Australia

George Bailey v David Warner

Posted by
2 minute read

David Warner in a photograph

We haven’t really given much thought to Australia’s other five batting slots which means we can pitch Bailey v Warner as being a battle for the sixth one. They’ll almost certainly both play in the first Ashes Test, but let’s gloss over this so that we’ve got something to say today.

David Warner is the incumbent – albeit an incumbent who’s been dropped. Such is cricket. Warner played in Australia’s last Test, but has been dropped for one-day cricket, which is supposed to be what he’s good at. However, after skiving a club match to go to the races, he has since hit three hundreds in four innings, including 197 off 141 balls against Victoria. It’s all been in domestic one-day cricket, but it’s undeniably impressive.

But what of George Bailey? The other day we said that one-day form combined with not being a complete child is probably enough to warrant Bailey being selected in Australia’s Test team and we stand by that. After kicking off Australia’s short format tour of India with a duck (Rajkot, not Bombay), he’s hit 85 off 82 balls, 92 not out off 50 balls, 43 off 60 balls and 98 off 94 balls.

Different format, different conditions, but also different situations. Bailey appears to have the qualities that so many Aussie batsmen currently seem to lack – adaptability and the ability to respond to a given match situation. Plus he’s smart, outspoken and pleasingly non-corporate. We therefore conclude that Australia should pick Matt Weaver, who played three Ryobi Cup innings and scored a whole 10 runs.

Similar deliveries:

Default ThumbnailWhat did David Warner do to his room in Brisbane? Default ThumbnailDavid Warner’s “lean” 2016 in Test cricket Default ThumbnailDavid Warner flays several through the off side

7 comments

  1. Have you seen Cricinfo recently – headline as follows:

    ‘Bangladesh Struggle As Anamul Falls’

    Oh and Bailey seems like a good sort…

  2. Cricinfo is suggesting that the A squad has been chosen to find the filler for what they call “the vacant number 6 slot”. That’s one of Khawaja, Marsh and Alex Doolan – Bailey’s not in it. If he was being considered, wouldn’t he be playing for the A team?

    I’m not sure what that means. I can only think of four definites for the first test – Watson, Rogers, Clarke, and Smith. Is Warner another definite? Is it Bailey? Is it Hughes (please let it be Hughes)? Or will they go with five bowlers as cover for a) Harris breaking down and b) Johnson being rubbish? Or is this article already more rational thought than they’ve applied to the matter?

  3. Please pick Shaun Marsh again. Please, please, please. Khawaja has only been out for one Test, so it’s probably at least a couple more until he is due back for a token 2 or 3 Test run.

    I must admit, I presumed Warner was a certainty. Despite being full of openers, nobody else other than Rogers appears to actually want to open the batting. I reckon they will attempt to shoehorn Faulkner in there alongside Harris, P-Siddy and Johnson with Bad Handlin’ moving up to 6.

    Clearly, they should pick Bailey. Which is why I would say on balance that he is the one least likely to be selected.

  4. Well that’s saved me ever having to look at Australian domestic one-day scorecards. Thanks KC.

    I’m going to continue believing that George Bailey is the right man for the Australian test lineup and hoping with all my hope muscles that they never pick him.

  6. You forgot to mention that Warner didn’t just skive off to the races, he did so leaving his teammates to field with 10.
    There is a special place in hell for people that do that, as anyone who has been in that position (or worse) will understand.

Comments are closed.