stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
He still top scored in the first innings in Bangladesh.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** 3rd Test at the WACA
- Thread starter GIMH
- Start date
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
You do realise this doesn't make sense? Him succeeding at test level vindicates the selection completely.
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ferguson had the worst treatment. Pathetic.
Cowan being dropped for NSW after topping the shield charts was even worse. Basically saying you're too old you can't play for Australia ever again no matter how well you do but hey lets pick Shaun who's 34 just to rub it in. Oh and lets totally forget Australia's last successful opener who had a great run after being recalled at 35, which coincidentally is the same age as you are right now.
Cowan being dropped for NSW after topping the shield charts was even worse. Basically saying you're too old you can't play for Australia ever again no matter how well you do but hey lets pick Shaun who's 34 just to rub it in. Oh and lets totally forget Australia's last successful opener who had a great run after being recalled at 35, which coincidentally is the same age as you are right now.
adub
International Captain
Actually it does make sense. Unless you are arguing that so long as a selected player isn't a complete liability in the game or two after they are selected then the methods used in making that selection are solid. I may be naive but I like to think there is far more to selections than just having a good game or two. Otherwise you might as well pick the ****s out of a hat. The good ones made runs or took wickets in the next game get picked again and the others go into a hat. Rinse and repeat.
Frankly if we did just pick em out of a hat like that we would struggle to have a worse selection process than we currently do. It would be hard to see how random chance would produce such a ridiculous turn over as we've seen in the past twelve months.
Last edited:
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
How much of that was caused by all the speculation about his spot and no public support? Not to mention conditions in the early Shield haven't exactly been batting friendly.
He looks shot now but he definitely didn't on an away Test tour only a few months ago. What's changed?
Gnske
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Just because a player among many doesn't look in great nick on a tour overseas doesn't mean you're not genuinely out of form in general. Unless your name is Usman Khawaja of course in which case he can stand tall.
Regarding Renshaw's treatment, yeah he should have had more backing. I like the fella. And preferably someone should have long ago taken Justin Langer out back to be shot and buried somewhere. But the opposite happened whether or not these thing played a large or contributing role in him going (in my mind) even more awful at the beginning of the season is irrelevant to me, the results are relevant. And if that kind of thing impacts your play that much it's a bit concerning. And how can you then expect Renshaw to perform if he was selected let's say for the first two tests like the squad ended up being. I would extremely doubt a meaningful performance since the message would essentially be "You've got two matches to do something and stop looking awful, oh by the way good luck in Adelaide."
Comparatively, having Bancroft has been catastrophic for England and Marsh played the greatest Ashes innings since November.
Regarding Renshaw's treatment, yeah he should have had more backing. I like the fella. And preferably someone should have long ago taken Justin Langer out back to be shot and buried somewhere. But the opposite happened whether or not these thing played a large or contributing role in him going (in my mind) even more awful at the beginning of the season is irrelevant to me, the results are relevant. And if that kind of thing impacts your play that much it's a bit concerning. And how can you then expect Renshaw to perform if he was selected let's say for the first two tests like the squad ended up being. I would extremely doubt a meaningful performance since the message would essentially be "You've got two matches to do something and stop looking awful, oh by the way good luck in Adelaide."
Comparatively, having Bancroft has been catastrophic for England and Marsh played the greatest Ashes innings since November.
adub
International Captain
Now you're just trolling.
Gnske
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Dispute it I dare you. If he wasn't in the side, Bairstow doesn't get sledged about it, some hack foxsports journalist doesn't publish it and therefore all the salt from England this series ends up less funny and the boozed up narrative of the England cricket team never comes rightfully to life and consumes them from within.
Bancroft could be the force that finally kills English cricket, Renshaw is English cricket however.
Last edited:
Gnske
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Oh yes, him and Mo being the wrong way around is what was going so awfully wrong for them.
Trevor, you're a genius.
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The best thing we have to say about Bancroft's selection so far is that he's given us a good off-field story and some nice sledging moments? I'd have thought that his 80 odd not out was his best contribution.
Anyway I find the selection process is at an all time low in Australian cricket right now. We're not even pretending that there's not favouritism in the game.
Maxwell's non-selection after a hundred in India and doing just as well as anyone else in the shield was awful. Telling him to go away and make runs - which he did in extraordinary fashion - only to turn around and pick a guy who hasn't done anywhere near as well and has made all of his runs on flat decks in low pressure situations is just an awful way to treat a human being.
The absolute favouritism and media whoring of Western Australian cricket under Justin Langer's watch has been really foul.
And to top it all off people are calling the picks good just because of one or two decent innings'.
Just because the outcome of the picks was good doesn't mean the logic behind them was any good or that they should have been made. It means that the selectors showed faith in someone who shouldn't have had faith shown in them and they got lucky.
Selections should be made with at least a two to three year stretch of cricket in mind. According to the selectors, they picked Shaun Marsh because he was the best available batsman and Paine because he was the best wicket keeper. Then why did they pick Mitchell Marsh? He was not the best available bowler or batsman. In fact he's literally the lowest averaging Australian batsman in my lifetime.
It's garbage and should be treated as such.
Anyway I find the selection process is at an all time low in Australian cricket right now. We're not even pretending that there's not favouritism in the game.
Maxwell's non-selection after a hundred in India and doing just as well as anyone else in the shield was awful. Telling him to go away and make runs - which he did in extraordinary fashion - only to turn around and pick a guy who hasn't done anywhere near as well and has made all of his runs on flat decks in low pressure situations is just an awful way to treat a human being.
The absolute favouritism and media whoring of Western Australian cricket under Justin Langer's watch has been really foul.
And to top it all off people are calling the picks good just because of one or two decent innings'.
Just because the outcome of the picks was good doesn't mean the logic behind them was any good or that they should have been made. It means that the selectors showed faith in someone who shouldn't have had faith shown in them and they got lucky.
Selections should be made with at least a two to three year stretch of cricket in mind. According to the selectors, they picked Shaun Marsh because he was the best available batsman and Paine because he was the best wicket keeper. Then why did they pick Mitchell Marsh? He was not the best available bowler or batsman. In fact he's literally the lowest averaging Australian batsman in my lifetime.
It's garbage and should be treated as such.
adub
International Captain
tbf I think Mad Dog and Fungus might have something to say about that, but close enough.
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I should put a 20 test qualifier on it but I think people can infer that.
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
This will be Anderson's third visit to Perth. One hopes he's finally learned that you've got to bowl full.
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
I know it smacks of deckchairs on The Titanic, but I don't know what options we had. Ballance is hardly likely to be an upgrade, nor any of the reserve bowlers.
We'll probably get stuffed, but if the players aren't there in the first place ....
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
They didn't pull Shaun Marsh out of a hat, at all. In spite of what people think, the selectors aren't morons.
He was picked because they know his game stands up really well at test/international level, perhaps better than anyone in Australia's bar Smith. Him getting man of the match completely vindicated their selection. His innings in Adelaide may well have been the defining point of the Ashes, tbh.
Last edited: