Bancroft overlooked

[dogs105]

C'mon now..

1 innings - 184

other 19 before getting dropped - 453 runs at 25.

439 at 27.1 I believe.

 

[dogs105]

So better than Bancroft and Harris' career stats basically? Would it not have made sense to invest in a 22 year old. Thankfully at 27 he's back in under a better coach and captain

If you take out Bancroft's best test score, he averages 21.4...

 

[Around the Wicket]

Now Phil Hughes was a harsh dropping... 2 Tests after twin tons...

 

[dogs105]

Doesn't hide the fact he scored one score in 20 cracks before getting the punt.. hardly a harsh dropping..

5 Tests before he was dropped were 44, 15, 1, 8, 45, 5, 4, 22, 8, 5... 6 single figure scores, 0 50's and 0 100's.

The 8 and 5 were after the first dropping. Swap those for 60 and 5 in Bengaluru vs India

 

[Around the Wicket]

439 at 27.1 I believe.

Still crap, 184 v Pakistan is the only thing of note he done, apart from that innings the highlight was when he had the runs in India and had to go off the field.

 

[dogs105]

Still crap, 184 v Pakistan is the only thing of note he done, apart from that innings the highlight was when he had the runs in India and had to go off the field.

184 vs Pakistan is quite good though.

 

[dogs105]

Still crap, 184 v Pakistan is the only thing of note he done, apart from that innings the highlight was when he had the runs in India and had to go off the field.

Discounting his best score, Renshaw was dropped making 439 at 27.1 in 9 matches.


Bancroft has made 446 in 10 matches at 26.2. If Cameron Bancroft made 184 against Pakistan, I missed it???

 

[Around the Wicket]

184 vs Pakistan is quite good though.

I don't rate anything against Pakistan, biggest fixes out.

Discounting his best score, Renshaw was dropped making 439 at 27.1 in 9 matches.


Bancroft has made 446 in 10 matches at 26.2. If Cameron Bancroft made 184 against Pakistan, I missed it???

Unfortunately has had 7 Tests against England and 3 against South Africa.. no easy opposition.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

comparing bancroft and renshaws test careers is folly

Both were failures and ultimately both don’t mean much as plenty of players fail at their first attempt, go back work on their game and come back better players

The shield has long been recognised as the highest quality first class competition - it involves the nation with the equal highest talent split across the fewest sides - to then dismiss performances at that level is folly

Edit: I don’t even mind so much that the players don’t trust or want bancroft- but at least be honest about it. Allows the lad to adapt his game and make his money elsewhere in T20

 

[dogs105]

I don't rate anything against Pakistan, biggest fixes out.



Unfortunately has had 7 Tests against England and 3 against South Africa.. no easy opposition.

5 against England in Australia, where Australia won 4-0 and Sydney was rained out... England in England is a different proposition. Would you rate India in India?

 

[dogs105]

comparing bancroft and renshaws test careers is folly

Both were failures and ultimately both don’t mean much as plenty of players fail at their first attempt, go back work on their game and come back better players

The shield has long been recognised as the highest quality first class competition - it involves the nation with the equal highest talent split across the fewest sides - to then dismiss performances at that level is folly

Edit: I don’t even mind so much that the players don’t trust or want bancroft- but at least be honest about it. Allows the lad to adapt his game and make his money elsewhere in T20

Surely picking the best players from the Shield competition to represent Australia A is high quality first class competition?

 

[dogs105]

comparing bancroft and renshaws test careers is folly

Both were failures and ultimately both don’t mean much as plenty of players fail at their first attempt, go back work on their game and come back better players

The shield has long been recognised as the highest quality first class competition - it involves the nation with the equal highest talent split across the fewest sides - to then dismiss performances at that level is folly

Edit: I don’t even mind so much that the players don’t trust or want bancroft- but at least be honest about it. Allows the lad to adapt his game and make his money elsewhere in T20

Also, I don't think anyone wants to dismiss Shield performances, just not use them as the ONLY guide.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

9 tests away, almost all sub continent. Most 7 years ago when he was 21yo.

Yeah nah that’s a ridiculously small sample size to declare him a flat track bully

i didn't declare him as that.

i said "is he"

 

[Westend]

WACA is an absolute

Sigh

Watch some shield there has been a reason wa is bowling first every time they win the toss and it’s not to do with the waca being a road

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Now Phil Hughes was a harsh dropping... 2 Tests after twin tons...

or Simon Katich

 

[Black Diamond]

5 against England in Australia, where Australia won 4-0 and Sydney was rained out... England in England is a different proposition. Would you rate India in India?

Bancroft averaged 25 in that home series, where we bashed the shit out of England. He was lucky to be part of the subsequent squad for SA.

I’m 2013-14 by comparison, George Bailey averaged 26.

 

[dogs105]

Sigh

Watch some shield there has been a reason wa is bowling first every time they win the toss and it’s not to do with the waca being a road

WA bowlers have dominated the Shield averages for the past 2 seasons. QLD and NSW also okay.

 

[dogs105]

Bancroft averaged 25 in that home series, where we bashed the s**t out of England. He was lucky to be part of the subsequent squad for SA.

I’m 2013-14 by comparison, George Bailey averaged 26.

Since 2012, England have played 15 tests in Australia for 0 wins, 13 losses and 2 draws.

This pleases me.

 

[Black Diamond]

Now Phil Hughes was a harsh dropping... 2 Tests after twin tons...

Hughes was a walking wicket at that stage though, and his twin hundreds are rightly thought of as outliers.

He managed one further century from 20-odd more matches.

 

[dogs105]

Since 2012, England have played 15 tests in Australia for 0 wins, 13 losses and 2 draws.

This pleases me.

Beginning at the best possible time for them, in 2005 when they officially became better than us, the Ashes ledger is Australia 27, England 17.

 

[The 747]

But this mess is not to squeeze Green back in, this mess is to maintain Marsh’s place in the side given Green is still the inclumbent, we’re bending over backwards to accomodate Marsh’s very unlikely Indian summer as a 32 year old when he is playing with freedom because he knows this is his last go around.

To be perfectly honest the best solution that doesn’t compromise other roles is Marsh goes up to the top and Green goes to 5 or 6.

Marsh is killing it where he is, so he stays there. Head, Marsh and (sometimes) Carey is a very nice counter attacking lower middle order.

Green going to 4 now is not ideal, because he doesn't deserve the spot. However he is clearly better than the three opening candidates and all of this was triggered by Smith wanting to open. If Smith wants to open, he opens - and so everything else has to fall into line with that.

 

[Coops93]

It is.. would take 2 big scores to have a average of 40 all of a sudden... Steve Waugh took 28 Tests to get a 100.

Steve Waugh isn't a good comparison. He was an all-rounder batting at 6 & 7 - Even at 8 for a handful of games. He didn't get 28 tests as a specialist bat before coming good.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

WACA is an absolute

Production line of talent and success….

 

[The Passenger]

I think Bancroft is unlucky but let's not pretend this is Stuart law, Jamie Cox or James Siddons et al.

Renshaw is proven to be not up to test standards - from a sizeable sample as little has less than a year ago in India. If the same applies to Bancroft, that's fine, but almost certainly must also apply to Renshaw.

I think it's fair to say it's unlikely either will make it as a test match batsmen. But one had to get picked in the 13.

 

[Coops93]

Hughes was a walking wicket at that stage though, and his twin hundreds are rightly thought of as outliers.

He managed one further century from 20-odd more matches.

No, he wasn't a walking wicket "at that stage", you're thinking of later in his career. At the time he was dropped for the first time it was a surprise and only 3 tests after being the youngest person ever to score twin centuries in a test - doing so against the elite bowling attack of SA at the time.

His career after that initial stint, however, you're right his technical flaws were clear for every test bowler in the world. Unfortunately I think he'd worked that out around the time of the incident. Iirc he was on the verge of being re-selected, with that 50 basically locking it in and it seemed this time he was more sound and ready for tests. Alas, we'll never know.