rigsby
Life President⭐
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2014
- Messages
- 17,035
I don't want to see any Aussie players banned. It would be better to make them play the next Ashes series in England wearing skirts
-
Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.
Existing Users:.
Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.
New Users:
Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.
Fans from other clubs
We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.
Assistance Required
For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.
I don't want to see any Aussie players banned. It would be better to make them play the next Ashes series in England wearing skirts
OldBlueLady
Junior Blues Coordinator⭐⭐
:hilarious: oh yes, that would be great!
I'd buy a percentage of that 'yorkshire' if the stats stood up in context, but they don't.
In India, Renshaw had a better series batting average than Warner, Shaun Marsh and Mitchell Marsh, who all played in The Ashes. Ironically, two of the only three players with a better batting average were Wade and Maxwell who didn't feature in The Ashes.
It's a similar story in Bangladesh. Granted, Renshaw only averaged 19.00 over those two tests, but again two players fared better, Wade and Handscomb, and again they didn't feature in The Ashes. Shaun and Mitchell Marsh weren't even selected for those matches.
Further, Renshaw has a superior Test and First Class average than Bancroft. Indeed, his Test average is on a par with Bancroft's First Class average.
In short, there seems little evidence to suggest that, on ability/potential and record, Bancroft was a better option to Renshaw.
Last edited:
Renshaw was one of 5 players in their top 7 to play all 6 tests over those two tours. Of those only Wade (23.66) averaged less than Renshaw's 25.66. Wade was also dropped.
Renshaw then started out the Sheffield Shield season with scores of 17, 16, 1, 19, 16 and 1.
Bancroft started out the Sheffield Shield, 18, 17, 76*, 86, 228* and 17.
That's the context. It's like Mark Stoneman being selected over Haseeb Hameed, who has a higher test and fc average. Hameed is the long term option but Stoneman was picked as he was the form opener and they didn't want to destroy Hameed by picking him for the Ashes out of form..
Stoneman and Hameed isn't the same. Hameed had an injury and then a poor First Class season over 14 matches. Stoneman had also already established himself, ahead of The Ashes, with decent contributions in the summer.
Your stats for the India/Bangladesh tour, whilst having a degree of accuracy, are still not wholly in context.
You are correct in saying that Renshaw was one of five batsmen who played all six test matches. Of the other four, both Wade and Handscomb were dropped, with Renshaw, for The Ashes. Smith and Warner are undroppable. Yet, of the others who played a part in India/Bangladesh, Shaun and Mitchell Marsh were picked for The Ashes despite a poorer record in India/Bangladesh. Khawaja was even more laughable. One Test Match on that tour and he scored two runs.
So, based on the above, the Australians did not select their Ashes squad on performances in India/Bangladesh. Otherwise Renshaw would have been ahead of three players that were picked.
This leaves The Sheffield Shield. I was aware of Bancroft's 228* v South Australia on a flat deck in Perth, plus Renshaw's indifferent start, as highlighted in your post, but given their performances in the first round of Shield matches were identical, then Australia picked Bancroft, a complete unknown at International level except 1 x T20 match where he was 0*, ahead of an established opener, based on two Shield matches. This is where I find it hard to fathom.
Going back to your England comparison. Can you see England dropping an opener with an average last summer of over 50.00 and a top score of 184 and replacing him with someone who managed to whack a double century in a county match on a flat track?
Your stats for the India/Bangladesh tour, whilst having a degree of accuracy, are still not wholly in context.
You are correct in saying that Renshaw was one of five batsmen who played all six test matches. Of the other four, both Wade and Handscomb were dropped, with Renshaw, for The Ashes. Smith and Warner are undroppable. Yet, of the others who played a part in India/Bangladesh, Shaun and Mitchell Marsh were picked for The Ashes despite a poorer record in India/Bangladesh. Khawaja was even more laughable. One Test Match on that tour and he scored two runs.
So, based on the above, the Australians did not select their Ashes squad on performances in India/Bangladesh. Otherwise Renshaw would have been ahead of three players that were picked.
This leaves The Sheffield Shield. I was aware of Bancroft's 228* v South Australia on a flat deck in Perth, plus Renshaw's indifferent start, as highlighted in your post, but given their performances in the first round of Shield matches were identical, then Australia picked Bancroft, a complete unknown at International level except 1 x T20 match where he was 0*, ahead of an established opener, based on two Shield matches. This is where I find it hard to fathom.
Going back to your England comparison. Can you see England dropping an opener with an average last summer of over 50.00 and a top score of 184 and replacing him with someone who managed to whack a double century in a county match on a flat track?
Last edited:
Swiss Tony
End of the pier show ⭐⭐
Bottle tops,sugar,sandpaper,gum,mud,sticky tape and a handkerchief spring to mind.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Aussies picked Bancroft and dropped Renshaw on form, not class. It's not necessarily the decision I would have made but it's clearly a defensible decision and not some conspiracy. 18 innings is a reasonable sample size.
And they did the inexperienced Renshaw (who far from being an established test opener has just one test hundred to his name) a favour as he'd have likely got eaten alive by the England attack when he was out of sorts, something he may not have come back from. Same as the England selectors who'd have liked to have picked Hameed who they thought was the class bat but whose form wasn't good enough, so they picked Stoneman (fc career average 35) because he scored some runs at the Oval, the flattest pitch in England, as they didn't want to destroy Hameed.
Where the Australian selectors were inexplicable was dropping Maxwell in the form of his life.
Agreed on Maxwell. Very odd.
Bancroft's form was based on a couple of innings, as mentioned already. Not enough, in my view, to unseat someone who already had a test average in Australia of over 50.00.
There's plenty of talk, at the time, that Renshaw was pretty much nailed on to keep his place. Mark Waugh confirming that during pre-squad discussions. Bancroft was being considered, but more as a number six/keeper, as this position was particularly up for grabs.
The Aussies then decide to leave Renshaw, Maxwell and Wade out. Bringing in out of form or unproven replacements. It can't be a coincidence that the very guy front and centre of the current mess just happened to be an unlikely choice at the start of The Ashes. Someone who was also likely to be on ball shining duties whilst fielding close to the wicket.
If Bancroft was picked on Sheffield Shield form, then why not Callum Ferguson, Alex Doolan or better still Jake Weatherald who in the very match Bancroft scored his 228*, just happened to score 143 and 152 himself, winning the game for South Australia.
To me, there was a lot more going on ahead of The Ashes than currently meets the eye. From the ridiculous OTT stuff with Jonny Bairstow, to the prodigious reverse swing that Starc was managing to get. The common denominator in all of this is Bancroft.
Bancroft's form was based on a couple of innings, as mentioned already. Not enough, in my view, to unseat someone who already had a test average in Australia of over 50.00.
There's plenty of talk, at the time, that Renshaw was pretty much nailed on to keep his place. Mark Waugh confirming that during pre-squad discussions. Bancroft was being considered, but more as a number six/keeper, as this position was particularly up for grabs.
The Aussies then decide to leave Renshaw, Maxwell and Wade out. Bringing in out of form or unproven replacements. It can't be a coincidence that the very guy front and centre of the current mess just happened to be an unlikely choice at the start of The Ashes. Someone who was also likely to be on ball shining duties whilst fielding close to the wicket.
If Bancroft was picked on Sheffield Shield form, then why not Callum Ferguson, Alex Doolan or better still Jake Weatherald who in the very match Bancroft scored his 228*, just happened to score 143 and 152 himself, winning the game for South Australia.
To me, there was a lot more going on ahead of The Ashes than currently meets the eye. From the ridiculous OTT stuff with Jonny Bairstow, to the prodigious reverse swing that Starc was managing to get. The common denominator in all of this is Bancroft.
A "Leadership Group" now appear to be two people!? :unsure: :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/43543713
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/43543713
Tyga
Youth Team⭐
As far as I can tell a leadership group is a group where no one shows any leadership at all and when things go bad they can blame each other.
Tyga
Youth Team⭐
Renshaw had a poor start to the domestic season here which is why he was dropped. Although I'm not sure Bancroft was setting the world on fire either.
Agreed 'Tyga' that his first six First Class innings weren't great, but there were plenty of others with a decent record ahead of Bancroft and on the flip side, if Cricket Australia were selecting on form, how did Marsh and Khawaja get in, after their efforts in India/Bangladesh or conversely how did Maxwell not get in?
Swiss Tony
End of the pier show ⭐⭐
A bit like the Labour party really,got ya.:thumbsup:
Last edited by a moderator:
Tyga
Youth Team⭐
Trying to understand the idiocy of Australian cricket selectors isn't something I waste much time on. To claim, as you appear to claiming, that Bancroft was parachuted in by the selectors to implement their ball-tampering scheme is beyond far-fetched.
As far as Maxwell is concerned, Steve Smith doesn't like him. That is why Maxwell was omitted from the Test squad and the ODI squad initially. Smith even responded to questions about Maxwell in a press conference before the Ashes started saying Maxwell won't play unless he improves his training performances. This is an odd reason as Maxwell had a contract with the Australian team and was training with the Australian team at the time. Apparently scoring a double hundred and another 80 odd in domestic 4 days matches in the lead up to the Ashes wasn't enough in Smith's eyes. He could have scored a thousand not out and not been selected.
Last edited:
Fair point, but if there was a plan to ball tamper during The Ashes, then it was exactly that. A pre-conceived plan hatched by certain senior people and would have been discussed before a ball was bowled. They wouldn't come up with it halfway through a match.
Based on that premise, you then need your player who is prepared to be in on the gig, so to speak. In that respect, hand-picking someone who might be prepared to play ball, literally, whilst unlikely to come under too much scrutiny, your obvious choice is the rookie fella who is up for the challenge. It wouldn't be the first time a junior member of a test side was implicated.
It may not be true, of course, but Bancroft has been front and centre of too many things already, considering how new he is to test cricket. I'm suggesting it shouldn't be ruled out that he wasn't maneuvered in for more than cricketing reasons.
Based on that premise, you then need your player who is prepared to be in on the gig, so to speak. In that respect, hand-picking someone who might be prepared to play ball, literally, whilst unlikely to come under too much scrutiny, your obvious choice is the rookie fella who is up for the challenge. It wouldn't be the first time a junior member of a test side was implicated.
It may not be true, of course, but Bancroft has been front and centre of too many things already, considering how new he is to test cricket. I'm suggesting it shouldn't be ruled out that he wasn't maneuvered in for more than cricketing reasons.
Tyga
Youth Team⭐
To be honest, Bancroft seems to me to be a bit naive and being new to the national team was going along with the requests of senior players in the team, namely the captain and vice-captain. Also as he fields close to the bat most of the time he has ready access to the ball when returning it to the bowler so would be "ideal" for what they planned on doing. In the Australian team the new guy always seems to get stuck at short leg unless they are a bowler.
There was no great conspiracy, I'm sorry to disappoint you. Smith and Warner play for New South Wales in domestic cricket and Bancroft plays on the other side of the country. I can't really imagine Smith and Warner plotting their great ball-tampering escapade and thinking they need to draft in a guy from Western Australia who had not played a Test match before the Ashes to be the final piece of their master plan. I honestly don't think Smith and Warner have the combined brain power to plot anything that elaborate. They used bright yellow tape to tamper with the ball on a cricket field flooded with TV cameras. Geniuses they are not.
The ball-tampering was pre-planned, that much is obvious from the words of those involved and I seriously doubt that it was a one off incident but that does not make it the great conspiracy you are trying to manufacture.
There was no great conspiracy, I'm sorry to disappoint you. Smith and Warner play for New South Wales in domestic cricket and Bancroft plays on the other side of the country. I can't really imagine Smith and Warner plotting their great ball-tampering escapade and thinking they need to draft in a guy from Western Australia who had not played a Test match before the Ashes to be the final piece of their master plan. I honestly don't think Smith and Warner have the combined brain power to plot anything that elaborate. They used bright yellow tape to tamper with the ball on a cricket field flooded with TV cameras. Geniuses they are not.
The ball-tampering was pre-planned, that much is obvious from the words of those involved and I seriously doubt that it was a one off incident but that does not make it the great conspiracy you are trying to manufacture.
Tyga
Youth Team⭐
His other nickname was Shrek so I guess he chose the one he found least offensive.
rigsby
Life President⭐
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2014
- Messages
- 17,035
Do people get to choose their own nickname in Auz ?
Tyga
Youth Team⭐
No we don't
ShrimperZone Sponsors
ShrimperZone - Player Sponsorship
Southend United Away Travel
All At Sea Fanzine
