If you're not getting picked for your provincial side, you're not gonna make the test team no matter what your record is like. It'd be like picking Mogg out of reserve grade to play for Queensland otherwise.
But surely it should be picked on all FC performance and not solely rep performance. Eggman is coming off too very good seasons consecutive, and Farny has been consistently one of the best for three seasons now. Is that not enough to get them at least a shot at being test quality players?
The incumbents have done nowt wrong to be dropped. Farny and Eggman have only performed in rep cricket for a season or so. The Test team is not a charity case about being fair or just. If one of the bowlers decline or don't perform at Test level then Farny and Eggman will be looked at - as it stands the attack will be Tyson, Man, Bullpitt and Wilson.
I thought I was in with a shout a season ago, but I had a pretty bad season and probably don't deserve to be in contention. Eggman is knocking on the doorstep though.
Considering you're all for picking the best available team for each match regardless of past performance or potential I find it a little strange. This isn't really equitable to real life because all the Test performers play for the entire domestic season and Tests are rarely played, some **** might have a great record from 5 seasons ago or whatever but it matters for nothing really. If these players are being out performed in BS/PC then their place in the Test side is legitimately questionable when Test records equate for 2 matches every 4 seasons.
Yeah definitely, which is why Flack was dropped when he was averaging 70 odd. There's a difference between having a mare and averaging 28 with the ball instead of 22 though. I'm not going to pick the team from scratch every time - if there's no reason to drop someone, I'm not gonna drop 'em.
Which is weird because your whole ethos is pick the best team.for each game. Being good isn't good enough if there is somebody doing better.
The best team isn't just based on the last season all the time though. If you have someone proven up to the job and they're still playing well, you don't risk dropping them for someone who might flake it. Selection 101.
While I agree that if there's definite evidence for someone being better than someone else they should be dropped, what has Bullpitt, Man and Tyson done to be dropped? Mind you, Bullpitt's still yet to sign, so.....
Look, I get Bullpitt etc haven't been dog wank but if one second somebody wants to say you should always pick the best available team and they then pick a team consisting of players who have been outperformed it begs the question. So in answer to the 'what have they done to be dropped?'. Tbph they haven't performed as well as they should've in BS and Rep cricket - the things which lead to Test selection.
