Cameron Bancroft has bolted into Test contention with a stunning performance in the freshly renewed Sheffield Shield.
Bancroft (138 not out and 86), as well as Test batsmen Marcus Harris (95 and 174), Joe Burns (60 and 80) and Kurtis Patterson (134) had fantastic matches.
Australia already had a logjam of openers, with Harris and Burns the incumbents, star David Warner about to return after his ban, and young gun Matt Renshaw waiting in the wings.
Now Bancroft has added to this puzzle by producing one of the finest Shield batting performances of the past decade.
In his return to first-class cricket after being banned for nine months, the 26-year-old incredibly was at the crease for the full duration of both of Western Australia’s innings.
In the process, he faced an astonishing 621 balls for the match – one of only a handful of batsmen in history to soak up more than 600 balls in a Shield game.
The extraordinary mental and physical stamina he displayed is particularly relevant considering the great value that Justin Langer places on batting for long periods.
All too often in recent years, Australia’s batting line-up has been exposed for its inability to grind down opposition bowling units with patient, obdurate play. Veteran Chris Rogers was the last to have specialised in such stubborn batting. Bancroft is cut from the same cloth.
Chris Rogers (AAP Image/Dean Lewins)
It may be no coincidence that Warner took his Test game to a new level while being partnered by Rogers. The dynamic left-hander seems suited to opening with an old-school batsman who frustrates bowlers with his circumspection. In this way, Bancroft long looked like a good foil for Warner.
The West Australian was just finding his feet at Test level when he was caught sandpapering a ball in South Africa last March. With 223 runs at 37, Bancroft was Australia’s leading runscorer in the first three Tests.
On some lively pitches against the world’s best attack, he did a fine job of blunting the new ball, batting for at least 90 minutes in five out of six innings.
This was an enormous improvement on his poor debut series, in the Ashes.
Then came the ball-tampering scandal, which may have derailed Bancroft’s international career. Instead, he has again showcased what a mentally tough cricketer he is by returning in such dominant fashion.
While this single performance does not mean he should suddenly leapfrog Burns and Harris, it has certainly put both those players on notice.
I considered Bancroft unlikely to compete strongly for an Ashes spot given the fierce competition, as well as the potential hindrance of his long layoff, yet here we are.
Jackson Bird is another cricketer who I thought had fallen back to the pack. In the last six months, he has been overlooked for Test squads in favour of the likes of Jhye Richardson, Chris Tremain, Peter Siddle, Michael Neser and even Brendan Doggett.
But in hoarding 11 wickets on a pretty flat Adelaide pitch, on which Tasmania piled up 467 in their first dig, Bird has served a reminder that he remains a quality red-ball bowler.
badmanners
Roar Rookie
In first class cricket O'Keefe has 281 wickets at under 25, Copeland has 326 at 25.4, yeah they are rubbish. McGrath was only low to mid 130's, he was fairly useful. I'm not a big Bancroft fan but it was a huge impressive effort to score more than half your teams runs first 4 day game back from a lengthy suspension. And I don't believe there are hundred's of batsmen worldwide who could do that, they certainly weren't many in the West Aus line up. It did seem odd that West Aus had 3 keepers at the top of the order.
HH
Guest
I have always battled to come to terms with the fact that a player/s can be dropped from the Test side without being given the chance to under perform in the Test side. For example Joe Burns batted magnificently in the series against SL (against an attack that was disregarded/underrated by the Aus public and press ... as shown by recent performances in SA). If Joe can maintain "respectable" form through rest of FC season (ie: continue to ave mid 40's) for my money the form of Bancroft and co should be irrelevant. Surely, he has through his most recent performances Test earned the chance to at least fail at Test level before being dropped ? I appreciate that the selectors often see things differently, however I believe it is extremely shortsighted to place an overemphasis on short term FC performances. I also firmly believe that going back to FC knowing you continually have to protect your Test spot (inspite of Test performances) doesn't allow one the same freedom as someone who is trying to take your test spot batting with far less to loose.
Sgt Pepperoni
Roar Rookie
Interesting points but the pressure is only going to increase. Will be fascinating to watch how it plays out
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
A lot of club sides would have a better attack? They’ve just knocked over South Africa - a more accomplished batting side than our current 6 - in four consecutive innings in South Africa! Burns and Patterson make it because of longer term success at first class level, not just the Sri Lanka Test.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
I don't think he'll be ready in time. If he is, he'll be in.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
You just don't understand the point being made. Your choice for childish aggro is a choice to not engage. Read the thread, not an isolated comment. You'll latch on. You'd need to be far more circumspect if you want genuine conversation. Let's see you grow up a bit first.
Ben
Guest
So not addressing me pointing out the holes in your argument and responding with a smart ass comment? Nice Don, the least self aware person on the planet as usual. How's the autism/Aspergers treating you lately?
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Not under this CA hierarchy - there's probably more chance of it being Handscomb, who captains Victoria.
Doctor Rotcod
Roar Rookie
I wonder how Patterson and the rest of the NSW team would have gone against Richardson , Behrendorff and NCN
Brian
Guest
Geez we get excited easily. It was one game and Bancroft made runds against an attack of Copeland, Abbott, O'Keefe, Conway and Henriques. Does Copelandeven bowl at 130kmph. They'd be 100s of batsman worldwide who could do that. I reckon they'd be 1 maybe 2 who could score a century of 50 balls against India in India. They should be looking at Maxi not a bunch of failed Test batsman who had a good shield game.
Jero
Roar Rookie
Thanks, Chris. I see the Australia A tour dates are for seven matches between 20 June and 23 July. Australia’s group World Cup matches are between 1 June and 29 June. Depending on how far they progress, the semis are on 9 July and 11 July, with the final on 14 July. So as you say, for batsmen at least it’s definitely one squad or the other. Khawaja is the only incumbent Test batsman in the ODI squad touring India. I wouldn’t dare to make any assumptions about what the selectors are thinking. Assuming they’re both fully fit, Smith and Warner are the two batsmen the selectors will see as critical to both campaigns. They could fail in the World Cup, but they’d still make the Ashes. They’re Smith and Warner, no further explanation required. But Khawaja hardly has their status, except for the fact that they won’t consider him for any captaincy roles either. Succeed on the ODI tours of India and Pakistan and Khawaja presumably books his World Cup berth. Fail, and he’s probably on the Australia A tour. Succeed in either and he secures his Ashes berth, fail in either and he’s in some trouble. At the risk of overthinking it, I think the best way to intuit what the selectors might be thinking about Khawaja is to look at Head. Head’s obviously ticked all the selectors’ boxes. They probably give priority to him having the opportunity to bat against the Dukes before his first Ashes campaign. He has to be considered a lock for the World Cup and the Ashes, the only batsman other than Smith and Warner I can see being assured of a spot in both squads on recent form. To that extent, if the selectors are being at all rational and consistent, you’d think they’d treat Khawaja similarly to Head if he were a lock too. Unless they’re so convinced of his spot in the Test side on the back of his ton against Sri Lanka, you’d think he could play some Shield too then just go straight onto the Pakistan ODI tour in March before the World Cup. Unless they think he needs to face some white balls, and that the team need his services against India. Maybe they see him as so critical to the World Cup that they want to give him the best chance to prepare for it, failing which he plays for Australia A as Plan B. Who knows. I just get the sense that Khawaja is having to mount a case, whereas Head isn’t. Am I overthinking this? Help, Roarers!!
Chris Love
Roar Guru
Maxwell?
Chris Love
Roar Guru
Bancroft hadn’t played first class cricket in 9months either until this week.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Burns also made those runs against a Victorian attack that's as good as several of the Test attacks going around.
Chris Love
Roar Guru
60+80 shows he can handle a swinging new ball.
Adz Sportz
Roar Guru
Kawahja will be the man under pressure
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I think his finger will need to heal pretty quickly then. Because hasn't played a first class match all season has he? Or did he play one in the first half of the season? The Australia A tour could be the chance for him if he doesn't really come back in time to play many matches now, but is fully fit by then.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Khawaja's only hope of being in Australia's best XI for the World Cup is unseating the ODI captain Aaron Finch as opener, and it seems pretty unlikely Australia will dump Finch a few matches before the World Cup with no obvious alternative captains.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
It all depends on how many backup batsmen they take. If they really only want one backup opener, and don't really consider any of these guys as backups for the middle order, then there may only be a place for 2 of the three, one in the team, and one as backup.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I must admit that going into the Sri Lanka series I felt that the selectors had Harris as their pet project and he was long-odds to be dropped, Burns was basically pulled in as a short-term fix for 2 matches until Warner gets back. But the combination of the extremely poor dismissals for Harris and Burns scoring a big hundred, suddenly made that seem less certain. One thinks that it might almost be Burns spot to lose now, rather than Harris’. I suppose it depends, do they want the guy more likely to nick outswingers, or the guy more likely to start off well then have a brain fade and get out playing a stupid shot?