Why do we refuse to invest in the promising younger players who are more suited to short-form cricket anyway? Sure, they may struggle a little initially but these forms are made for younger, more energetic and explosive players, not ageing mid-30s former great test players who are getting too old, slowing down and/or worn out e.g. Warner a perfect example. I'm not saying his form has been terrible recently. But he has not been reliable or consistent enough for a long time now; nor explosive. Although still capable of an occasional good drive or cut, can hardly clear the fence anymore and the great hooks, pulls or legside smashes over boundaries have long gone. But why not try him down the order? No-one else is making runs in the m/o anyway.
Why do we persist in the old reliable trio of Cummins/Hazlewood and Starc forever - in all forms of cricket? Especially as well into their 30s now. Why do the selectors not really back a Neser, Richardson (unless still injured), Abbott or other young quicks who have shown [potential in SF cricket or our own home comps including the Shield.
And, as Spook asks, 'Where's Kuhnemann? Murphy?' Is Zampa the sole answer. I don't think he has enough variation. They score off him too easily and he's not a big wicket-taker at the top level. A spinner needs greater variation and threat to keep it tight at this level.
Our selection process seems moribund and really lacking in risk, dare or willingness to actually invest in some of the younger talent until the old crew is completely broken, worn out and busted. Sometimes you have to take a step back in order for 2 steps forward in future. Relying on successful Test performers historically is not the way forward continuously in SF cricket.
