These days though the difference in averages between keepers can be 30 runs. It is a big enough difference to matter
I liked neville. He was safe behind the stumps and has had two innings where he has shown real guts. I think if you gave him another dozen games he could really be an asset

Out of that list (excluding those already in the team) Voges and Marsh are injured, Dean and Heazlett haven't done enough yet, Lynn is injured, Klinger is too old and Burns and Ferguson just got dropped. There was only really 3 options for the selectors to be looking at. One was the coach's kid and the others were from NSW. I'd have gone with Lehman, but Maddison isn't a horrendous selection. People used to say the exact same things about Warner and now he's one of the best players in the world.

Also selectors and coaches don't, and shouldn't pick teams based just on averages. If they should literally anybody could do the job. They're all experts and are paid well because they can see the potential that players have, and also realise why certain averages are more or less impressive than they seem on face value. Their job is so difficult at the moment because of a massive lack of mature talent.

That list isn't an exhaustive list of shield players with an average over 37. I capped the list at 40 but even then missed players like kurtis patterson who has an average of 42

warners shield average is pretty darn good - I have no problem with attacking players (actually I advocate maxwell as the all rounder number 6)- just nsw players with ordinary averages getting selected...

Also I disagree that averages shouldn't be prime

its is very unusual for shield averages for players that get extended runs to differ from test averages. But the rare cases (michael beven) where that happens you drop those players. There aren't a lot of players that have a crap first class average and a great international average