George Bailey has been hammered from all points of the cricket compass for being the weak link in the Ashes whitewash of England.
But how does he compare to 43 of Australia’s best performers on aggregate and/or averages in their first eight visits to the Test crease?
The results are staggering.
Sid Barnes is the top scorer, Don Bradman is sixth, Steve Waugh’s at the bottom of the selected list.
Only Arthur Morris (155, 122, 124) and Neil Harvey (163, 112, 178) scored three Test tons in their first eight digs.
Bill Ponsford (110, 128) and Doug Walters (155, 115) the only two to score centuries in their first two Tests.
Others to debut with centuries – Herbie Collins (104), Greg Chappell (108), Mark Waugh (138), Michael Clarke (151), and Jimmy Burke with 101.
Burke holds the least-known world Test record. He went through his entire career of 44 digs, and was never dismissed for a duck.
The full scoreboard of the 43 selected Australian batsmen, with their centuries in their first eight innings:
541 – Sid Barnes – 234
534 – Neil Harvey – 153, 112, 178
520 – Herbie Collins – 104, 162
503 – Arthur Morris – 155, 122, 124*
503 – Doug Walters – 155, 115
478 – Don Bradman – 123
442 – Mike Hussey – 137, 133
440 – Adam Gilchrist – 149*
420 – Bill Lawry – 103, 102
414 – Keith Miller – 141*
412 – Mark Waugh – 138
400 – Michael Clarke – 151
383 – Bill Ponsford – 110, 128
380 – Michael Slater – 152
380 – David Warner – 123*, 180
363 – Dean Jones – 210
352 – Mark Taylor – 136
343 – Simon Katich – 125
336 – Bill Woodfull – 141, 117
317 – Ricky Ponting
300 – Stan McCabe
299 – Bill Brown – 105
284 – Norm O’Neill
271 – Allan Border – 105
246 – Bob Cowper
243 – Greg Chappell – 108
241 – Alan Kippax – 100
237 – May Hayden – 125
235 – Hack Ryder
219 – Brad Haddin
204 – Chris Rogers
204 – Shane Watson
241 – Bob Cowper
199 – Lindsay Hassett
199 – Jim Burke – 101
187 – Steve Smith
183 – George Bailey
182 – Justin Langer
179 – Ian Chappell
172 – David Boon
170 – Damian Martyn
159 – Warwick Armstrong
136 – Bobby Simpson
113 – Steve Waugh
So there were seven Australian batsmen in the list who scored less runs than George Bailey in their first eight Test digs, but went on to be world class.
Who’s to say George Bailey can’t do the same?
a punter
Guest
Agreed. Looks totally out of his depth. How long will they continue to gamble on Bailey at the expense of talented first class cricketers? If Bailey was any good, he wouldn't be averaging 20 odd over the past 2 seasons.
a punter
Guest
Because his selection was a big gamble in the first place.Bailey's first class average over the past 2 yeas is in the 20's. David, what would you personally say to players like Silk and Lynn who have averaged around twice as much over the last 2 seasons? What message does this send to young players? Normally, players are brought into the test team when they perform well at Shield level so those players have demonstrated that they are leaders nationally. In Bailey's case you cannot say that he is one of the best performers at the national level. In fact, he would be lucky to maintain a his place in some Shield teams including Tasmania based on his recent form. why is his first class record so abysmal? I believe the answer to this question is that he has deficiencies and he is not suited to the longer form of the game.
a punter
Guest
His average over the past couple of seasons is in the 20's in fact.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
That's true, although for most it was after more like 15-25 tests that they were dropped rather than just a handful. And they were all a lot younger at the time. With Bailey you feel that this is his one and only shot. If he is dropped then he is gone and won't play another test.
David Lord
Expert
Chris, the stats are not incorrect. The criteria was the top 85 run-getters in Test history, and the top 100 averages. That is why the list is "selected", not complete. Kepler Wessels, Greg Blewett, Phil Hughes, and a host of others didn't qualify under that criteria. I had to draw a line in the sand or the complete list would have gone on for eternity.
JohnB
Guest
The Langer comparison isn't that great either - at 22, he'd averaged 46 from 14 FC games before being selected for Test cricket with 3 tons (including 149 in a shield final) so again youth and promise for the future comes into the equation more than it does for Bailey. While it's true his aggregate after 5 tests and 8 innings was 1 less than Bailey's, he mostly batted top 4, 2 of those games were played on greentops v NZ, one was his debut (where he played outstandingly) in the Adelaide classic and another was Ambrose's match in Perth. Also worth noting I think that he was dropped after the 8th innings (admittedly the second half of a pair).
Barry
Guest
And if Monty Panesar hadn't dropped him on 10 in Adelaide, he would have averaged 20.0 and 4.2 in the first innings of tests.
Chop
Roar Guru
Long bow there.... If the queen had testicles he's be king....
Chop
Roar Guru
YES YES YES OR beg the Hussmeister to come back and bat 6
Chop
Roar Guru
Your comments beg the question, was he picked on ODI or BB form, not Fist Class form. That's not a question, it was absolutely ODI and T20 form.
Chop
Roar Guru
As much as I don't think Bailey should be there, it's wrong to throw Watson back down into a position he doesn't enjoy or succeed in.
Chop
Roar Guru
No do not give Hughes another crack. I'm sorry but if I'm a selector he's going out to Brad Hodge's pasture.
Chop
Roar Guru
I think this point is the ONLY reason that Bailey will keep his spot for the first test in SAF. No one else has a chance to show any red ball form in the last however long and won't until the plane to SAF has already left. Stupid Stupid, STUPID scheduling from Cricket Australia. The schedule was based around getting some Pre-ashes shield games in and the big bash.
Barry
Guest
Weird logic. Only one thing stopped me from scoring enough runs to play tests for Australia; like Bailey, I wasn't good enough.
JohnB
Guest
Martyn is also an interesting one because he was picked ahead of Dean Jones. Without debating that, you can clearly see how much the youth and promise element came into selecting Martyn, making a straight comparison of runs scored between him and Bailey pretty irrelevant. May also be worth noting that Martyn was actually dropped after his 7th innings (the 5th test v WI - at which point I think he would have had more runs than Bailey, and all made against a great WI side. Martyn's 8th innings was in the 3rd test v NZ a couple of months later, when he came in for Mark Waugh, failed along with everyone else in the first innings - but top scored, batting ahead of Steve Waugh and Border, with 74 in the second innings). At the point Martyn was first chosen at age 21 he was very promising - his figures were 22 matches, 40 innings, 7 no, 1626 runs at 49.27 with 4 tons and 10 fifties, HS 133 no, av 49.27. Indications of his promise were that his average was on the rise as he'd averaged 51 the previous Shield season (his first full season); he'd started the 92/3 season well with twin hundreds against Qld (McDermott, Tazelaar and young Kasporwicz and Bichel) in his only Shield game to that point; he'd made some runs in the Shield final the previous season (41 and 57 against a pretty strong NSW attack - Whitney, Holdsworth, Lawson, Matthews); and he'd indicated he could possibly rise to the next level by getting 3 starts in 4 innings (40, 39 and 44) against the WI in 2 tour games.
Bearfax
Guest
David I suspect you well know why Bailey shouldnt be in the test team, but you're making these comments for discussion only. The big difference as you well know between Bailey and almost all of the others identified is Bailey's age and his first class average, as well as his performance in Shield cricket in the past 2 years. Firstly Bailey is 31 years old. At that age he should be near the peak of his game. Most of the other players you mentioned were in the early to mid 20s and still developing. Only Hussey and Rogers have been recently selected late in their career for test cricket (I'm ignoring Rogers one test early on) and succeeded., But to be selected at such an age, you must be showing something special.at FC level. Secondly Bailey has a first class average of 37.6. Picking a batsman with that sort of average is usually reserved for those in their early 20s who are seen as future stars and likely to improve their averages markedly in the following years. Rarely is a batsman of Bailey's age selected with such a low first class average and succeeding, because if they cant get beyond that at FC level, how can they be expected to approach that average at test level in the prime of their career. This is one of my concerns with Doolan, only 3 years younger with a similar FC average, and one is only hoping that he has not yet reached his peak. And its not as if Bailey hasnt had his chances. He's played 103 FC matches and 182 FC innings. What you see is what you get. Hussey and Rogers were selected because their averages were test class and around the 50 mark at FC level Finally despite all the excitement of Bailey's baseball like short game form, his FC average over the past 2 years has been around the 20 mark. So not only is he not up to the standard with his FC averages, his FC form has been little better than the average bowlers batting average. In my memory only Geoff Marsh was considered successful with a low test average of 33. I think, like Cowan, he was seen as holding the fort with his defence, while others in a much better side than we have now, scored the runs. He was hidden. Whether Bailey scores a century or not is in my mind irrelevant. Its his medium performance over many tests that is important. At present he has a lower test average than Khawaja, Hughes and even Cowan.. Hardly justification for him remaining in the side.
Matt F
Roar Guru
Yeah, I would have been better than Bradman if it wasn't for me getting out all the time. Fate can be cruel sometimes.....
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Huh? If he'd scored 104 not out instead of getting out for a not very good score then his stats would be better? Man, if only I was able to never play a bad shot and get out I'd be scoring so many runs this season, I really would...
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Clarke's average dropped to mid-30s around his 20th test as he'd only managed a few 50's since those initial couple of centuries. He was then dropped. 6 months later he was picked again and by his 30th test had 3 more hundreds and his average had passed 45, a point it's never dropped below since then. Like all batsmen he's had some rough spots where the average has dropped a few points and some good points where he's pushed it back up. But overall he has a pretty impressive record including an excellent conversion rate with 26 hundreds at 27 50s. For some reason he's always had lots of detractors despite not warranting it. He really seems like such a nice guy who loves his family and is very good at cricket.
BetterRedThanDead
Guest
He is not a test batsman. His average across 106 1st class games of 36 is uninspiring, he doesnt bowl, or keep and compared to his test team mates, would rate as a slightly above average fielder. He is loved by the team, and is a genuinely nice guy, however in SAF the Aussies are going to need a top notch batting line-up who can spend time at the crease and score runs consistenty. I just don't see George ftting that bill.