Dean Jones was well down the list of my favourite Australian batsmen of his era, but I always thought he was a fine technician, a man of considerable courage, and I was very impressed by his interview with Crash Craddock on Cricket Legends.
His omission from the Australian Test side in 1992-93, like many selection decisions, was controversial, and the controversy has lingered and left a legacy of angst among both those who supported the decision and those who opposed it, as recent posts on The Roar show.
The real tragedy of the controversy is that it may largely be the creation of a very strange view that selectors don’t need and should not explain their decisions. I don’t share that view. If a selection has any merit, it must be able to be explained in lucid terms. The players are entitled to know what they may have to do, if they can do anything, so they can make career decisions upon which their livelihoods depend, and the public deserve to know because their money keeps the selectors in a job.
The explanation for Jones’s omission based on numbers struggles with the problem that, as one of the selectors at the time, John Benaud, says in his book Matters of Choice: A Test Selector’s Story “statistics can reinforce any argument”.
(Chris Cole/Allsport)
A series of posts by one blogger on this site reflects this issue and the tone of some comments might leave a bit to be desired. While it is not inherently wrong to focus on centuries or half-centuries or how many were scored in ‘dead Tests’, it is also a fraught argument. It places a huge weight on 100 or 50, but what of 48 or 93 or even 29 made on a fiendish pitch? Is an opener’s score worth more than that scored by one of those lazy swine who bat in the middle order and make their runs against the tired and/or second-stringers after the honest opener has been battered and broken in blunting the bastards bowling thunderbolts?
It is not that numbers shouldn’t be contextualised, but they only take us so far.
When Geoff Marsh was dropped at the end of the 1991-92 season there was a lot of sadness. His replacement in the last Test of that season was basically ostracised in the dressing room. Marsh had brought more than just runs to the team – Border felt he contributed ideas, a good listening post, loyalty and the right kind of attitude. This shows the complexity of team selection.
Yet for Marsh the numbers did in themselves have a terrible logic to support his demise. In his last series, at home against India, he averaged 26 and his career Test average was 33. He averaged 25 against the West Indies in 1991 and 22 in the series against the West Indies in 1988-1989. No need to dig about in those numbers to dismiss centuries or double centuries made in ‘dead Tests’.
The difference with Jones was that the numbers provided no similar, clear basis for his omission. He was averaging 46 across his Test career. He had averaged 64 in the 1988-89 series against the West Indies and in the most recent series against them in 1991 he averaged 30 – ahead of Steve Waugh, 16; Greg Matthews, 9; Ian Healy, 19; and Geoff Marsh, 25.
Just ahead of him in that series were Allan Border, 34, and David Boon, 33. Jones averaged 44 in the 1991-92 series against India when Marsh was dropped (and Mark Waugh averaged 13 over four Tests), and 55 in his last series against Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka, topping the averages.
Mark Waugh had averaged ten and managed four consecutive ducks. There were two rain-affected Shield games ahead of the selection of the XI for the first Test against the West Indies in 1992-93 and there was no sense in which it could be said that Shield form provided some obvious case one way or another. Mark Waugh had managed to both fail and succeed in his usual way across the two Shield games he played – proof of his genius or his profligacy depending on how you want to look at the numbers.
A series of posts and John Benaud both tried to play with the numbers to arrive at a case, but the problem is that you can also play with the numbers to dismiss the case. With Marsh it was clear-cut. If Mark Waugh had been omitted, everyone would have looked at his poor form in two successive Test series and, combined with his youth, would have been inclined to accept it to a greater or lesser degree.
But here is the number that really is hard to argue with: Jones was 32. He really had only three or four seasons left at the top level in all likelihood. Unlike Waugh, his omission was likely to be terminal.
A non-number that mattered was also that Jones had become a popular hero. Whether one agrees or not, he had. To dismiss his Adelaide double century against the West Indies is churlish and fails to understand what it meant at that time, in that place, to so many. It was an important innings. It denied the West Indies a 4-1 series win and it created the prospect for a time of an unlikely Australian win.
It took some of the gloss off the West Indies’ series win. They had humbled England 5-0 in England in 1988, and the same England had won the Ashes in Australia in 1986-87. In 1987-88 New Zealand nearly beat Australia in Australia. Jones had earnt his place in Australia’s hearts with that double century against the magnificent and terrifying West Indies.
(Photo by Getty Images)
What the selectors needed to do was have the integrity and courage to back up their selection decisions with an honest explanation to the player and the public. Only a fool thinks selection is easy. Anyone who has done it, even at park level, knows how hard it is. Benaud hints at the need for renewal, for finding a point of difference and someone not traumatised (as he puts it) by losing to the West Indies. However, the argument is then clouded by a retreat to an attempt to argue about form and numbers that are just not persuasive.
There were also issues about Jones’s personality and private life that were playing out in the team. Border made no protest the way he did with Marsh. Like it or not, there were team arguments for dropping someone and team arguments were what should have been relied on. The issue with Mark Waugh’s dreadful form should have been met head-on, and they should have said that they saw him as a young talent who had done well against the West Indies (his 1991 average was 61, although one poster discounted his superb final Test century) and who they saw as a big part of the Test side’s future. Ugly but honest.
Another number was on the selection panel – Higgs’s position is not clear but the other selectors voted to drop Jones.
Martyn was only one of several promising young players and renewal was a legitimate if harsh argument. The Waughs were four years younger than Jones and entering their peak years as he was exiting his. Damien Martyn, Justin Langer et cetera were another five years younger than the Waughs. Boon was the same age as Jones but his form was not an issue. Border was older still, but he was, well, Border. No-one at all was talking about dropping him. So, that really left one person.
My memories of Jones are not going to be wrapped up in the controversy. Selection is littered with dudded careers, politics, nepotism, poor judgement and bold acts of genius that launched a career.
My memories of Jones are of a very honest man with a difficult personality who was so open with Crash Cradock. A man beloved of his wife and children. A man who scored a lot of runs for a Test team in near-perpetual crisis during his prime years. A man who was not too scarred by the West Indies to tell a bowler to remove a wrist band that blended with the colour of the ball (red when they played Tests, white when they played one-dayers), a man who scored a brilliant and courageous 216 at Adelaide in 1989 against a rampaging West Indies (Malcolm Marshall, Patrick Patterson, Curtly Ambrose, Courtney Walsh) who wanted revenge for the loss in Sydney. In that innings he came in at 3-75.
One poster refers to better batsmen against the West Indies. Here are their scores: Ian Healy, 0; S Steve Waugh, 12; Mark Taylor, 3; David Boon, 34; Allan Border, 64. Each of these players were of genuine Test match quality. Healy is my favourite Australian wicketkeeper, Steve Waugh my favourite Australian batsman, Border a man whose qualities I revere. Taylor the greatest captain I have ever seen – yes, ahead of Mike Brearley – and Boon was an incomparable player. Numbers.
To characterise Jones’s record against the West Indies as ‘very poor’ does him a very poor service. It requires a dubious statistical sleight of hand. it smacks of a lack of grasp of how relentless the West Indies were. It shows a failure to grasp how terrifying their bowling onslaught was.
Did the selectors get the decision to end Jones’s Test career right? That will depend on what numbers you go by. At the time I felt sad for Jones. I felt Mark Waugh was very lucky. I felt Steve Waugh was even luckier. I thought the idea of renewal and judicious blooding of the right talent was justifiable.
The West Indies beat Australia 2-1. Martyn averaged 28 in four Tests, Steve Waugh 25 and Mark Waugh 37. Healy averaged 16. Mark Waugh aside, they all averaged less than Jones in his last series against the West Indies in the West Indies. I don’t know what their averages would be like if we ignored ‘dead Tests’, because it is a near pointless exercise.
But I do know that over time Martyn, Langer and Steve Waugh went on to more than fulfil their promise. I do know that Jones and the public were not given a proper explanation for his dropping despite there being an arguable case and that Jones was a superb player and a decent man.
That is more than numbers.
Boolla
Guest
All numbers arguments aside, it seems clear there is an unspoken agreement within the Australian playing and admin ranks not to 'talk out os school.' Jones was a singular character. A bit of an enigma like Herschell Gibbs. On his day, mind in the right place, confidence up, he was imperious and one of the best batsmen in the world. But we saw what happened as he stayed on in Victoria. Things ended badly. He put a lot of people offside. One suspects he did things the one way. It was acceptable in the Vics as he was head and shoulders above on talent. But in the bigger pond of the national team, his ego and abrasiveness likely rubbed some key officials and seniour players (Border...) the wrong way. Nobod vouched for him when the selectors were sharpening the knives. Who will ever know it it was fair or not. Dressing rooms contain some massive egos. They are not there to be nice blokes and best friends. They are there to win. Lillee was by all accounts an asshole. Chappels weren't cuddly. Who'd want to room with Boycott?
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
I rate Jones as a fundamentally fine player who had certain flaws. I have made this clear. All I have argued is that his record against the West Indies in non-dead tests was poor – show me the holes and bias there and note also in the process what Renato CARINI wrote below. In the 1992 world cup and 1992-93 wsc Jones also did not perform like the one day king of previous years. He was recalled in 1993-94 wsc and then he retired in early 1994 after also playing in the one day matches in saffie land. Talk about an argument full of holes and bias …
Rellum
Roar Guru
You dont rate Dean Jones, I get it. But your arguments are full of holes and bias. Jones was discarded about two years too early, especially in for the one day team. He had more to offer.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Your common sense is music to my ears. Those concluded matches were a win and a loss against NZ, a win and a loss against P and 6 losses and 2 wins against the WI, with both wins against WI dead rubbers. What those scores you provide mean is that he contributed next to nothing in the wins – bar the dead rubber 81 – and was also the worst of the non-performers in the losses. Why wouldn’t the selectors blood one of the numerous talented youngsters? A rookie like Damian Martyn might not do any better in his debut series (even though he did in Melbourne), but he could hardly do any worse, and then Jones at 34 would hardly have done what the Waughs did in Kingston 1995. The only exception to those numbers you provided was the century in each innings of the 2nd test v Pakistan at Adelaide 1989-90, which ensured Australia did not squander its 1-0 lead in the series. But that is only one (drawn) test (on a flat Adelaide track) alongside the 12 other tests from which those listed scores came from.
Renato CARINI
Roar Rookie
“Statistics can reinforce any argument” This is one of those those statements which relies on the reader being uneducated in the use of numerical data. A large, high quality data set can never be manipulated to 'reinforce any argument'. Typically, when one is attempting a numerical sleight of hand, they will use a small data set, or quote 'overall numbers'. In fact, whenever someone uses overall numbers, I understand that they are not to be taken seriously. In Test cricket, batsmen have so many opportunities to gorge themselves in soft conditions and therefore overall numbers are, in their nature, stripped of real meaning. As to the debate on Dean Jones, I think the numbers speak for themselves. Jones was the classic flat track bully, scoring heavily on docile wickets (Adelaide, Madras) and against the minnows, Sri Lanka (who in the 1980s where the Zimbabwe of world cricket). The strongest bowling teams from the period 1985-1992 were WI, P and NZ and Jones' record against these sides - in matches that were concluded - reads: 1, 11, 2, 38*, 3, 4, 28, 18, 29, 24*, 0, 10, 20, 0, 34, 3, 22, 37, 81, 8 402 at 22 with one score of 40 in 18 attempts This is the record of a bowler who can bat a little, like a Merv Hughes. Jones' place in the Australian team depended on the standard of the national side. In 1986, with Australian cricket at a nadir, he was a good and logical choice. However, by 1992, with Australia looking to dethrone the mighty WI, they needed high calibre players who could be relied upon in the toughest conditions. Jones was never that player.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Except selectors when the time finally came when they dared fancy our chances of actually beating the West Indies in a series, rather than merely the customary token consolation test win at the end of yet another fruitless series against them …
Rellum
Roar Guru
Stats can be always be shifted to suit who argument you want. I will tell you this though, there was not such this as a dead rubber back then. Especially against the Windies. We were desperate to get any victory we could. To dismiss runs in those days because they came in a "Dead Rubber" is nonsense. Dead rubbers were not part of anyone's thinking.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Also, you are bloating Jones’s stats on the 1991 tour of the West Indies. I haven’t added up his runs from the scoresheets of the 5 tests, but I do know he batted 9 times for 1 not out, so if he averaged 30, that means he scored 240 runs all up. 120 of those are his 81 in the final test – a dead rubber, and one of the mere two times that Jones passed 50 in a test against the West Indies, the other being the 216, also in a dead rubber – as well an unbeaten 39 in the second innings of the rain ruined 3rd test that was going nowhere at the time and already doomed to be a draw. Take out those 120 runs for once out, in the dead rubber as well as the doomed draw, then Jones averaged a mere 17 in the other 7 innings. These are the sorts of things selectors look at.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
In 5 tests v England in 1990-91, followed by 5 tests in the West Indies in 1991 followed by the first 4 tests v India 1991-92 Jones averaged 24 without a single ton – in 14 tests. This is the period he should have been peaking, and was in one day cricket. That 44 average v India was bloated by his unbeaten 150 in the final innings of the series in a dead rubber. Prior to that his series read 160 runs at 22.8. You are the one being intellectually dishonest not me. Steve Waugh’s selection was justified by his two 90s in the first two tests v west indies four years earlier and his 95 and 100 against the west indies for Australian XI prior to the first test in 1992-93. I would call no scores of 50 or more in 7 non-dead rubbers v West Indies as being somewhat out of your depth. The obnoxious quote is the one where you wrote that I have no grasp how relentless or terrifying the West Indies attack was. I grew up in the 1980s with the constant heart break of our national team not even being in the contest against them and know as well as anyone old enough at that time just how invincible they were. Come 1992-93, the selectors believed we could actually beat the west indies in a test series, and were not merely holding to a pipe dream that we could somehow even be vaguely competitive. However, to beat them in a series you need players who can perform before the series is actually decided. Jones had never done that, whereas both Waughs had to a certain degree, as had Border, Boon, and also Mark Taylor to a certain degree. Not to mention some of the batsmen of the 1980s.
Sinclair Whitbourne
Roar Rookie
Are you really being intellectually honest? 1990-91 v England Jones average 23 from 5 tests. M. Waugh average 62 from 2 tests replacing S. Waugh average 20 from 3. 1991 v West Indies Jones average 30 from 5 tests. Mark Waugh average 61 from 5. 1991-92 v India Jones averaged 44 from 5 tests. M. Waugh 13 from 4 tests. 1992 Sri Lanka Jones average 55 from 3 tests. M. Waugh 10 from 3 but of his 61 run aggregate, 56 came from one innings. If there is a form trajectory, it is interesting to compare Jones and Mark Waugh. Again, the problem is the numbers can be used to make a case either way. Picking Mark could be justified on his form against the West Indies in 1991, but not on his recent form. And if you want to look at form, numbers v the West Indies and your pretty obnoxious quote about being about of his depth, how was Steve Waugh's selection for the West Indies in 1992-93 justified on numbers? Steve Waugh averaged 25 in 5 tests in 1992-93, compared to the 'out of his depth' Jones average of 30 in 1991, when Steve Waugh averaged 16 from 3 tests. Numbers aren't the answer. Nor are torturing some statistics to create a dubious argument.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Langer was a natural number 3, Steve Waugh wasn’t. If Jones hadn’t broken his thumb prior to this test, he would have been brought back for the injured Martyn and Steve would no doubt have remained at 3. What previous form made it astounding? He had made 90s in first two tests against windies 4 years earlier as well as 95 and 100 in the recently completed Australian XI game against the tourists. Taylor was only carried for so long as the team kept winning under his leadership, when Taylor stopped making runs and the team started losing constantly in the one dayers, he was ruthlessly disposed off. JBenaud devotes a whole chapter to this in his book.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Where Dean Jones could be considered unlucky is that being legitimately left out of this series – or at least the start of it – coincided with the very beginning of the unprecedented deep well of young batting talent in the country. This included players such as Damian Martyn, Justin Langer, Greg Blewett, Darren Lehmann, Michael Bevan, Stuart Law, and the jewel that was Ricky Ponting. I will also include Martin Love, as I am always a little biased towards him, although I certainly don’t believe he should have debuted ahead of any of those players mentioned. I won’t include Elliot, Hayden and Slater in the Jones saga because they were openers. I will talk about Michael Hussey shortly. Jones, 31 at the time, as you have said was not the up and coming shooting star, but rather the veteran, and I won’t comment further here on how much he had or hadn’t underperformed and against who in the previous couple of years. At the time, as you have more or less said, the selectors did not have a policy of picking players of that age, or recalling them, especially when there was such a deep batting well of talent among the youth. Jamie Siddons was a particularly unlucky player who got ill on the tour of Pakistan in late 1988 and missed the start of the Australian season when they got home as a result, and then he got injured a couple of years later courtesy of a Merv Hughes bouncer when he (Siddons) was once again possibly close to test selection. Some regard him as the best Australian batsman never to play test cricket. By 1993, Siddons was 29, and that was considered old for a potential debutant at the time. Hussey changed all that, debuting at 30 in late 2005, and succeeding gloriously, but he was also fortunate that the aforementioned deep well of young batting talent had pretty much dried up. Through no fault of his own, the outstanding Hussey, unwittingly gave rise to a mis-guided change in selection policy when the selectors appeared to decide that if Hussey could do it so could others. What they overlooked is that other players subsequently given their first test cap when pushing or even beyond 30 didn’t have anywhere near Hussey’s class, and if, come 2005, the array of young batting stars on the rise in shield cricket had been as numerous as 10 or 12 years earlier, then Hussey may not have played any tests at all – more than likely in fact. I wonder if the selectors suddenly adopting such a radical change in selection policy, thanks to Hussey’s brilliance, perhaps had a demotivating factor for young batsmen around the shield scene over the subsequent decade or so? Obviously, state teams playing at full strength far less often with test stars these days is perhaps the biggest factor stifling potential test stars for Australia in contemporary times. Being the wrong side of 30 made it difficult for Jones to get back in against other future opponents once the West Indies series that summer was done and dusted, especially since the English attack in 1993 was so rubbish, the point here being that anyone selected for that tour could hardly fail. However, if Jones hadn’t performed so dismally in the previous two Australian home summers, as well as against the West Indies in non-dead test matches, then his spot in the team would never have been under scrutiny in the first place. I say that purely from a selectorial position with the benefit of hindsight, not to lambast Jones the person, as I never knew him personally. That 44 average you quoted for Jones in the previous summer against India is extremely bloated as it included an unbeaten 150 in the final test which was a dead rubber. Prior to that innings, Jones had made 160 runs for the series at an average of 22.8 with one half ton. Mark Waugh was dropped for that test, but Jones, without a ton for the previous 16 tests could easily have suffered the same fate. So here he was extremely fortunate.
Sinclair Whitbourne
Roar Rookie
Thanks for the comment All day... Back in the Dean Jones period I was working in a general legal practice and did some employment law. I wasn't a specialist. However, Jones would have been well outside the jurisdictional limit in those days. He could sue on his contract, but that exposed a player to costs orders if they lost. The courts have also been generally very cautious about intervening in matters of selection, although they did in England at the time of the Packer rebellion. However, giving no reasons leaves an employer much more exposed than giving some carefully chosen ones. Team balance and a desire to bring in new blood would be very hard to litigate. These are legitimate calls that selectors have to make and it can sometimes make for a tough call, as was the case with Jones. I think it would have been more intellectually honest and would have left Jones in little doubt that his prospects of busting back into the side were not good, given his age and what the selectors were looking for. I think a lot of the angst flows from people having a sense that the reasons being advanced (form) were a bit bogus, or were not the full picture and that Jones was done for but they just weren't saying it. As I have said, I think the selectors were entitled to make the call they did. I don't think it is clear it was the right call (or the wrong one). Martyn in 1992-93 averaged less than Jones in 1991, although his 60 odd in Melbourne was a very fine innings that played a big part in winning the test. Oz still lost the series in 1992-93, despite blooding some new players, at home, against a West Indies that was minus Richards and Greenidge and Marshall. On the other hand it was a side that now included Lara and the shooting star that was Keith Arthurton. It was a fantastic series to watch.
Trevor Lloyd
Guest
Thanks for a well considered article I am fromS Aust I think Dean Jones was treated deplorably I think the injustice concerns SWaugh who had been dropped the previous summer because he continually was caught in slips/gully He was brought into the team ,to bat at 3 ,as Benaud said to take on the WI quicks which given his previous form was astounding The Adelaide Test was a green top ,who batted at 3...? not Steve but first game Langer The Benaud factor Jones at 32 How long did they carry Taylor...?
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
After his excellent 1989 Ashes series, and his outstanding follow up home season, Jones should have been entering his peak then. Instead, his next 15 tests saw him average 24 without a solitary century. The only aberration was the pre-season tour to Sri Lanka in August/September 1992. Bob Simpson wrote in his 1996 book ‘The Reasons Why’ that “Deano kept finding new ways to get out” and another scribe once wrote of Jones “Time and time again, he would throw his wicket away when he had the bowling at his mercy – as if the devil had whispered in his ear that he could do the impossible.” I think both statements very accurately describe Jones in the home series of 1990-91 v England and 1991-92 v India. The 1991 series in between in the West Indies was probably more a case of him being out of his depth against that particular opposition.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Agree. Don’t think the selectors have a duty to be fully frank when it comes to personality issues. Also think the idea that Jones was getting past his prime at 32 was off beam. In the era of professional players in Australia, you are probably only hitting your peak around 32 - as Waugh, Hayden, Gilchrist, Ponting et al have shown.
Paul
Roar Guru
I remember as an adult I was completely miffed when Jones was dropped from the Test team. :happy:
Paul
Roar Guru
spot on Micko. I recall reading about Clem Hill in the 1890's fighting a selector. The only difference was, they wanted to sack him but he was simply way too good! :happy:
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
Another argument is a player can improve against an opponent. Others might get worse. S R Waugh two greatest innings were against the West Indies. His 90 at swift old Brissie (no.4) and 91 at swifter old Perth (no 6) in 88/89. He got a 40 (and maybe a 26?) on a terrible Melbourne track and 55* in Syd. Yet his stint at 3 in 92/93 was torturous at times, particularly lucky not to have his 100 at Sydney terminated at 50, when he appeared plumb lbw. Despite undoubted and proven courage the WI were after him. No doubt he was wanted for his character as much as his productivity. Clearly a selector strategy. Although he did have to prove it getting 95 and 100* vs WI in the Aus XI match at Hobart*. That's the thing with cricket, no matter how good you are or how bad you are going, things can turn in an instant. For Jonesy, despite his ordinary record against WI, the reasonable expectation of nearly everyone but the selectors was that he would play in the next series. As for J Benaud's explanation, my recollection was the media reporting it was lack of cricket leading up to the series, not lack of live rubber runs against the WIs. *Jones wasn't selected for this match, that didn't clash with a Vic Shield fixture, even though he was supposed to be in lack of cricket.
Micko
Roar Rookie
Unfortunately not poor Stuart Law. :unhappy: