No, just one of many instances where part timers help get things done. The same way Head had better figures than Green at Lords. Worth noting the no 6 actually scored 160 and 60 in that SCG match. Good attacks shouldn't need to weaken the batting to cover for them. Unless there are unusual circumstances, but it shouldn't be run of the mill.
You're pretty good with the strawmen. Your spinner should be able to hold one end. 400 isn't anything beyond what 3 quicks and a spinner could handle. If it's a flat pitch the poms will do that in 80 overs.
Bowling options that weaken the batting makes no sense general. Green isn't that good anyway, a bit of a Trundler. I'm tipping he might make a batsman when he gives up on the bowling.
*recent* shield form. Last 18 months/ 2yrs is better than Green (which isn't that good). Century for the PM's 11 also.
Anyway, you brought Renshaw up not me. I'm not pushing anyone in particular, just pointing out that Green is way overrated. It can be worth carrying such players if they can be match winners capable of turning series (Flintoff for instance). Unlikely for Green, nothing so far indicates it might happen.
The underlined is objectively
not true. Green is further down the list than Renshaw but neither are standouts.
I would prefer not to have a repeat of his predecessor, the bloke who played in his spot recently (and played quite well). No one showed more promise than him at one stage. Was a sacred cow for too long because of it, to the detriment of all concerned (himself and the team).
Green's figures don't demand selection nor require that a place in the team be kept for him. S Waugh was (rightly) dropped (for his brother to boot) with far better figures and came back stronger. Hell, even Bradman was dropped early on. We should be looking for the best batsman we can find for our no 6.