Renshaw joins Maxwell and Wade in the selectors wake

Gregory, We can all see how good Matt is but the other commenters and foolish selectors need to get it through their thick heads as well.

Can I just note that Renshaw is an incredibly good option as an all-rounder in all formats because he can bat anywhere, is a great fielder and has a lifetime economy rate of 6.33 in t20s in the BBL. And as we can obviously see from 90 off 50, has power and is most certainly not a turtle. For the Ashes, Australia should drop Harris and Burns (who can not play a swinging ball for his life) in favour of Renshaw. Note that he only scored BIG Shield runs with the DUKES ball in the second half of the Shield 17-18 tournament. His Dukes ball stats in Shield in 17-18 are; 56,32,170,0,112,12,3,143,8,37 and 81 (some were not out). In County cricket (with a Dukes ball) he made 513 runs from 11 innings at 51.30 and he made 3 hundreds and a fifty. Clearly he can bat in English conditions with an English ball and therefore should not be left out for the Ashes based on his Sheffield Shield form in the Australian conditions with Australian balls.

Nev's form with the bat was one of the reasons he became the reserve after Haddin. When he was dropped, he had scored 2, 9, 0 24, 14, 2, 23, 60*, 3 and 6 in his last 10 digs. The 60* came when the test against SA was already lost. The sense that it displayed a return to form rudely smashed by the 3 and 6 in Hobart. So they did the right thing and dropped him. When Wade failed with the bat, and Nev had gone back and scored big runs in the Shield, they could easily have brought Neville back. But they didn't. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have dropped him. Paine averages 10 more with the bat and is no lesser a keeper. Wade was just the path to Paine.

Really? My memory may not be the best, I recall his batting wasn't sensational but outside of the odd error or so his keeping wasn't that bad. What I DO recall is, when Wade came in - he didn't do any better - actually worse.

that didn't stop the selectors, who didn't include Tubs, from bringing Elliott in...

Mark Taylor admitted in commentary a few years back that he didn't want Hayden in the team as he knew he would take his or Slater's spot. Hayden may not have been ready in 1993 Ashes but should have been recalled a lot earlier then he was. Renshaw may have to pile on the runs to get selected again and he may well do so. On Khawaja - he did pretty much set-up the win in Perth and was immense in UAE with some great performances at home over the last few years. He is proven quality and should be backed long-term.

Nah. Nev had a form slump worthy of a Marsh.

Agreed. I was surprised to see Renshaw recalled - to the squad - on the back of well below par domestic form. I surmised that he was being encouraged that he could still be in the frame for England - based on his form in England (note, 513 at 51.3 with 3 hundreds and one 50 didn't leave much for the other 6 hits - it was good form but not quite stellar, if you get 3 centuries you'd hope to go big with at least one or two and be averaging around 60 for that return). However - the selectors could just send him a text or give him a call.............hmmm perhaps not.

Waugh??? He was one of the selectors responsible for bringing in Mennie ahead of Bird (for his batting ability), ditching Mennie and Ferguson after one test - as well as banishing Burns and Nevill - and then picking Wade and Maddinson when neither of them had earned selection! He's just one of the lads. I wouldn't mind the captain having a degree of input, such as indicating a preference between two players who are vying for one spot, but I think it needs to be very limited. They're generally too close to the side to be impartial - see Clarke re Katich and Watson, or Smith re Maxwell.

I wouldn't have the captain or the coach on the selection panel. Independence is the way to go. In saying that, there should be a tenure limit for selectors. Say, 5 years and then you hand over the baton (staggered so that there isn't a wholesale change). Fresh eyes and new perspectives are important in any environment and Hohns and Chappell are past their respective expiry dates.

I actually think its a little premature to include Wade in this group. Wade was called back to replace Neville (who wasn't doing much wrong) and batted poorly. He's already let he selectors down big time when they threw a lot of support behind him so I'd say he needs a longer time on the side making big runs. Wouldn't be opposed to him playing in the ODI's or T20s. Hayden built a huge argument for runs, got a chance then fluffed it and had to go back to shield and basically make himself impossible to ignore. Took a while... some of these guys are complaining (mainly Wade) too soon and need to let the bat do the talking.

And train smarter, Rob…

I guess the thought process and at times i cannot understand it myself, all the players that are mentioned the Maxwell, Wade, Renshaw & The Marsh's haven't been up to scratch. They have been doing quite well in the 1 dayers but at times fail during the Tests, and seem to be inconsistent during the Test series, while chopping and changing until we get a settled side. Will that happen? Is this a surprise India have hammered New Zealand the last 3 games and have made it look so easy

Kinda didn’t think Renshaw should’ve been included to begin with, having not been able to buy a run since his brilliant County stint in the winter. If they really wanted to include him, he should’ve played in the UAE ahead of either Finch or Labuschange, when his form was there. His concussion issues didn’t help the cause, and the apparent lack of ‘match practice?’ was it? Makes you laugh sometimes. Burns, Maxwell and Ferguson are the key members of the unlucky club for mine. Perhaps Wade too.

Renshaw was unlucky not to play in the UAE. Harris has been hit on the head multiple times this summer and hasn't missed anything. Renshaw then can't make a run on return to the SS, feel for the bloke. Wade should have played in the CA tour match in Hobart instead of Doran and should have been rewarded with selection in the Squad to play SL. Which should have been named after the tour match. Everything doesn't feel right since JL took over, feels like selectors are picking good blokes or mates of JL. Harris is my little brother, Bancroft is like my son. Etc.

Got no problem with players being picked on form but this garbage of "released back to the Brisbane Heat" is their weak way out of saying dropped without getting a bat. Why name a squad of thirteen 2 weeks prior to the test, then add a guy you never considered good enough because he got runs in the game after the squad was picked, wouldn't it have been more credible to just wait until that game was over because it's not like they got together in Brisbane before the trial game. Also, what's with Siddle's selection in that test squad, good enough to be in contention, doesn't play but now looks like he's dropped down below Stoinis?