Bancroft overlooked

[big_e]

I get the argument for Renshaw's A form and age, but ultimately, we should still prioritise Shield form. The majority of our games are played here in Oz, we shouldn't be picking teams based on how they perform in one country, unless they want to go horses for courses (which I don't necessarily have a problem with, picking in Oz and Renshaw in England, for example, makes some sense).

I disagree with the bolded bit. Shield performances are one part of the equation, but selectors have to be better than just saying "this guy is making the most runs/taking the most wickets right now, let's pick him". There are heaps of other factors. I think Marcus Harris, for instance, has proven to be below test standard - he could score 2,000 runs in a Shield season and I still wouldn't pick him. There are times when you go for a younger player with potential ahead of a seasoned pro. Renshaw was in the recent squad and will likely go to NZ because he can bat anywhere in the top six.

As a Western Australian, of course, I'd like to see Bancroft play for Australia. But there are plenty of reasons that explain why he's not.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I get the argument for Renshaw's A form and age, but ultimately, we should still prioritise Shield form. The majority of our games are played here in Oz, we shouldn't be picking teams based on how they perform in one country, unless they want to go horses for courses (which I don't necessarily have a problem with, picking in Oz and Renshaw in England, for example, makes some sense).

Shield form will only EVER be part of the selection criteria it’s a factor but there are other factors. Age is one, also being test standard is another and only one of the options has a test ton to his name. Let’s take a step back and realise any of those 3 probably average the same at the next level

 

[JackOutback]

I disagree with the bolded bit. Shield performances are one part of the equation, but selectors have to be better than just saying "this guy is making the most runs/taking the most wickets right now, let's pick him". There are heaps of other factors. I think Marcus Harris, for instance, has proven to be below test standard - he could score 2,000 runs in a Shield season and I still wouldn't pick him. There are times when you go for a younger player with potential ahead of a seasoned pro. Renshaw was in the recent squad and will likely go to NZ because he can bat anywhere in the top six.

As a Western Australian, of course, I'd like to see Bancroft play for Australia. But there are plenty of reasons that explain why he's not.

There are lots of factors when picking a player, but when talking about form (which is what we were doing with Renshaw and his Australia A history), sustained success at Shield level should at least be the first port of call. Of course, if you try and fail at Test level, then other factors come into play.

I guess the issue here is all three have played and failed. But I feel Bancroft has played the least Tests of the three, looked to actually be coming good in South Africa before the suspension and has a superior recent Shield record. If you're going to pick one, it should be him first. If he fails again after a decent run, you put a line through him (as I would with Harris).

The versatility of Renshaw in terms of the batting order is noted, though it is less of an issue on the next tour. If someone gets injured, Smith can just drop back. If Renshaw continues to fail in the Shield, I don't see how anyone can make a case for him to go to NZ.