Matt Renshaw needs a bold move to get back in the green and gold

Bradman’s average against England in 37 tests was 89 and take out the bodyline series it rises to about 93. Against those other three countries combined it is 140 … the 89 is still clear of Voges and he’s (Voges) not really a good example anyway. Yeah like I said, I don’t set out to belittle Jones and I happily acknowledge his achievements and indeed I was a huge fan of his when he was playing. At the time of his test axing I didn’t understand it and I was incensed but years later having looking deeply into the numbers, as well as having read a book written by a selector at the time who devotes a whole chapter to it there can be no disputing that it was a fair call by the selectors. And it wasn’t their intention then and there to end his test career, it’s just how it panned out due to the abundance of young batting talent emerging as well as a winter series immediately after against a very weak England attack – once no place could be found for Jones on that tour, that was inevitably it as nobody selected was going to fail there. Also, I know some draws are special, but lots aren’t. The twin tons one against Pakistan was, however the double ton against the west indies wasn’t. A draw to preserve a series lead is a lot more meaningful than a draw when the series is already long since won or lost.

Sorry Jeff’ I wasn’t actually targeting you even if it does seem that way … I was subtly aiming at Chris (knowing he would read it) as he annoyed me big time elsewhere by mouthing off and constantly arguing about something he knows nothing about. Cheers mate. PS Sadly I am spending an unhealthy amount of time on the roar given I am low on work due to this whole covid stuff.

I think "roads" is a bit over an overstatement. Those tracks looked a bit green to me and watching Green bowling, he was quite troubling for the batsmen, getting pace and lift.

It’s interesting that 10 of Bradman’s 29 tons came from just 3 series against those 3 countries.

Geez Bernie, I'm not sitting on the Roar 24/7! At least not when a Test series isn't on. Being on the west coast there is a time difference to negotiate too! Not sure what evidence you are chasing from me. I gave some examples of his performances in non-won/lost Tests, that's all. I think outstanding performances in draws can be very meaningful; AB built part of his reputation on saving Australia from defeats on many occasions. Can always run the same argument with Bradman. He averaged 99.94, but take his scores against the lesser teams of the time and he drops close to Adam Voges territory! - 223 & 152 v Windies 30/31 - 6 innings total -226, 112, 167, 299* v SAF 31/32 - 5 innings - 185, 132, 127*, 201, 57* v India 47/48 - 6 innings Arguably Bradman wasn't the same player post WWII, but his stats v India in 47/48 (one of his three series post WWII up to retirement), count.

Please answer me Jeff don't give me the silent treatment ... either say "No I can't" and then that's the end of it or say "Yes yes yes I can" and then show me your evidence.

So Jeff, with all due respect, can you come up with a more thorough examination to invalidate anything I say? It’s a pretty certain bet Chris Kettlewell can’t.

That's what all batsmen like to say ... especially the lower down the grades you go ...lol

Nor should one decent test series after two years of poor form necessarily save you from being dropped but try telling Dean Jones lost causers like Chris Kettlewell that ...

No it hasnt, one hundred doesnt suddenly vault you back into the test squad after 2 years of poor form. Since his County Cricket stint in 2018, his form has been terrible, averaging well under 30. This hundred certainly puts his name above some others and reminds the selectors he is still capable. If he can peel off 3-4 hundreds in the second half of the shield season, he will certainly be on in the test squad against South Africa for March/April

On Roads.....Bancroft has flopped once again, utter trash

Yep Hobart is a green monster day 1, Day 2/3 become very good to bat on

If you cant rotate the strike and are constantly bogged down, putting undue pressure on your teammates to score, you're out of your depth. Doesnt mean he doesnt have the ability or the talent, but just a better technical game or mindset to allow him to score more freely. S/R under 40 isnt acceptable unless you're South Australia and your batting lineup is brittle

And I have not twisted any stats, but rather have merely analysed them deeply the very same way selectors do. He had some fine success at times in test cricket but he was not hard done by to be left out of the 1992-93 home series because his record against the west indies in non-dead rubbers was pitiful and they were out to actually win the series this time. Obviously from late 1986 until early to mid 1991 he was indisputably our best one day batsman.

But I’m sorry Jeff that double ton v west indies had no meaning other than booking him a trip to England in 1989 where he did, as we both agree perform outstandingly (as did the rest of our batsmen). A mere 28 wickets fell across 5 full days for some 1400 runs and even merv Hughes could have scored a ton had he not run out of partners. It was a typical flat Adelaide pitch for the era and it was the end of a long and exhausting all conquering tour for the windies. It was also a dead rubber. From Jan 1981 until Jan 1991 inclusive, Adelaide saw only 3 results in 11 tests and two of them were by the all conquering west indies in games that still had a bearing on the series.

Whoa Jeff slow down slow down … I am not excluding any of those things – well not all of them anyway. I have also not said that he wasn’t a fine player for a time. He was a legitimate part of the renaissance of Australian cricket as a world force. I am not down playing any of his genuine achievements. What I am saying is that for almost the entire two years prior to his axing he had performed abysmally in test cricket. And properly analyzing stats bears that out. From March 1990 until end of January 1992 he went 15 tests without a ton and averaged 24 in this period. His overall average dropped from 51 to 43 in this period. He was aged 28 to 30 in this period and he should have been peaking. His average should have been rising to the same degree it dropped. People blindly point to an average of 46 when he was dropped but it should have been 56 given that the aforementioned period should have been his great years. The 2nd innings near meaningless 150 not out in final test (and dead rubber) v India February 1992 actually account for 2 of the 3 run rise on his average from the aforementioned 43 back to 46. He had one excellent series against England, one that was reasonably good and one that was dismal, which was the one in that two yesr period I am talking about. Yes his twin tons in Adelaide against Pakistan was surely his finest hour and that was prior to the two year period I cited. The point stands about non-performing in result tests against the three best attacks over his whole career.

Hmm, I'm not going to go through all the innings, but on quick examination it seems you are being rather selective to make a point. You exclude Drawn Tests: - 2nd Test v Pakistan 1990 (Adelaide): Jones saved Australia with his unbeaten ton in the second innings, which followed his ton in the *first* innings. So it's mischievous to discount those contributions. It would have been a loss without him. - 5th Test v West Indies 1988 (Adelaide): If Jones hadn't scored his double century in the first innings, Australia wouldn't have been in the position to declare in the 2nd innings and push for a victory (a rare opportunity against the West Indies in that era), hardly Jones' fault the Australian bowlers couldn't get the job done and finish off the job. I also think it's a bit rich to exclude his two centuries on tour in the '89 Ashes. To say it his performances against England aren't worthy of inclusion...because it was against England...completely undermines what is one of the greatest series wins by an Australian team. Stats can be twisted any which way if you choose to do so to prove a particular narrative.

Thank you roar. Was gobsmacked that my reply was censored in the first place.

Two hundreds and two 50s in his last two tests? Really Chris? You need to at least check the scorecards before making such an false and foolish claim. The reality is that the series in Sri Lanka was his first even remotely decent series for nearly three years – again, check the scoresheets for the one off test v NZ March 1990, the home summers of 1990-91 and 91-92 as well as the series in the West Indies 1991 before you make any foolish argument to the contrary. He also never once reached 50 in a non-dead rubber against the West Indies (7 out of his 10 tests against them) and don’t bother clutching at straws with the old ‘not too many others at that time’ et el because that is also easily debunked. The three best attacks of his time were the West Indies, Pakistan and New Zealand when they had Hadlee in the attack and in 10 decided tests against these three teams Jones’s scores were: 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 (81) and that was in – yes you guessed it – a DEAD RUBBER!! This is the record of a bowler who can bat a little, like a Merv Hughes. The untold story those numbers actually tell is that in tests against the best attacks that had results, Jones was a non-contributor in the wins and the worst of the non-performers in the losses.

If Heazlett doesn't get a go for the rest of the season you would think he might start to looking elsewhere for opportunities. Would walk in to the SA side at the moment.