yes they did because Bancroft never should have been dropped after two tests given the circumstances (that is, no reason to believe Harris is better, reason to believe Smith would miss only one test, Usman clearly being better than both Bancoft and Harris)
I think he's just not that highly rated amongst certain selectors.
Would Khawaja be a decent opener? Potentially. But I'm certainly not upset that he's cards have been marked. When asked to stand up while Steve and Warner were banned he went missing aside from one knock in the UAE. He's a soft player with terrible body language on the field
Strange innit, there was such a big deal with that UAE Tour with him getting fitter and losing all that muscly chunk he had built on since going to QLD. That paired with the results, you'd almost think that would be a crucial moment in his career.
I don't disagree, but since they made the decision that Bancroft was better than Harris (prior to the start of the Ashes) it was an absurd decision to drop him two test later for Harris, particularly once you add the context of someone having to be dropped for the fourth test for Smith (and the inevitably of the worst selection doctrine being used: you can't drop someone after one test). Things should have been left alone since they was no reason for them to believe Harris would outperform Bancroft since they literally just said Bancroft was better than Harris, and then Bancroft could have been dropped for Smith and Usman moves up and that's a much better set up for everyone. This was an insanely obvious thing to do and as I recall I was droning on about it then and there.
On the surface it looks really bad but I'd be curious to know how essential all these positions are when you consider how bloated admin is in sporting organisations
