I was critical of the selectors during their kneejerk reactions to Australia’s disaster of a series against South Africa last summer and more recently in Asia. Dropping Peter Nevill in the South African series was their biggest mistake.
He had stopped the rot with a 60* in Perth and was really starting to find his feet at Test level. However, a match later and told to go back to the Shield to score runs, in spite of averaging 29 and 30 in the New Zealand and South Africa series respectively. These are averages we would have been happy with in the pre-Gilchrist era, as his glove work was of Test quality.
Of course, he scored runs in emphatic fashion, with two big hundreds in his next two Shield games, to rub selectors’ noses in it. Meanwhile, his replacement, Mathew Wade, returned even poorer scores with the bat and he has been markedly inferior with the gloves.
This Shield season had me rooting for Nevill to return to the Test side and for Australia to pick a keeper purely on glove work. By all reports, all the glovemen, including Nevill, have spilled chances, with no clear stand-out.
AAP Image/Dave Hunt
Another selection dilemma has been the form of Mathew Renshaw. Many were expecting him to be a lock for the first Test at the Gabba, considering last year’s heroics, but a severe lack of form has him squarely in the spotlight.
That leaves Cameron Bancroft as the most intriguing prospect of the Shield season to date, having firmly put himself in the frame for Test selection.
His mammoth 228* against South Australia is the second time he’s carried his bat this season, the first coming against NSW’s star attack, with a 76* followed by an 86.
With the keeper position firmly up for grabs, Bancroft has many asking if his glove work is up to Test standard, with only three first-class games under his belt as Western Australia’s third-string keeper. That said, comments on The Roar suggest he outshone Peter Nevill in the game against NSW.
Another question that is perpetually asked when talking about keepers, and one that was asked when Handscomb was batting so well last summer, is how does taking the gloves full time in the longest format affect batting?
So why not compromise?
Could not Australia run with Bancroft in the opener’s role, where he would be selected on merit over Renshaw anyway, and have him share the keeping with Handscomb?
Would Handscomb be happy to keep part-time, easing his load? Could they come together and work as a team, with maybe one preferring to keep to spin?
It would also give flexibility in the lower batting order if the pitch looks like it could be a road. Hilton Cartwright could come in at seven if they think he could be set for some significant overs. Similarly, if they decide a pitch could get some turn and Glenn Maxwell may be required to turn the arm over for more than a few overs, he could bat at seven with Cartwright at six.
It could also be the answer to keeping our frontline quicks fresh, in having a seven-deep batting line up, with two of those able to take pressure off if needed.
It’s certainly an unorthodox idea, but if Handscomb and Bancroft can make it work then it opens up a plethora of possibilities, especially when we tour the subcontinent next.
plxmn
Guest
Momentarily putting aside the wicketkeeper question, I think there is a role that an all-rounder should play in this team. We have three quicks - perhaps the best pace attack Australia has ever had (imagine if Patterson were included) - but with the exception of Hazelwood they are at their best when they are in short spells allowing them to be as fast as they can be. Whether it's a spinner or a medium pacer I don't profess to know, but these guys need a break which is why guys like Cartwright, M Marsh, Maxwell etc really should come into play at 6.
plxmn
Guest
Don't need to respond that way to genuine suggestions. Could have easily made your point without being snarky. The Roar isn't like that.
qwetzen
Guest
Sigh. Another "Nevill should never have been dropped!" fanboi. Fact: Nevill wasn't scoring runs. The 60* you gush over was his only score above 32 in his last 14 innings. His average for his last 6 Tests (11 inn) was a dismal 15.6 while his career average was a poor 22.3. And this 60* which "stopped the rot", exactly what rot did it stop? As Oz were beaten easily in this Test, (a Test where Nevill conceded 14 byes), then you must be talking about his personal run drought. If so, then 'the rot' sure wasn't "stopped" at all as in the next Test he amassed nine in two innings. Not many would call that "...really starting to find his feet at Test level." Nevill had 17 consecutive Tests, that's a hell of a lot compared to a shedload of more talented players who got far less. He failed and his boat has sailed. Move on.
Dexter The Hamster
Guest
Surely your name is ironic..... Not too much "Logical" about that team. Or "Larry"....
Dexter The Hamster
Guest
Seems strange that people ignore the facts. Maxwell has a better record in Australian FC cricket than Lehmann, but that doesn't seem to stop people thinking that Lehmann is a better option. I guess scoring some runs last week counts more than a career average.
Dexter The Hamster
Guest
Paine has only kept in 4 FC games in the last 2 years. You would have to be an Australian selector to think he would be a chance... ;-)
Dexter The Hamster
Guest
Can we please stop with the whole "give him 2 tests"?? You are either in the team or out of it. Its bad enough the selectors have this approach, without us supporters having to agree to it.....
Dexter The Hamster
Guest
Its one of those great things about cricket, when people just get to declare who is the better 'keeper. Without any stats, without any evidence, but lots of big statements. I have not done my research, but I did read somewhere, that Bancroft has kept in 3 FC games only. But that clearly makes him a "better keeper" than the other guys. Really??
OJP
Guest
JamesH - you dont get to third grade without having your own box.... at least not where I played :)
dave
Guest
The fielding side manages its bowlers to keep them fresh and optimise the the chance of taking a wicket. The thought that having a fresh and alert wicket keeper through the whole innings seems pretty simple to me. The only reasons against so far are that it would resemble 3rd grade cricket or its not traditional. So much silence on this thread when us internet posters will usually comment on anything leads me to believe there is no chance of this happening ever,Because.......
Chris Love
Roar Guru
I like your comment. I would be interested to hear from the likes of Gilchrist and Healy on if they blame the dropped catches and byes conceded in their career to momentary lapses in concentration. It Is very hard to be on 100% of every delivery. Ask any batsman but they are right in the firing line. A keeper had slightly more distance between himself and a 150km bowler and has less of a risk to a momentary lapse. I don't think it is too illogical to think that if you had two capable keepers doing rotations of 20-25 overs each that they together, would be able to stay switched on for longer periods, would be less physically drained from not having squatted for as long a periods and would be far better off going into bat at the change of Innings. Considering one is an opener and one bats at 5, at the end of fielding innings when you are into the tail, Handscomb can take the gloves to give the opener in Bancroft a freshen up before he opens the next innings. He then hopefully gets a rest before coming in at 5. If both are happy to keep in the short format of the game, then sharing the load for 45 overs each makes sense. Even more so when you consider that those 45 overs don't necessarily have to be consecutive. The slips cordon wouldn't necessarily have to change much either. You also have to ask the question. Gilchrist and the recent standouts aside. Over the years, if teams regularly had talented batsmen keepers in two's in the test arena playing together, would the likes of Healy have finished with much higher averages had they been relieved of the gloves periodically throughout as test match?
Chris Love
Roar Guru
well said. What Australian conditions in a test match is he referring to anyway?
dave
Guest
A keeper has to be able to maintain his concentration for every delivery for 90 overs and then also is expected to be able to salvage a game after our all or nothing top order has one their nothing days. Having 2 keepers doing 45 overs each might keep them fresher and reduce leaked runs/missed catches due to fatigue. The biggest problem I see is it might disrupt the slips/keeper relationship. That and the fact Its just not cricket.
TheCunningLinguistic
Guest
Current form is a much better indicator than avg, which is merely a useful guide. And look who Bancroft has successfully faced over the last few games- a telling indicator, for sure.
matth
Guest
As to your premise, it may well work and may well turn cricketing norms on their head. I don't think we need such a radical solution at this stage though. For me, the number 6 spot is not broken, it's just that Maxwell and Cartwright both have claims. Maxwell has gone slightly better so I would persist with him. Renshaw and Wade are both going very poorly right now, but Renshaw's most recent test on home soil included a 180. I think he probably should get another shot at home, although if the selectors go with Bancroft as a non-keeping opener I won't complain. He has banged the door down. Wade on the other hand is going dreadful and has no credits left in the bank. So for me Bancroft takes that spot. no other keeping candidate has done enough to suggest that they will contribute more than Bancroft. And he is not a part time keeper. He kept all through the ranks, and kept in the JLT cup. He can keep very well. It was just that WA think their team balance is better with Bancroft opening and Whiteman keeping. The Australian team balance may require something different. If, however Bancroft comes in for Renshaw, it's too much to ask a player on debut to keep and open. In that case we need to find a keeper and I would go with Nevill. Wade is unselectable. And given Carey and Nevill have been on a par, for such a big series I would take the guy with some experience.
matth
Guest
I like getting rid of Handscomb who has average over 50 so far to bring in a number of debutantes who will "surely" do better than that.
George
Guest
Surely Dunk, Doran and Inglis are better bets than Wade?
Lancey5times
Roar Rookie
Yeah. Four debutants for an Ashes series and drop the guy who averages 50 as an opener down to 5. Sharp. Real sharp.
Larry Logical
Guest
Australia needs players that value their wicket and are in for. Renshaw well be back better than ever. 1. Weatherald 2. Bancroft 3. Ussie 4. Smith (has to bowl) 5. Warner 6. Lehmann 7. Carey (w/k) move forward - at least par with Nevill 8. Starc 9. Cummins 10. Lyon 11. Hazlewood
Nick
Roar Guru
True. And he definitely bats better than Wade. Happy to insert Starc in for Wade.