Julian87
State Captain
Nah that's rubbish.
A Pearce comparison would be an opening batsman playing 30+ test matches with an average of about 10 but a FC average of 40.
-
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.
Road to the 2017-18 Ashes in Australia
- Thread starter grecian
- Start date
A Pearce comparison would be an opening batsman playing 30+ test matches with an average of about 10 but a FC average of 40.
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah it was awful enough that Cowan at 35 was made to miss an FC game (despite top scoring the previous season) just because a younger guy is a potential player for Australia, but then they've gone and recalled a 34 year old for the 8th time just a week later.
edit: Oh and you forgot the Cartwright ODI selection. Incidentally Cowan was very vocal about that particular one, which may have contributed to Smith's hating of him.
Last edited:
Compton
International Debutant
I don’t really get why everyone is quite so down about he Renshaw dropping.
The guy looked so very out of nick in the recent Shield matches that picking him would have been crueller than dropping him. When you score nothing of note across 3 matches while someone else is hitting monster runs, you can’t really complain when they pick the form player.
The guy looked so very out of nick in the recent Shield matches that picking him would have been crueller than dropping him. When you score nothing of note across 3 matches while someone else is hitting monster runs, you can’t really complain when they pick the form player.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Exactly. Acting as if it was the wrong choice let alone a "horror selection" is insane.
Picking Renshaw for the 1st Test would have been idiotic
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah I'm not fussed about the Renshaw for Bancroft thing as well. Maybe if no one was knocking hard on the selection door it'd be fine to take the punt with Renshaw.
S.Kennedy
International Vice-Captain
I still would've given the smoggy the Gabba test as he has experience at that level and with Warner, and looked the business as an opener, something you immediately notice when you see it, like Hameed. I just realised: England's make-shift opening partnership has now five innings more experience than Australia's!
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
This should be an avatar bet methinks
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
No it wouldn't.
Let me ask you this. When was the last time an incumbent opener was dropped after a couple of low scores in the shield?
Renshaw was second top scorer in India, had a couple of starts in Bangladesh and all of a sudden the last 12 months don't matter.
It's extraordinary and it sends the wrong message to the players who are now not playing for the team but instead are playing for their place. That makes for selfish players who are fighting a mental value not just against their opponents but also against the selectors.
Steve Waugh would have languished in the shield under the current conditions - unless he was in the "in" crowd like S Marsh.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Just use some common sense. Renshaw was horrendously out of form and couldn't survive and make runs against Shield bowlers. It wasn't just a few innings, it was 3 entire games. How do you think he would have gone against England?
Meanwhile Bancroft was being Bradman. It was a no-brainer selection.
If you want an example of incumbency not being respected look at Maxwell & Cartwright being dropped for Marsh. That was a tough call.
Renshaw being dropped wasn't a tough call. It was an obvious one.
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Bancroft should have be given the gloves or the number six spot.
How many times have other batsmen gone three shield rounds without scoring? Tons. Doesn't mean you drop them. Mark "Audi" Waugh got four ducks running in Sri Lanka and wasn't dropped. It's not like Renshaw has been that bad. He out-batted Warner in India and was still facing a lot of balls in the middle. In prior years the selectors would never have made such a bad call.
How many times have other batsmen gone three shield rounds without scoring? Tons. Doesn't mean you drop them. Mark "Audi" Waugh got four ducks running in Sri Lanka and wasn't dropped. It's not like Renshaw has been that bad. He out-batted Warner in India and was still facing a lot of balls in the middle. In prior years the selectors would never have made such a bad call.
Compton
International Debutant
I’ll stand by my previous statement. I don’t think it’s the raw numbers, or lack thereof, that he was posting; I think it was the manner in which he wasn’t scoring that will have concerned selectors.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Paine will probably end up outdoing Haddin's 2013/14 series.
adub
International Captain
Bancroft and Renshaw was not an either/or proposition.
Renshaw hasn't made runs, but he hasn't been getting speared out too quick either. He's soaked up 278 balls in his 6 Shield digs so far so he's getting through 46 balls which obviously translates to about the 15th over mark. That's still doing a job as an opener. Warner's only been getting through 10 balls more per innings, Burns 42 balls, Silk 37, Dean 32, and Maddinson an abysmal 24. Now obviously no one is talking about Burns, Silk, Dean or Maddinson to come into the Test side (well no one outside of the selectors anyway - who can tell with those ****s), but if this is as bad as it gets for Renshaw then it's not that bad really is it? Show a bit of faith in the young guy. It was less than a year ago he was where Bancroft is now. He got thrown in the deep end and he was mostly impressive. But the first sign of a bit of loss of form, you're out and lets take a punt on the next rookie? This merry-go-round **** is the sort of crap we used to laugh at the poms for.
Renshaw hasn't made runs, but he hasn't been getting speared out too quick either. He's soaked up 278 balls in his 6 Shield digs so far so he's getting through 46 balls which obviously translates to about the 15th over mark. That's still doing a job as an opener. Warner's only been getting through 10 balls more per innings, Burns 42 balls, Silk 37, Dean 32, and Maddinson an abysmal 24. Now obviously no one is talking about Burns, Silk, Dean or Maddinson to come into the Test side (well no one outside of the selectors anyway - who can tell with those ****s), but if this is as bad as it gets for Renshaw then it's not that bad really is it? Show a bit of faith in the young guy. It was less than a year ago he was where Bancroft is now. He got thrown in the deep end and he was mostly impressive. But the first sign of a bit of loss of form, you're out and lets take a punt on the next rookie? This merry-go-round **** is the sort of crap we used to laugh at the poms for.
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Thoroughly agree. Bancroft could have played 6 or 7. Renshaw should have been persisted with. Really disagree that the number 6 spot should even have been considered open. Maxi did enough to hold it for a couple of tests at least.
This kind of behavior is fine if you have Bevan and Love abs Di Venuto and Law all floating around the setup hammering 1k runs per season but we're picking Marsh on less that 250 runs. Might as well pick Doolan.
This kind of behavior is fine if you have Bevan and Love abs Di Venuto and Law all floating around the setup hammering 1k runs per season but we're picking Marsh on less that 250 runs. Might as well pick Doolan.
