From: mikef@dph1.health.su.OZ.AU
Subject: Reasons why Dean Jones was dropped
Originator: mikef@dph1
Organization: Dept Public Health, Sydney University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:36:09 GMT

In article <del.726805200@hawk> del@hawk.adied.oz.au (D Elson) writes:
>rajagopa@charlie.ece.scarolina.edu (Sundararaman Rajagopal) writes:
>
>>Hi netters
>
>>I was recently going through an issue of The Cricketer" in which there were 
>>reviews of the recently concluded test series between Australia and Srilanka.
>>Dean Jones apart from Greg Mathews was the main stay of the australian batting
>>in most of the matches(including the test matches) and infact saved the Austra>>lian team in the second test by scoring a century.
>
>>I am wondering why he has been dropped from the test team for the current seriesagainst the WestIndies. did he fail so badly in the domestic matches or did th

..stuff deleted..

>Poor performance in the domestic early season matches, combined with
>some good performances from the likes of Hayden, Martyn, etc.

It is true he did not have good early form, but he (unlike other test
candidates) had few opportunities. Before the first test Jones had only 3
first class innings, scoring 24 runs at an average of 8. In comparison,
Damien Martyn had about 8 first class innings and had scored in excess of
500 runs. This situation worsened before the start of the second test,
with Jones still having had only 3 innings.

There were several causes. Bad match scheduling at the beginning of the
season. This is a common occurrence in Australia, with one state always
having few opportunities before the 1st test. In the past it has usually
been Tasmania, since they have had only one test candidate in Boon. It was
quite silly to disadvantage Victoria this season since they had several
genuine contenders in Jones, Hughes, Warne, Dodemaide, Reiffel and
Phillips. Secondly, bad weather affected the early matches that Victoria
did have scheduled to worsen things. Thirdly, the Australian selectors, IMHO
made a serious error in not choosing Jones for the AUSXI v WI match in
Hobart. They realised that Hughes needed match practice and chose him, but
did not select Jones.

Therefore, I think Jones must be regarded as being unlucky this season.
However, there was also a strong feeling that Jones has not performed when
it most matters in recent test series, ie in the early tests. Instead, it
has been claimed that his recent big scores have come in "dead" tests. This
would seem to be true in both of Australia's recent major series against
India last year and the West Indies prior to that.  

I suppose Jones' dropping was justified, certainly room needed to be made
for Martyn who was in outstanding early form, and there was a better case
to drop Jones as opposed to any other player. I'm sure Jones will be a key
player in the future though, he must be a certainty to tour both NZ and
England.
 
Furthermore, one must be a little cynical when one considers how
the selectors have retained Jones for the OD games thereby depriving him of
the very opportunities he needs to make claim to a test spot. We have
already seen that this kind of player treatment has severely hampered the
test careers of 2 players, namely Wayne Phillips (of SA) in the 1980's, and
recently Tom Moody.
-- 
__
Michael Fahey         | Internet: mikef@dph1.health.su.oz.au
Dept of Public Health | UUCP: uunet!munnari.oz.au!dph1.health.su!mikef
University of Sydney  | Bitnet: mikef%dph1.health.su.oz.au@cunyvm.bitnet