you realize that figures aren't always an accurate assessment of how someone bowled right?Starc took 1-29 off 11.5 overs in the day, while Hazlewood took 1-31 off 11 overs. So how was Starc village while Hazlewood ready?
Starc also took a no-ball wicket and had a catch dropped by Bancroft so could have had much better figures.
harris for bancroft and hazlewood for siddle the only changes for Lords test. Bancroft is messed up.3rd day supposed to be rained out.
Wondering why Marsh was promoted to 3 and not Labuschagne who bats 3 regularly?
Of course not, Pattinson is not suddenly going to play every Test for the next decade. Moreover, I find it strange that Hazlewood's been mediocre since Ashes 2017, while Starc hasn't been great either, but at least bowled a couple of great spells in SA and took a 10-wicket haul against SL recently.Is Starc's Test career hanging by a thread?
Those South Africa spells were 18 months ago now....i.e. nearly as long as the Ashes 17/18. Also Hazlewood didn't play in those Sri Lanka Tests so who knows what he would've done against them.Of course not, Pattinson is not suddenly going to play every Test for the next decade. Moreover, I find it strange that Hazlewood's been mediocre since Ashes 2017, while Starc hasn't been great either, but at least bowled a couple of great spells in SA and took a 10-wicket haul against SL recently.
I would much rather Labuschagne over Marsh, have more faith he could at least make a few runs on the basis of his county form. Definitely prefer KPat over either thoughUzzy should open, everyone else move up a spot and slip another middle-order batsman in. Ideally KPat but I guess since he's not there either Labu or Marsh? Not my first choices but at least you'll get a few overs out of them and they'll probably do more with the bat down there then whoever you pick to open.
I wouldn't even remotely consider Marsh unless half the squad goes down with food poisoning or somesuch on the eve of the match.If it's batting friendly I'd go with Marsh