So an example from over 40 years ago is the best you have got to justify your ‘point’. Just admit it. Your dislike for Warner makes you look for things to be offended by if he does them. You expect him to drop himself from the side when nobody else is expected to do the same.
Players play. Selectors select. That’s how the system works. I know it’s tricky to get your head around. Players may, due to injury or more recently mental health, remove themselves from the mix but that’s not the same as what you expected from Warner.

Not for those who consider the spirit of the game as important as the laws. You can think differently but Warner wasn’t the sole person responsible for what happened in South Africa. What happened to your not using the lowest common denominator regarding Bancroft and Smith’s roles. Doesn’t seem consistent. I personally, think less of all three of them. I also lost some respect for Greg Chappell in 1981, despite him being my childhood idol.

Some? You mention one player, who was the captain and from 45 years ago. Harris wasn’t stepping down despite his poor form and would have played all 5 tests if selectors allowed him to. The selectors could have dropped Warner but didn’t, so aren’t they blame for Australia not winning the Ashes, as much as Warner is. I guess Haters just gotta hate. Should Warner have been dropped. I believe so, but in reality that’s the selectors job, not the player’s. Well if the past 44 years can be used as a guide…

When was the last time a player stepped down from the Australian test side, without action from selectors?
You are clutching at long straws to try and hide your obvious dislike for Warner. Did Harris, Bancroft or Khawaja step down because their performances were hurting the team? Why are you not condemning them? Their selfishness is ok because the selectors dropped them, apparently.

I need to clarify that I am not a fan of Warner, Bancroft or Steve Smith because of their respective involvement in the South African drama. Warner alone has significant history of boorish behaviour, outside of the ball tampering saga, making him a far easier target and much less likeable. However, our 140 years of moral high ground in the test arena, would still be intact if either Bancroft had refused to comply with architect Warner’s plans or Smith had stood up as captain off the field and taken charge of his players, rather than washing his hands and doing his best ostrich impersonation.
It is very noticeable that the reverse swing our quicks were regularly getting prior to “Sandpapergate” is yet to return to their armoury. I wonder why? We can have that discussion another day.
Many fans wont forget their actions though and will hold them in far less regard accordingly.

So, now it’s all Warner’s fault for not retiring before passing Bradman’s score? Or do you still blame Tim Paine for not declaring? Is it also Warner’s fault for not dropping himself before the 5th test? Surely, the selectors make that call, don’t they?

Are you suggesting the Underarm delivery was a moral victory for Australian cricket? Interesting! The underarm delivery was within the existing laws of the game, so well done GS Chappell for knowing that. It certainly was not within the spirit of the game. So much so, the laws were changed expediently to prevent another low weak act from a fielding captain under pressure.
The only positive for cricket coming from that day in Feb ’81, was a nation’s public that worshipped Rugby Union and barely cared for cricket became galvanised around their national cricket team. Chappell’s decision that day did more for New Zealand in 5 minutes than any actions by NZ cricket admin had done in 25 years. (According to Jeremy Coney, a player later to be a NZ captain)

Hopefully, Bailey’s appointment will bring some improved communication from selectors to players regarding just where they are in the selection panel’s mind. Like Langer, he has spoken about the currency of runs and wickets, which, if followed, brings a natural transparency to selections. There will always be players that show a special something, grabbing the eye of selectors. “Elite honesty” from selectors would be most appreciated. Example A- we needed to strengthen our batting depth, and despite moderate returns this shield season, after a few red wines, “player x” looked a good pick. Example B- we were really jet-lagged when we discussed the concussion replacement batsmen in the squad so we figured someone averaged 9 this summer in shield would be the go.

Please Jeff. Don’t try and let details get in the way of the moral outrage at Dave Warner.
Thankfully, “Underarm” took place in One Day cricket so our moral high ground remained completely intact after Greg Chappell’s mental unravelling in 1981.

Its been far too long since Australia have had a fair quota of mullets and flanno shirts in the test squad.

Perhaps Big Daddy is speaking on behalf of New Zealand cricket fans?

I hope you were just as disgusted with Steve Waugh and, to a lesser extent, Matthew Hayden in 2003 when Haydos clearly thought little about respecting Bradman’s magic mark. You, no doubt, blamed captain Steve Waugh for allowing such a travesty of disrespect to take place.

You can think what you like about the declaration and any fictional disrespect. You never miss an opportunity to air your dislike for Tim Paine.
It would have made little difference when Paine declared. Whether after Warner reaching 300, or a possible 400, or after passing Bradman and Taylor’s mark, you would have still found a reason to take offence at Paine’s decision.

Add Matthew Hayden to that list. Only averaged 34.5 in England, while averaging 56.8 against the same bowlers on home soil.

During the days of WSC when Bob Simpson returned to help us in our hour of need, he batted in the middle order. At age 42, a wonderful home series against India where he scored 2 hundreds and 2 half centuries was followed by a tougher away series in the Caribbean. That West Indies side was full strength for the first 3 tests, after which the WSC contracted players were ineligible to play. The footage of Simpson, long before helmets, facing Wes Hall should be mandatory viewing for all batsmen wanting to learn how to safely play hostile fast bowling. An absolute legend!

Matthew Hayden’s career benefitted greatly from the selectors telling him he had the first three tests of the 2000/01 home series against West Indies. No big scores (thanks to a couple of runouts with Slater) but enough runs to finally believe that he belonged at test level. Hayden had been averaging 50 in shield and county cricket for years, had already scored a test hundred in Adelaide, yet never felt he belonged until this series. What chance does a young batsman averaging 40 in domestic cricket have of believing they belong without selectors backing them for at least a few tests?

The English bowling in Bancroft’s debut series was far from world class, apart from one or two spells from Jimmy Anderson. The English bowlers overall that series were ordinary, at best. It was a series where six of our top seven averaged over 45. The only players who didn’t were Handscomb, dropped averaging 20 after 2 tests and Bancroft, playing the entire series to average 25. 82* in one good innings at the Gabba, followed by 92 runs from six innings. Apparently averaging 15 from your last six innings keeps your spot safe for the next series … for some. Looks good for Marnus this summer, doesn’t it?

Apparently, for a test batting spot in modern Australian cricket, you ability to field well at short leg is far more vital than runs you look likely to score. I know it sounds a little silly, but it wasn’t that long ago, we dropped a decent wicketkeeper, not for a better keeper or even a better batsman/keeper, but for a louder mouth… Go figure!

To be fair, I am not a Finch fan in the longer format but I can understand the concept that if any pitches offered Aaron Finch an opportunity to succeed as a test opener, it was the UAE pitches. I am not sure how any selector could really think Finch would continue his success opening at home. Fairy tale mentality, but that aligns well with the selectors method regarding the Mitch Marsh Project for large chunks of his test career. Having said that, its not all Justin Langer. Before JL, Rod Marsh, Greg Chappell, Darren Lehmann and Trevor Hohns have all shown a keen willingness to ignore proven performance and pick on promise or potential, on little more than a whim. Langer merely follows that trend, but maybe he will get lucky with Marnus?

Yes, he has had a run of low scores, but that can happen. A bigger concern for me is his history of concussions, meaning he may have some trouble against the short stuff. His dismissal in the Australia A game was from a good pill but not the treacherous delivery his shot made it appear to be. Too early to be in the running for a test spot, in my opinion, but I can understand why some people have him in the mix. Happy to give him time and see where his future takes him. Jason Sangha is another young player with big raps. I am not sure the media hype does these young players any favours, but it does flag players to keep an eye on, I guess.

Fair points but as I said, his ability to go big when set makes him a brighter prospect than most of the young hopefuls. As for his century on the St Kilda road, I hadn’t counted it as a big hundred given it was a mere 123. Not many 21 year olds have put such big numbers on the scoreboard, so it should be easily understandable why he has some focus on him. As for his inconsistency, it is something he needs to improve, but the same can be said for 99.5% of batsmen currently playing domestic cricket.

That’s why Paine is picked as a keeper, not a top order batsman. I know its hard for some to understand but keeping is an important role. Runs they score are far less of a factor unless wicket keeping ability is equal. I haven’t heard any sane person suggest Wade and Paine are on par with the keeping gloves.

Sorry Wayne, but any credibility you may have had was lost the moment you said you would rather see Finch open…
He simply is not a red ball opener. even his state side have recognised that and moved him down the order to strengthen their batting. He did well opening in the UAE but those pitches on day one are like batting on a concrete pitch, or a short format wicket, offering the quicks absolutely nothing. That’s really what Finch needs to make a score.

I think the spotlight on Pucovski is largely due to his ability to make big hundreds. That sets him apart from most. Shield scores of 188 and 243 and 207* in a U23 championship in the last 18 months alone, should have people watching him.

Funny how for decades we used the number six batting spot for that very thing. Allowing young stars to find their feet at the highest level. Some of our great test batsmen from the past 40 years, served their apprenticeship down the order early in their career. In recent years, our selectors’ obsession with a test allrounder hasn’t allowed our young batsmen that luxury.