first test of the aussie summer 23/24

Remove this Banner Ad

When sports people 'write' a column, they usually phone a senior journalist and just run through the points they want to make, or they may send an email with all their thoughts. The journo then writes it into a coherent shape and sends it back to make sure the sportsman agrees that it matches their thoughts. The journo might have whacked it into shape, but the ideas would be all Mitch's.
 
Warner's made 2 Test tons in almost 4 years and since his 200 on Boxing Day last year he's gone 10,10,15,43.1.9.36.66.25,4,1,32,28.24.60 at an average of 24.3 = should be dropped the entitled douche but the selectors are gutless

Anyone not from NSW would have been thrown out before the Ashes ended
 
Warner's made 2 Test tons in almost 4 years and since his 200 on Boxing Day last year he's gone 10,10,15,43.1.9.36.66.25,4,1,32,28.24.60 at an average of 24.3 = should be dropped the entitled douche but the selectors are gutless

Anyone not from NSW would have been thrown out before the Ashes ended
Is it the national selectors who are 2 Victorians and a Tasmanian who are only picking him because he's from NSW or does the bias lie with CA generally who are based in Victoria and whose vast majority of staff are Victorian?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Long term injury and all that. Know he's played a couple of matches but wasn't sure of his workload and whether he's ready for 5 days. But as i said, I assumed he's ready to go.

Better play Lyon than any other spinner
 
Warner's made 2 Test tons in almost 4 years and since his 200 on Boxing Day last year he's gone 10,10,15,43.1.9.36.66.25,4,1,32,28.24.60 at an average of 24.3 = should be dropped the entitled douche but the selectors are gutless

Anyone not from NSW would have been thrown out before the Ashes ended
Interesting to see that he has only scored 2 test 100's outside of Australia since 2014 - and both of them were against Bangladesh in 2017.
 
Is it the national selectors who are 2 Victorians and a Tasmanian who are only picking him because he's from NSW or does the bias lie with CA generally who are based in Victoria and whose vast majority of staff are Victorian?

I believe it's the unwritten "Minimum 50% New South Welshman quota in every squad" rule
 
Long term injury and all that. Know he's played a couple of matches but wasn't sure of his workload and whether he's ready for 5 days. But as i said, I assumed he's ready to go.
LOL

3 Shield games and 75 overs bowled.
If they were worried about his lack of bowling, they would've played him in the PM's game.
 
Anyone under 30 who reckons they could open for us that could prob average better than 25 in a 12 month time span
So that rules out both Bancroft and Harris who are both over 30. We've then got Renshaw who has played 3 Tests in the last 12 months and averaged 3 with the bat in those games.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Does this innings push Renshaw in front of the pecking order?

Personally, I don't think there's much difference between Renners and Banners.

Harris is a distance third IMO.
 
Does this innings push Renshaw in front of the pecking order?

Personally, I don't think there's much difference between Renners and Banners.

Harris is a distance third IMO.
For me, I've found this whole "bat off" thing wide of the mark, but it's been reported enough as such that it must be true that the selectors are looking at this match.

Bancroft has averaged over 55 for 2 seasons while the other 2 are either low 40s or high 30s. He's also by a distance the best fielder of the 3.

For me he's already batted off to put himself way ahead as even Ponting said, yet (and I think we all know why) they seem to be looking for any reason not to pick him. This match is of little consequence for me in that sense.

As for Renshaw, I wonder how much they'll put down to how much they'll look at the luck he's had here. I like Renshaw more than Harris so for me it's Bangers, Renshaw then Harris. I would like to see Renshaw push the run rate a bit here now, 113 off 275 is fine but you'd hope he'd look to accelerate at some point, particularly after getting to 100.
 
Last edited:
Does this innings push Renshaw in front of the pecking order?

Personally, I don't think there's much difference between Renners and Banners.

Harris is a distance third IMO.

well according to this harris still he thinks he is a shot ...and he is probably right
 
I would like to see Renshaw push the run rate a bit here now, 113 off 275 is fine but you'd hope he'd look to accelerate at some point, particularly after getting to 100.
Seems he's not that interested... in the 40 minutes since he's cored 8 Runs

Tbf Webster isn't interested either. 4 off 35

Of course hitting a 6 as I post :drunk:
 
For me, I've found this whole "bat off" thing wide of the mark, but it's been reported enough as such that it must be true that the selectors are looking at this match.

Bancroft has averaged over 55 for 2 seasons while the other 2 are either low 40s or high 30s. He's also by a distance the best fielder of the 3.

For me he's already batted off to put himself way ahead as even Ponting said, yet (and I think we all know why) they seem to be looking for any reason not to pick him. This match is of little consequence for me in that sense.

As for Renshaw, I wonder how much they'll put down to how much they'll look at the luck he's had here. I like Renshaw more than Harris so for me it's Bangers, Renshaw then Harris. I would like to see Renshaw push the run rate a bit here now, 113 off 275 is fine but you'd hope he'd look to accelerate at some point, particularly after getting to 100.

Hmm I think the reason they don't want Bancroft is that he isn't good enough and everyone knows it. Same with Harris. Renshaw potentially is.

But if the angry dwarf is leaving this summer, then we are auditioning openers no?
 
Hmm I think the reason they don't want Bancroft is that he isn't good enough and everyone knows it. Same with Harris. Renshaw potentially is.

But if the angry dwarf is leaving this summer, then we are auditioning openers no?
Bancroft has a substantially better record than both the past 2 yrs, and they all have similar test records - all equally average really.

What makes Renshaw potentially good enough for tests while the other 2 aren't? While everyone knows the one with the best recent record of the 3 isn't.

Tbh I don't have high hopes for any of the 3 at test level, I just think the numbers show a rather clear no.1 candidate of the bunch.
 
Last edited:
Bancroft has a better record than both the past 2 yrs, and they all have similar test records - all equally average really.

What makes Renshaw potentially good enough for tests while the other 2 aren't? While everyone knows the one with the best recent record of the 3 isn't.

Tbh I don't have high hopes for any of the 3 at test level, I just think the numbers show a rather clear no.1 candidate of the bunch.

Harris looks good, makes 20-60 and gets out. 31 years old.

Bancroft has an obvious technical flaw, hasn't fixed it and gets shown up every time he needs to step up a level. 31 years old.

Renshaw is younger and doesn't have those evident flaws - and the associated failure to address over a long period of time.

That's why, IMO. But I don't think any of them will be established Test players in the future.
 
Harris looks good, makes 20-60 and gets out. 31 years old.

Bancroft has an obvious technical flaw, hasn't fixed it and gets shown up every time he needs to step up a level. 31 years old.

Renshaw is younger and doesn't have those evident flaws - and the associated failure to address over a long period of time.

That's why, IMO. But I don't think any of them will be established Test players in the future.
I get what you mean by the technical flaw, but even with that the past 2 seasons Bancroft has averaged 59 in 11 matches & 56 in 6 so far this season), while Renshaw has averaged 52 in 5 games & 32 in 6 so far this season. Bancroft is significantly ahead.

Renshaw has also been found wanting when stepping up to the next level - hasn't gone past 50 in his past 8 tests, being recalled 3 times. Bancroft, you could argue, was finding his feet a bit before being banned with 2 50s in 3 tests in a tense South Africa series. His return V England didn't look good though.

We do agree though that neither seem to be the answer really at test level regardless. It's a bit of a worry there's such a dearth of options that the best of the bunch is one we know won't work anyway. The main reason I like Bancroft more than the other 2 is he's the best field of them all, easily. So at least he may contribute in some ways even if not with the bat. In my mind he's the best bat pad in the world and could also replace Warner in the slips.

So I think runs wise he's the clear no.1 (despite not believing any will succeed, ultimately) and he offers more in the field.
 
Bancroft has a substantially better record than both the past 2 yrs, and they all have similar test records - all equally average really.

What makes Renshaw potentially good enough for tests while the other 2 aren't? While everyone knows the one with the best recent record of the 3 isn't.

Tbh I don't have high hopes for any of the 3 at test level, I just think the numbers show a rather clear no.1 candidate of the bunch.
Renshaw is the only one with a test century. That counts for something, IMO.

And his test career has been spent mostly on spinning wickets overseas, whereas Harris and Bancroft are mostly on much friendlier pitches and environments.
 
Renshaw is the only one with a test century. That counts for something, IMO.

And his test career has been spent mostly on spinning wickets overseas, whereas Harris and Bancroft are mostly on much friendlier pitches and environments.
A century in a match that had 4 individual centuries (3 of which were in the innings of his century) and over 1300 runs were scored. His was the biggest in fairness to him, however Warner got MOTM scoring a 100 before lunch on day 1 and a 20 ball 50 in the 2nd innings. Talk about friendly environments.

But he has spent more time on sub-continent pitches for sure, he's probably the best player of spin out of the 3 too. That would work in his favour looking ahead to India you'd think.
 
Harris looks good, makes 20-60 and gets out. 31 years old.

Bancroft has an obvious technical flaw, hasn't fixed it and gets shown up every time he needs to step up a level. 31 years old.

Renshaw is younger and doesn't have those evident flaws - and the associated failure to address over a long period of time.

That's why, IMO. But I don't think any of them will be established Test players in the future.
Yes he has a flaw but he has acknowledged it and has been working on it....and you can see the results the past two seasons in the shield averaging over 50 plus...also everyone one of our top six has technical flaws in fact every batter since Bradman has had something wrong with there technique

If we are going to play this game of compare the pair ....

Renshaw hasn't dominated the shield since he has been dropped thats my issue with him plus as a fielder he is just blah...alright set of hands but slow in the field.If Renshaw was coming in after dominating the shield I would have no issue with him being up the top in fact I can see him as a replacement for Ussie next year. But I want him to dominate the shield first.

Out of three Bancroft is the superior fielder has taken 4 catches in the slips twice I think this shield season plus he is awesome at back pad and he provides the RH at the top of the order which I think is important

Fully agree on Harris he always looks good and always throws it away...frustrates the hell out of me...plus he is shocking in the field

But as I stated before in previous threads...if the replacement for Warner..is Harris Bancroft Renshaw...and Green is on the bench
well I would pick Greenie anyday of the week over those three
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top