I think the selection was incoherent....and they make it look harder than it is. The Marsh brothers have each been dropped then recalled on numerous occasions. That shouldn't happen with any player. Once you're dropped the way you make your way back in should be weight of runs or wickets. IE you're a better player than when previously discarded. The guy picked at 3 for the last test has averaged 32 over 5 years in shield cricket. How was he determined to be good enough to be a top order player? On what basis was Handscombe dropped then recalled? Which decision was right, the decision to drop him, or the decision to recall him? The thing about selection is it's usually quite simple. At least 9 of the 11 starters will normally be guys who played in the previous test. That doesn't leave a whole lot of room for error when there's only a few candidates for the contentious positions.
Reaper
