Bancroft overlooked

Remove this Banner Ad

JackOutback said:
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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
JackOutback said:
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).
Click to expand...

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
 
big_e said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Just quietly

bangers scored another ton last night ...thats two in a row average over 60 so far this county season

Its only crappy county but if it was Renshaw I am sure I would of heard something about it
 
Westend said:
Just quietly

bangers scored another ton last night ...thats two in a row average over 60 so far this county season

Its only crappy county but if it was Renshaw I am sure I would of heard something about it
Click to expand...

Unfortunately let’s be real here that’s Bancroft’s level
 
Westend said:
Just quietly

bangers scored another ton last night ...thats two in a row average over 60 so far this county season

Its only crappy county but if it was Renshaw I am sure I would of heard something about it
Click to expand...
How does someone who you don’t know from a bar of soap getting selected for the test team make your life better? Very odd.
 
t_94 said:
How does someone who you don’t know from a bar of soap getting selected for the test team make your life better? Very odd.
Click to expand...
strange post

just stating he is scoring runs...and I think he has scored more first class hundreds as an Aussie batter in the last 3 seasons

and I wanted green dog in the team over bangers when a spot came up and was happy with smudge opening
 
Westend said:
strange post

just stating he is scoring runs...and I think he has scored more first class hundreds as an Aussie batter in the last 3 seasons
Click to expand...
WA posters seem to take it very personally that a bloke who isn’t good enough doesn’t get an extended run in the team.
 
Bancroft playing good cricket atm.

Nathan Lyon as well, getting quite a few wickets (16).

Renshaw has been struggling.. after having a shocking Shield season.
 
t_94 said:
WA posters seem to take it very personally that a bloke who isn’t good enough doesn’t get an extended run in the team.
Click to expand...
Most people just want to see consistency and the players in the best form rewarded. Bancroft has been the Shield’s best batter for the past couple of years. The argument for keeping him out behind the likes of Harris and Renshaw was their county form was better. Now that’s not true either. The argument he’s not good enough is entirely subjective after just 10 Tests. I tend to think it may be right but given the lack of better options, think he deserves a chance to prove people wrong.

Art Vandelay_ said:
We shouldn't be going back to this cheat as an option.
Click to expand...
But going back to Warner and Smith was fine?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

JackOutback said:
Most people just want to see consistency and the players in the best form rewarded. Bancroft has been the Shield’s best batter for the past couple of years. The argument for keeping him out behind the likes of Harris and Renshaw was their county form was better. Now that’s not true either. The argument he’s not good enough is entirely subjective after just 10 Tests. I tend to think it may be right but given the lack of better options, think he deserves a chance to prove people wrong.


But going back to Warner and Smith was fine?
Click to expand...
Never liked Warner. A bad egg that's now gone.
Cameron should never play for Australia ever again.
 
Art Vandelay_ said:
We shouldn't be going back to this cheat as an option.
Click to expand...
I’m pretty confident that the full story will never see the light of day - if you don’t believe in second chances that’s ok but the reality is he was the scapegoat for a far bigger story.

Our cupboard is absolutely bare in terms of up and coming batsmen - if he continues to perform he should get selected.
 
JackOutback said:
Most people just want to see consistency and the players in the best form rewarded. Bancroft has been the Shield’s best batter for the past couple of years. The argument for keeping him out behind the likes of Harris and Renshaw was their county form was better. Now that’s not true either. The argument he’s not good enough is entirely subjective after just 10 Tests. I tend to think it may be right but given the lack of better options, think he deserves a chance to prove people wrong.


But going back to Warner and Smith was fine?
Click to expand...
It wasn't about county form, it was Renshaw's Australia A performance, against test attacks, that was better.
 
western royboy said:
I’m pretty confident that the full story will never see the light of day - if you don’t believe in second chances that’s ok but the reality is he was the scapegoat for a far bigger story.
Click to expand...
He may be the scapegoat but I also cannot shake the shame that was brought to the cricketing community in this country.
My views on all 3 involved range from mild dislike to happy to see the back of.
 
western royboy said:
Way more than three involved…
Click to expand...
More than 3 knew. Would certainly agree there.
3 actively involved in the act.

Would take a convincing argument to remove him from my blacklist.
 
Art Vandelay_ said:
More than 3 knew. Would certainly agree there.
3 actively involved in the act.

Would take a convincing argument to remove him from my blacklist.
Click to expand...
I’m in no way playing down his role…but to single him out because he was the one caught doing it when they were all in on it (and believe me they were ALL in on it) is pretty harsh - rightly or wrongly they believed the Saffers were doing it so they insanely believed they’d take the law into their own hands and got caught red handed. It’s a classic case of upper management sacrificing a pleb to save their own arse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top