deliveries than Watson over in India, so he certainly can stick around at the end.
Agar is not yet up to Test quality, where Lyon is, and has been for some time. there is no doubt that Agar has a bright future, but he is simply not ready for Test cricket
I have no doubt that within 3 years, Ashton will prove himself, but the time is certainly not now for him, nor the Australian summer, perhaps after the next world cup will be his time.
Report sounds like bollocksYou have to wonder about the standard of the opposition in those tour games too. Everyone bar Wade made scores. And S Smith got a hundred. Need I say more?
Tour game not over yet.
Lyon 26 overs @ 3.8 an over
Agar 14 overs @ 4.7 an over
1 wicket apiece
Monty pick of the bowlers for the Poms in the first innings
Are you mad? have you no idea what a constantly changing batting order does to the individuals and then overall the team? they never settle as a unit, and never post big innings and seldom win series in that frame of mind. Have you not read that Hughes came out and said that the constantly changing batting order is and I quote "mentally frustrating"
I think that just about gives everyone a run while still dropping everyone bar Clarke and Watson . It should certainly avoid having any batter play more than 4 consecutive innings in the same position in the order!
Of note, The "Horses for Courses" Selection's have been Axed. They were Axed when Lehmann took over, So you can forget about thatI am not certain on that because of one surprise selection for the first test match.
Are you mad?
I am not certain on that because of one surprise selection for the first test match.
Nathan Lyon, who had taken 9 Indian wickets in his last test match, all right handers mind you, was left out of the side in favour of Debutant Ashton Agar, and it was said that Agar was more dangerous to right handed batsmen, and bowled something KP has a perceived weakness to. This seems to me to have been a horses for courses decision with our any real substance to support it.
Cowan (Rogers has been underwhelming in this series so far, and I feel Cowan deserves a 2nd shot in english conditions)
(Warner 12th man)
I don't feel as though Warners 190 odd in South Africa is a fair comparison to the english conditions likely to be faced. Along side with the fact that it was a FLAT pitch in South Africa, so Old Trafford is not the place for him.
I would be picking and sticking from here on out, these players have the skill and talent to make it and win the ashes, either in england or back home, and they must be given a chance to gel as a team, rather than just a squad
Why are there five specialist opening batsmen (potentially) in the same batting lineup? Watson, Cowan, Hughes, Warner, Rogers. That's the first problem.Well that problem is part of a bigger problem in Australian cricket at the moment, a shyte club and domestic system that isn't bringing through much talent.
So what do we do? Pick 11 batsmen to try and Draw Test matches (at best) or do we pick Bowlers who can take 20 wickets to Win Test matches and risk the chance of not scraping through for a draw?
Not enough batting in the tail !!!!
And why is Watson still playing? How come he isn't being held to the sword by the media and fans, as were Clarke, Ponting, Hussey, et al. after far briefer bad patches? At least those latter names have led by example, proven themselves, and bounced back from bad patches. Watson has not been close to achieving any one of those.
we may have a series on our hands or am i being too presumptous?