Australia made a bold selection call for the second Ashes Test at the Gabba, opting to drop veteran spinner Nathan Lyon and bring in fast bowler Michael Neser. While the decision raised eyebrows — given Lyon’s pedigree — the primary reason behind the move is rooted in conditions and Neser’s home-ground advantage.
1. The Gabba is Michael Neser’s home ground
The biggest factor working in Neser’s favour is simple:
He knows the Gabba better than any bowler in Australia’s squad.
Neser plays:
-
First-class cricket for Queensland Bulls, based at the Gabba
-
BBL cricket for Brisbane Heat, also at the Gabba
This gives him:
-
Deep familiarity with the pitch’s bounce, seam movement and pink-ball behaviour
-
Experience exploiting the surface’s early movement under lights
-
A strong track record at the venue in domestic cricket
For a day-night Test, where the pink ball behaves differently, Australia wanted a bowler who could immediately hit the right lengths in home conditions.
2. All-pace attack strategy for the pink-ball Test
Stand-in captain Steve Smith confirmed the team believed:
-
The pink ball would offer significant movement under lights
-
Pace, not spin, would be the best way to take 20 wickets
This tactical shift pushed Australia toward a four-prong seam attack:
Starc + Boland + Doggett + Neser, backed by Cameron Green.
3. Lyon’s omission was based on conditions, not form
Lyon is Australia’s third-highest wicket-taker in Tests and has been left out of a home XI only twice since his debut (2011).
But:
-
The Gabba pink-ball Test traditionally favours seam
-
The ball softens quickly, reducing spin impact
-
Part-time spin options (Labuschagne, Head) were considered enough
In short:
Australia picked Michael Neser over Nathan Lyon because:
-
The Gabba is Neser’s home ground, giving him an instant tactical edge
-
Pink-ball conditions favour seam over spin
-
Australia wanted a full pace attack for maximum impact under lights
Disclaimer:
This is not an official confirmation from Cricket Australia. The reasoning above is based on analysis and widely discussed expert opinion, not a formal statement.
