The Forgotten Ones

[river end]

Astounding how little credit he gets, and for Test batting too. When I first read of him - before I'd looked at his career record, and an account which mentioned his outstanding performances at ODI and Shield level - I presumed he must have been Bevan-esque in Tests too, or maybe even worse. When I looked at his actual Test performances, I was gobsmacked.

That's the joke - If there's a forgotten part to Dean Jones then it is definitely his test career.
If he his ever mentioned it is always "one of the best ODI batsman ever" or "revolutionised one day batting". People forget, or just as likely, don't even know of his achievements in the test arena.

Just going by his performances on the field, his dropping from the Aust Test team was possibly the biggest joke ever in Australian cricket selection - was still only 31 years old. What was bizarre is he had just topped the test averages on Australia's just completed tour of Sri Lanka.
Was replaced by Steve Waugh who had been out of the test team for 18 months. And Waugh never looked back.

It's a bit of a mystery, but reading between the lines, my guess is Jones was dumped because he was viewed as part of the old order of the mid 80s of being too much of an individual and outspoken, ala Tim Zoehrer, Greg Ritchie, Wayne Phillips etc. and Australia were looking to usher in a new era by finally knocking off the West Indies in their upcoming series that Australian summer with supposedly "team focused" players.

Credit though, to average 46.55 batting at No.3 between 1984 and 1992 was no mean feat.

 

[Goughy]

Gordon Greenidge 4177 @ 46.93 (1988)
Richards 4146 runs @ 55.28 (1985)
Brian Lara 3994 @ 43.89 (1996)
Jones 3857 runs @ 48.82 (1990)
Chris Gayle 3853 @ 39.72 (2004)
Desmond Haynes 3607 @ 41.94 (1985)
Ramnaresh Sarwan 3407 @ 47.31 (2006)
Bevan 3346 runs @ 61.96 (1999)
Tendulkar 3146 runs @ 36.58 (1995)


That is interesting, Id never have guessed of the players we have looked at that Greenidge would have had the most runs through 100 ODIs

 

[Goughy]

Selected others

Ganguly 3606 runs @ 41.44 (1999)
Gilchrist 3109 runs @ 33.07 (2001)
Hick 3310 runs @ 38.04 (2000)
Knight 3637 runs @ 40.41 (2003)
Ponting 3534 runs @ 40.15 (2000)
Hayden 3576 runs @ 42.07 (2004)
Gooch 3785 runs @ 41.14 (1992)

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

That is interesting, Id never have guessed of the players we have looked at that Greenidge would have had the most runs through 100 ODIs

Well not only was he a fantastic batsman, but an opening batsman at that. Lots of time to impose himself. And obviously Tendulkar got better after his initial 100.

 

[Matteh]

Rohan Kanhai

 

[haroon510]

saeed anwar.. we don't hear about him much but class player.

 

[luckyeddie]

I think Richie is also another candidate for coolest cricketer.

Wash your mouth out with soap. All right, your fingers and keyboard.

Crystal has to be Captain Cool - there can only be one.

 

[Perm]

Ken Barrington
Everton Weekes
Clyde Walcott
Bert Sutcliffe
George Headley

Amazing how little recognition these guys get, Barrington in particular.

 

[andruid]

Roger Harper anyone? Not very spectacular numbers but a genuine gun fielder if ever there was one.

 

[Arrow]

Dean jones being dropped while in his prime was really pathetic definately. The story was they did it because they wanted an extra bowler in the team or something, but that was all rubbish. Apparently it was Jones mouth that made him offside with selectors and some team mates so they ditched him. He average 45 in ODi and 46 in tests against one the best generations of bowlers ever, so that shows his class.

As for forgotton players what about good old Carl Hooper. One of my fav players of the 90s. Very elegant and enigmatic. he slaughtered Warne in the 1995 one dayers when Australia toured the windies.

 

[Captain Cricket]

Rackemann and Wickramasinghe?

 

[river end]

Dean jones being dropped while in his prime was really pathetic definately. The story was they did it because they wanted an extra bowler in the team or something, but that was all rubbish. Apparently it was Jones mouth that made him offside with selectors and some team mates so they ditched him. He average 45 in ODi and 46 in tests against one the best generations of bowlers ever, so that shows his class.

He was a permanent member of the Australian test team from 1986, so it's strange that it took 6 years and 52 tests for him to get offside with the team/selectors.
I think the truth is the Australian team had got to the stage where they felt they had good enough players that they could challenge to be the best and didn't need him anymore.
"Thanks, you've done all the hard work - now we're ready to claim glory, you've got to go"

In that case, you think they would have got rid of him from the ODI side too. But maybe that would have been too obvious.

It's no coincidence that Jones' one day performances began to drop off after his test dumping until his final dropping from the one day team after the 1994 South African tour.

International cricket is an unforgiving dog eat dog world. There's no way I would want to be part of it.

 

[vic_orthdox]

He was a permanent member of the Australian test team from 1986, so it's strange that it took 6 years and 52 tests for him to get offside with the team/selectors.
I think the truth is the Australian team had got to the stage where they felt they had good enough players that they could challenge to be the best and didn't need him anymore.

I think if you combine the two, you get the right answer. The new found depth meant that they didn't need to include someone who didn't fit into a team fabric. Funnily enough, 'twas only when John Scholes got rid of Jones from the Victorian side that it started to be competitive again, even though he was still probably their best bat alongside Elliott at the time.

 

[NUFAN]

Ian Redpath.

In 66 Tests averaged 43.45. His conversion rate of 8 100s to 31 50s was probably the reason why he's not mentioned in the same class as other Australian Openers.

Redpath was my dads favourite player growing up, he was meant to be very stylish and just reading his profile now, he didn't hit a six until his second last test match, where he promptly hit another one soon after. I think someone like Prince EWS would find that gun.

 

[Richard]

Redpath wasn't only an opener, either, batted at three with great distinction behind such luminaries as Lawry and Stackpole.

 

[Burgey]

Graham MacKenzie was Australia's spearhead through much of the 60s until Lillee came along in the early 70s. Took 246 wickets in tests (iirc) which had him 2nd all time to Benaud for Aussies when he retired. He rarely gets a mention despite his yeoman service to Aussie cricket.

 

[Richard]

McKenzie suffers more than most for an absolutely horrific end to his career.

For most of it, he averaged something like 27. Then his last, what, 5 or 6 Tests or something, he took something like less than a wicket a Test, and that pushed his bowling-average up to nearly 30.

Yet another case on the folly of judging a player by their overall career average.

 

[The Sean]

Graham MacKenzie was Australia's spearhead through much of the 60s until Lillee came along in the early 70s. Took 246 wickets in tests (iirc) which had him 2nd all time to Benaud for Aussies when he retired. He rarely gets a mention despite his yeoman service to Aussie cricket.

Big Garth suffers from a similar fate as McDermott in that both were absolutely outstanding servants for Australia, but have become historically “lost” as it were due to the fact that they were both preceded and succeeded by bowlers considered even greater. MacKenzie emerged almost immediately after Lindwall, shared the new ball for a time with Davidson, and was then followed as the leader of the Australian attack by DK Lillee. Inevitably, he suffered by comparison with these three legends.

McDermott meanwhile came to prominence a year or two after the retirement of Lillee and was a top-class fast bowler for Australia for nigh on a decade, only to be eclipsed as the pivot of the attack by Glen McGrath. Again, Billy the Kid suffers in that he can hope to finish no higher than third when rating those three men.

It’s a shame that their great achievements are so often forgotten, and it’s good to see threads like this giving them the credit they most certainly deserve.

 

[The Sean]

Ken Barrington
Everton Weekes
Clyde Walcott
Bert Sutcliffe
George Headley

Amazing how little recognition these guys get, Barrington in particular.

Really? I thought most of us fell over ourselves to acknowledge these men as champions. Even Sutcliffe, who I would rank clearly fifth of the five men there, remains one of NZ's finest ever players.

 

[The Sean]

Dean Jones was the Michael Bevan of his day. Given his ODI career was mostly after Richards', he could justifiably be called the best of his time.

Certainly the man to exert more influence on one-day batting than any other. The WG Grace of one-day cricket, almost.

Astounding how little credit he gets, and for Test batting too. When I first read of him - before I'd looked at his career record, and an account which mentioned his outstanding performances at ODI and Shield level - I presumed he must have been Bevan-esque in Tests too, or maybe even worse. When I looked at his actual Test performances, I was gobsmacked.

That's the joke - If there's a forgotten part to Dean Jones then it is definitely his test career.
If he his ever mentioned it is always "one of the best ODI batsman ever" or "revolutionised one day batting". People forget, or just as likely, don't even know of his achievements in the test arena.

Just going by his performances on the field, his dropping from the Aust Test team was possibly the biggest joke ever in Australian cricket selection - was still only 31 years old. What was bizarre is he had just topped the test averages on Australia's just completed tour of Sri Lanka.
Was replaced by Steve Waugh who had been out of the test team for 18 months. And Waugh never looked back.

It's a bit of a mystery, but reading between the lines, my guess is Jones was dumped because he was viewed as part of the old order of the mid 80s of being too much of an individual and outspoken, ala Tim Zoehrer, Greg Ritchie, Wayne Phillips etc. and Australia were looking to usher in a new era by finally knocking off the West Indies in their upcoming series that Australian summer with supposedly "team focused" players.

Credit though, to average 46.55 batting at No.3 between 1984 and 1992 was no mean feat.

Dean jones being dropped while in his prime was really pathetic definately. The story was they did it because they wanted an extra bowler in the team or something, but that was all rubbish. Apparently it was Jones mouth that made him offside with selectors and some team mates so they ditched him. He average 45 in ODi and 46 in tests against one the best generations of bowlers ever, so that shows his class.

The Dean Jones conundrum was always a fascinating one and taking a look at his Test record, particularly his Test average, makes you wonder why in God’s name he was discarded when he apparently had several good years left in him.

While his attitude toward authority and selectors and the desire to re-shape the team were both certainly considerations, it’s generally accepted that one of the principal reasons for the relative lack of faith and credit the Australian selectors had in him was the manner and context of his performances. He was a player whom the selectors firmly believed saved his best for when it mattered least.

A look at his performances shows that this school of thought wasn’t without justification – Jones was generally much more successful in “dead rubber” Tests late in the series rather than when the series itself was still in the balance, and against weak opposition. After his extraordinary 210 at Chennai in ’86 (which is still probably the finest innings played by an Australian in my lifetime) he scored another 10 Test centuries – four of these were in dead rubbers, and another three were against Sri Lanka, back in the day before they became a major power. I’ve also read that he averaged less than 20 in matches Australia lost.

I was always a fan of Deano and as disappointed as anyone when he was dropped from the Test side. But viewing his case in hindsight, I don’t think Australian selectors necessarily made the wrong call.