Who else?

Whiteman is wearing the gloves for Perth Scorchers in fake cricket and has done so in a futures league match. Whether he is back to second choice wicketkeeper for WA though is uncertain. Josh Phillippe is also wicketkeeping in fake cricket and has done so in a futures league game as well. Also Culum How has in one match each this season to make it one each this season.

Anyway it seems Whiteman can wicket keep again.

That is good news. Always rated his keeping.

deleted post

A long post for those that if you want to read it,
probably need a new post if anyone wants to comment.

An alternative road map for the future of Australian Cricket by jaszyjim.

Two posts made me think about what Australian cricket needed & these were;
Players want multiyear contracts & expanding teams into the NT & ACT.

Like many of you, I started listening to cricket on the radio prior to TV, so have seen all the
changes from it being broadcast on b & w TV to present.

Cricket in its original form was developed in an old fashion era, by old fashion people, with
old fashion rules & very basic technology. That it has survived is testament to the purity of
the game, however note where it is most popular, which is India.
To appeal to people in technologically advanced countries against other sports, it had
to change or die. Enter ODI's, which revolutionised cricket, tripled gate takings & most
important, was aimed at TV. Then came DRS etc, vastly improved TV viewing, however
eventually even ODI's were too long to compete, so enter T20.
An excitement machine, a brilliant, exiting TV spectacle, designed to bring the young &
women into the sport. Whether we like it or not, without these forms of the game, monies &
interest in cricket would die, and those of us that watch "my test cricket", would be watching
India play whoever else was left.
In regard to ODI's these are finished as they are not generating enough monies & unless
they change it to something like T40 (2 innings of T20, all rules of T20 applying to each innings)
will disappear. Money generating cricket has to appeal to the current & coming
generations to survive against all other sports & make the revenues to keep "my test cricket"
feasible.

I love my test cricket, and note I used the words "my test cricket", that is because of the
passion for it, that test team is my "test team" & I want them to win.
This is the passion generated in our era and the question now is, how do we generate that
passion in the youth coming through.

BBL & WBBL are the most essential ingredient in Australia to bring youth & women into
cricket. The challenge then becomes how do we evolve this interest into the longer form of
the game. There has been criticism that youth is only being taught white ball cricket.
This criticism is ridiculous, how else are we going to interest future players into the game, if
this is what brought them into it & what they want to play.

So lets start from the top - CA, the board & selectors.
Slated in a review, which meant some personnel changes.
Changes at the top, some selectors opt out, but the coach is still a selector & T hons
remains as chairman of selectors.
However nothing has changed in the way CA, the board & selectors function, which means
there is absolutely no accountability for any of the above & this one of the major
problems. We have a centralised organisation controlling everything from Melbourne that
directly employs 20 international players on  yearly contract, funds state cricket but
answers to no one.
Decentralisation is essential, which all other major Australian codes have done.
State Based Organisations (SBO's), running their own shield teams & looking after cricket
in their state under the umbrella of the central body CA.

Where I have used the men's name of a sporting body, please take this to include the
women's part of the sport as well.
Managing & promoting, men's & women's cricket at all levels is an essential ingredient for
growth of the sport.

How is this going to work?
It will be combination of both AFL & Union. (other codes are similar)
CA will be the governing body but not employ any players on a contract.
SBO's will employ all contracted players under a salary cap scheme which would cover
Shield cricket, BBL & WBBL. This would include an allowance for an international player
(s), for BBL & WBBL, however all other players in these formats must come from their list.
 This means that a player's basic remuneration & the years offered is state based & can be
traded to another club as per AFL. This would generate competition in the SBO's and a
player not performing would eventually lose their contract.
This provides a natural culling effect of non performing players, as only SBO
contracted players can be selected for international duties.
Like union an international squad is selected from the SBO's, for every separate
international test or series. CA then pays the extras for these players being in the
international team, captain & such, performance bonuses etc.
SBO's would have the international players salary paid back plus a bonus.
The main difference is, that if an international player is not performing they are dropped &
another player promoted. Any player not playing is not costing CA anything, they just go
back to their SBO. (State Based Organisation)

How does this develop & strengthen state cricket , which in turn strengthens test cricket.
In part this is where adding 2 more teams to the competition works & as suggested perhaps
in the NT & ACT. The more teams playing shield cricket = more games, more players & more
opportunities. (Heat & wet season may be a problem in the NT)
SBO's would hold a license similar to the AFL, issued by CA. Under this license the SBO's
will be required to field a Shield & T20 team within the salary cap stated & organise
their own state cricket, under the requirements of CA & within monies provided.
Each SBO will be encouraged to make a profit, a percentage of which they retained by the
SBO, to be used as they see fit in the interests of the game in their state.
The number of players, the remuneration & years of contract are up to the individual SBO's.
Potential international players would cost more, however their salaries & $ bonuses
are paid back to the SBO's when on international duties, plus a time compensation
bonus when they return. Good international players then become attractive as whilst they
are away on international duties the club has extra monies to spend.
The various SBO's can then promote players from club cricket into a rookie type list.
These rookies are not considered contracted players, however their salaries are covered by
the salary cap.
There is no limit to how many players any SBO's team can have on their list, just a salary cap.
The SBO's control their state club level cricket, which in turn controls junior level cricket.
School cricket would come under a separate body under the SBO, which would be
incredibly important to identify talent at this level.

Other than trading other SBO contracted players, a state can only add to its list from
its own states club level players. This is what gives the SBO's encouragement to develop
strong state based teams at all levels.
Players come into the shield team on a rookies type scheme but are not considered as
contracted & cannot be selected for international duties until contracted.
After playing x amount of Shield or T20 games they are automatically promoted to
contracted status (a contracted player returning to the rookies list is still considered a
contracted player). A player can also become contracted at any time by the SBO.
When an international player returns to a SBO side, would be where it gets interesting and
this is where a players performance is judged.
There need to be a compensation time frame, based on how long the player was on
international duties. The longer the international duty, the longer the time frame ratio
scale. This is so that promoted players do not have to return to a rookie or club list straight
away to meet the salary cap. A formula needs to be calculated so that a player playing all
international games, does not come back under the salary cap for that contracted year.
The contract year is currently 1st April to 31st March the following year.
The incentive for a club to have quality international players under this scheme is huge.
The other side of the coin is if a player fails quickly internationally & returns to their SBO
side, the time compensation ratio would be far less & players all the way down the line
would have to be juggled. An SBO with quality international players would end up in a very
strong position, however at the start of the contract year, all SBO teams have to be under
the salary cap.
I imagine a trading period early March where teams would look at their lists. look who
can be promoted under the salary cap to their own team or to trade. If they have likely
international contenders, then their rookie list is tremendously important to bolster stocks
as required.
This promotes competition amongst players who want to progress & encourages SBO's
to develop strong club & junior teams to strengthen their future sides & trade deals.

Transitioning players from white ball cricket to red ball.
Firstly we have to attract players to any form of the game & reality is this will mostly be T20
based. We have to infuse in them at this level a love of cricket & yes it will probably be
white ball cricket.
It is only if we can start to generate a passion for cricket in them, we can progress them to
the red ball form of the game with an expectation of a reasonable percentage carrying on.
I can only see this happening at a club level & this is where there has to be a huge
promotion on the eliteness of the long form of the game.
To make an A grade club side & get a cap is equal to a black belt in karate & something
to be pursued & cherished.
It should be like a younger version of the baggy green - once you have a baggy green you 
will always have it, some of them were great & some were ordinary, but play for Australia
test cricket, you have your baggy green & no one can take it away from you.
This is the passion needed to be generated to play A grade club cricket

How this is done in real terms, people more experienced & smarter than me would work
it out. I'm just trying to lay down the starting blocks on an idea.

CA would obviously not give up its power, however under this scheme they maintain
power & control of the game, with more incentive how to improve it similar to the wya
the AFL does it.

SBO's would be licensed & have an elected board. This board would answer to the
members and/or shareholders and/or both.
This provides the basis of accountability, as ultimately it is Joe & Jane Blogs that vote
on what is happening at the SDO's level.
Unfortunately CA would still act with impunity, though not much different to the AFL.

Will this ever happen - realistically no, but hopefully it is food for thought that there
may be many alternative ways that Australian Cricket as a whole can be improved'

jaszyjim

Well thought out Jaszyjim. And you are correct. The problem does lie with CA player contracts. As you suggest all players on state contracts is a start. Increasing match payments is essential and the top players will still earn the same. e.g. $60,000 for a test amounts to $600,000 for a year. ODI's could go to $25,000 and could be $250,000 T20's $15,000 and could be $150,000 in a year (which is a million dollars). This is essentially what India does, there is not a such a major discrepancy between FC contracts and higher contracts eg Kohli is on around $300K base salary (whereas a FC gets $150K it really isn't that much extra), but because he picks up so much in match payments he makes $1 million per year. Compare that to Australia where Pat Cummins is on $2 million plus match payments as are others in the side that is 10X greater, a lot more when you take into account match payments, than FC players. But what this does is promotes players continually playing well or they won't play the next game, which ultimately costs them in the back pocket. This is how Kohli runs his very successful team.

Salary caps are questionable, but do prevent overpayments to certain individuals, and underpayments to others.

Another problem is bias that exists in CA and selection. A panel of selectors not just 3 (the best way is a representative from each state) then you know that all state games are being observed at all times, not just 1 particular round where positions are up for grabs which is how Harris got in the side as others have in the past.

I disagree with you currently about the expansion idea. Using England as an example County sides may have 2 very talented players but the others probably around grade cricket standard. This doesn't really expose the talented to enough quality opposition thus improving play. I don't think we're ready for that yet.

Why this won't happen, Players Union, and like all Unions, they only really help a select few, and there is no way they will allow CA to drop payments to these select few. You will see player strikes, and like all strikes the majority just want to work but are not allowed to because of the fear of repercussions, and this is only protecting the minority. CA and the player union created the mess, and when unions get involved there is no way out. Also the hierarchy at CA will not relinquish their power. 

I'd like to see this too - expanding teams to the ACT and NT.

Whilst I do not believe that my treatise on Australian cricket would happen - if people in CA were strong enough & determined enough
it could be made to happen.
Yes, you would have player revolts with the union involved & cricket would be disrupted for a period, but it could be made to happen.
If CA sold the idea to the public, so that in the end the public was blaming the players & union, then public opinion could prevail,
Will it = NO.

Mate, you're dreaming if you think there is any strength in CA. It's a corporation that don't bend. I think only Kasprowicz is the only member to actually play cricket for Australia if he's still on the board. Remember Bob Every resigning when Peever was re-elected at least Bob took a stand, got him nowhere. Then Peever ultimately resigns because of the Longstaff Review. He resigned when cricket NSW president John Knox said he no longer supported him, so you know where the "power" is in Australia. Replaced by Kevin Roberts who played 23 FC games for NSW. Its just as bad as Federal Government. You can't keep up with the changes. Who is in charge now? Who are the board? Who do they answer to when cricket NSW can force someone to stand down? They can't sort themselves out what chance does cricket have.

Unfortunately I agree with you - I did not mean the existing board
Just the a board with drive in the interest of the game could do it.
That's why I said it.
Will it happen = NO

Are we all forgetting that an OZ A side will travel to England for matches against County sides while the WC is on. This is an excellent prep for fringies if needed for the Baggy Greens in the Ashes. So that squad also has to be picked. 
This side should contain some of our most promising cricketers. Josh Philippe, Jason Sangha, Cameron Green, and Will Pucovski.  Tremain and J Richardson should be automatic selections. Others in contention are Trent Copeland, Jack Wildermuth, Josh Inglis, Jake Lehmann, Riley Meredith, Jimmy Peirson,  Ashton Agar, Cameron Bancroft, Nick Winter, Michael Neser, Alex Doolan, Tom Cooper, Matthew Wade, Mark Steketee, Dan Worrall, Jackson Bird. I also have Worrall and Nick Winter as Ashes tourists. Our two best swing bowlers imho.

Australia A side,
14 man squad, same size as last time.
Wicketkeeper: Pierson
Spinners: Agar, Swepson
Fast bowlers:  Tremain, Meredith, Green, Steketee
Batsmen: Renshaw, Bancroft, Lehmann, Pucovski, Head(C), Patterson, Philippe or Sangha

J. Richardson, Carey and Handscomb would have been in but they are in the current one day squad so are probably going to be in the WC squad.

A competitive X1111. My squad: 
w/k: Peirson
Spin: Agar, Swepson?
Pace:  Tremain, Copeland, Winter, Green
Bat: Renshaw, Doolan, Patterson, D Hughes, Wade (c), Wildermuth/Sangha or Philippe.

Not totally sold on Swepson. His form has been in decline last 12 months. I will take a gamble on Pope. Already has an 8for against the Poms.

CA picks the Sri Lanka squad today. Who is in who is out. Finch is definitely out. Will CA and JL end their love affair with the Marshes? I wanna see Mitch obliterate the door with a couple of strong Shield seasons first before going anywhere near the Test side again. Sayonara Shaun the Sheep. Head as second best figures in Indian series will probably be handed another Test. But from here on in he has to start converting positive starts to meaningful scores. Will our much vaunted but currently misfiring pace attack feel the axe? Will they use the two tester against weaker opposition for experimenting with promising youth? Watch this space.

I see Marcus Stoinis mentioned as being a poosibilty. If he is selected it will be a total joke and show the selectors have learnt nothing.
Others mentioned as possible are Wade, Burns, Bancroft (how?), Boland and Tremain

I was just going to post the same thing. That is uncanny. Please I want Stoinis no where near our Test side. His FC bowling is deplorable @42.. batting acceptable if picking him as an all rounder.@ 33. His record shows he is a limited overs specialist. Stick him there.

Bancroft is not a walk up start back into our Test side. He has technical issues.. reflects his moderate FC average @38.A less than respectable @30 from his 8 tests.  When he starts scoring more tons in Shield and reaches @40 then we should reconsider him.

Rumours are Puckovski, Burns and Renshaw getting recalled for sri lanka

Some common sense creeping in but not enough

bowlers probably retained which is ok. I'd like to see some rotation in case someone hits the ground running and to smooth out the fact that 2 of our strike bowlers have dropped in form at the same time

I like those rumours, specially Renshaw.  Pucovski.. a little soon? He has not played much cricket of late? Give him the remaining four Shield games and then pick him in the A side.

would like to see maxwell, white and Patterson as well....but its a start

I changed that post. A little too soon for Pucovski after not much cricket and his mental issues. Philippe or Sangha instead if we are  looking at the next gen.

Pucovski would be an interesting selection, and possibly a very premature selection. Obviously has the ability to score a big innings seeing has a 243 and 188 out of his limited FC innings. His last innings was 67. However there have been an awful lot of failures in between. He has 13 first class innings with one not out, 4 not out this season. Apart from his 243, 188, 67, and 4 not out he has 86 runs in 9 innings, under 10 per innings. I know there have been successful selections after very few first class matches, Iam Healy was one of them, but I am not sure I agree with this one as it is really based on only 3 innings.

The main question is can we handle puck in a mature way

don't put unrealistic expectations on the lad and drop him if he doesn't average 90

He has 12 games to get his average to 35. Let him settle and take his time

The selectors cannot discriminate against him because of his mental issues but they also need to be sure that the extra pressure he will be under is not going to give him more troubles. It is a very difficult situation, but they last thing we want to see is him driven away from cricket by the pressure of a premature selection.

The last thing we should be doing is putting unrealistic expectations on Puck and any other youngster. Jason Sangha has been talked about as the next big thing since his school days. Was one of the youngest players to hit an away Youth ODI ton. He is the second youngest batsman since Tendulkar to score a ton against an England touring side. He is now 19 ..no double hundreds but two centuries from his 8 games at @32 to his name.  Has the media put too much expectation on this kid?

I am not saying discriminate.. be wary. These mental issues stem I understand from his being hit and suffering concussion on three occasions. Not sure in what matches. But that is telling me he is uncomfortable with the fast short ball. So he will be going into his debut match with  added pressure thru his doubts over whether he will be hit again. and lose more game time.

Her is the squad. 
Australia squad for first Test against Sri Lanka: Tim Paine (c/wk), Josh Hazlewood (vc), Joe Burns, Pat Cummins, Marcus Harris, Travis Head, Usman Khawaja, Marnus Labuschagne, Nathan Lyon, Will Pucovski, Matt Renshaw, Mitchell Starc, Peter Siddle 

Marshs gone. Finch gone. Brave selections with Renshaw and Pucovski. Reckon they must had one eye on Renshaw's England stint last year in which he scored 3 red ball centuries with a view to picking him for the Ashes. It certainly is not due to his  2018/19 Shield returns. Starc and Hazlewood survive. Again without Smith in the middle order we do not have that solid look.

replace Labu with maxwell and its starting to look vaguely competitive
I'd also replace siddle with tremain

We have a new thread grazor. No Patterson again. We need some solidity in the middle order. Head is not supplying it.