I've just watched some of the Tassie/NSW Shield game.

There are implications for national team election.

Nevill scored a magnificent 179 not out for NSW.  He looked like a quality, specialist batter - far better than anything Wade has played at Bellerive.

Unfortunately, it came too late. Given he is the best wicket keeper with the gloves in Australia and I'm told he has a better Shield average than Wade, there must be a strong argument his current keeping in the Oz team, his unrealised batting potential at test level, should keep  him in the team over Wade.

It seems that the criterion to select Wade is he that he is more vocal in geeing up the team on the pitch. Surely, there must be other lively gee up players in other 10 current team members?


Also, for the  James Faulkner fans, he has belatedly delivered with the bat with his first Shield century made under a lot of pressure when Tassie was on the ropes. He made an unbeaten ton.

Plus he took new ball wickets in both innings opening the Tassie bowling and moving the ball. The sports scientists told him not to bowl much in the second innings!

Given his combative nature, I'd rather see Faulkner in the Test team, as a feisty  competitor, rather than Wade, whose skill set is less than Nevill's for the keeping position.

Faulkner has done more than Maddinson, a specialist batter averaging 37, to play number 6 as the team all rounder. Australia could definitely  bat Faulkner at 6, instead of Maddinson. This could particularly be the case in  India, when Australia needs to play two spinners and he can be the third seamer behind Starc and Hazlewood.

The worst thing is that Faulkner is now about to play limited over cricket for Australia, which has  detracted from  his long form performances in the past.


An impressive  bowler for NSW was the improved  Trent Copeland. In the past at Bellerive he has looked like an innocuous  medium pacer, who has been naggingly accurate and economical .

 In this game Copeland  appears to have gained a metre  or two of pace, and either seems to have conventional new ball swing, seam and/or reverse swing with the older ball.  I was not quite enough behind the bowling arm.

 Copeland was similarly effective as Philander and Abbott were for  SA at Bellerive a few weeks ago in the Test. I think Lehman is stupid to say if one doesn't bowl at 140 kph forget it. Philander and Abbott are 125 - 135 kph and very effective on Aussie wickets.

Kurtis Patterson  also looks good as a batter.

George Bailey just started to take the NSW attack apart but got out from a top edge sweep too the innocuous Somerville. NSW were right on top, but Faulkner finally delivered a match saving innings. So dod Beau Webster. Tassie made the mistake of not selecting  leg spinner, Boyce. Webster did part time off spin instead.

The former Shield players and first grade cricketers  in the members all say that Faulkner's greatest attribute is that he ha s a lot of time to play his shots, possibly compared to any other Tassie batter.

Jake Doran looked like a decent keeper, and batted very well.

Bollinger was used by NSW only as a support bowler to the impressive Copeland.

Thanks for the report. 

RE: Nevill, it's great that he went out there and scored a big one. That's a good way to respond to being dropped. But he had 20 tests to do it for Australia and he never did. At some point you have to draw a line and demand more. I hope he continues to do this because I still rate him over Wade, especially with the gloves. 

RE: Patterson, he's a quality batsman with a better average than Maddinson. I think he's got to be one of the next 2-3 batsmen in the queue.

As for Faulkner, I'm not sure we should be picking a guy who just scored his first hundred after several seasons of playing FC cricket to bat number 6 in tests. Mitchell Marsh has scored four first class hundreds but he looked all at sea in test cricket. I rate Faulkner as a one day cricketer, especially as a lower order finisher, but I'm not sure he's going to take bags of wickets in tests. If he can go out there and smash a couple of centuries in FC cricket this season, then maybe. 

I read a good article yesterday about the "failed ten year experiment" of the Australian all rounder. Since Flintoff dominated us in the 2005 ashes, the dream has been to find a player who can be a top class bowler and a number 6 batsman. We've tried Watson, Marsh, Andrew McDonald and Mitchell Marsh in that position. 

The article basically said that the search for an all rounder had failed, and we're better off going back to a policy of picking 6 batsman and 4 bowlers. I tend to agree with this - if you don't possess an all rounder good enough to play test cricket, don't pick one. 

Faulkner has scored tons for Lancashire in the County Championship. Albeit Div 2. He's as good a batsman as Mitch Marsh and a far better bowler.

The other thing is he plays better and better under more pressure and in the bigger matches. Maybe he struggles to do that consistently for Tassie. But it's a different dynamic that would probably suit him better to play Test cricket.

But I agree that insisting on an all-rounder who wouldn't made the XI as either a bowler or a batsman is not the way to go. There shouldn't be an all-rounder for the sake of there being an all-rounder. Faulkner is more than good enough as a bowler and, I wager, will get there as a batsman.

It's not just a case of them wanting cricketers who have a bit of fight in them. They do want that. But they really want that kind of cricketer behind the stumps. They want the wicketkeeper to chatter, annoy the batsmen and keep the spirits of the fielders around there up, imo.

They reckon Wade offers this more so than Nevill. It's good he did so well for NSW. He definitely has ability as a batsman. But he has also been very inconsistent and not shown as much of the grit that they want in that kind of wicketkeeper-batsman. He is, imo, a better gloveman than Wade. But he has struggled a lot with in the Test side. He may come back and play Test cricket again. I can see him doing well. But I understand the thinking of the selectors.

Handscomb can also keep wicket. And I think Sam Whiteman should be considered, too. Decent gloveman, I hear, and solid batsman.

to be a genuinely useful all rounder you need a batting average above 35 and a bowling average below 35 otherwise you upset the balance of the team. Watson actually acheived this (just) but didn't bowl too much. I think flintoff was a liability outside of that series against australia where he averaged 40.2 with the bat and 27 with the ball. It was a freakish performance that wasn't representative of his career.

faulkner is good enough to be a line and length bowler for australia. His average is phenomenal. I think he is about the same level as bird with the ball and bats well as a bonus

so I agree with faulkner being in the team but as a bowler not an all rounder. He is like our shaun pollock

Same with o'keefe

I also would bring either chris lynn or glen maxwell to replace maddison as they both have shield averages
maxwell's offspin is good enough to give the bowlers a break once in a while so he might get the nod for me.
I'd persist with neville too. He showed a lot of fight in some innings
Our team actually looks quite promising then. Four bowlers with averages well below 30, two of them all rounders (starc almost qualifies too). A wicket keeper who is strong with bat and gloves and a top 6 with sheild averages over forty with 2 standout batsmen.

nathan lyon has had one year where his average was below 30
steven okeefes average with the bat is 30 and his average with the ball is 23!

It would be mad not to pick him next time he is fit - he has the potential to be our key player over the next 5 years