Deano Jones was a tremendous character in the game. I miss him a lot since he left us way too young. RIP Deano.

The larger than shownman cricket analyst and animated, lively,entertaining and comedy commentator. RIP Dean Jones you have been missed.

One of the best cricket interviews I have ever seen.

@Bernie8330

Ай бұрын

Not entirely accurate though: Jones was justifiably dropped from the test team because he couldn't cut it against the big boys of his era (in test cricket). He was also, at 35, not in any way better value at Number 3 than the emerging Ricky Ponting in the 1996 world cup.

RIP. A real gentleman - badly mistreated by ACB - initiation by Ray Bright and Marsh speaks volumes as to THEIR character. That sort of stuff was never acceptable except in the Chappell area. Deano played cricket in the right spirit - entertaining and wonderful to watch.

@Bernie8330

3 ай бұрын

Jones was NOT badly treated by the ACB at all. In 16 non-dead rubber tests against West Indies, Pakistan and Hadlee, he reached 50 in just one of them - just ONE. He was a flat track bully who attained a meaningless average of 46 by beating up on the weaker teams and in nothing situations such as high scoring draws, and 3rd innings with team already assured of victory (v SL in Hobart 1989-90 and v IND in Perth 1991-92, for example). He wasn't called 'Dead Rubber Deano' for nothing.

@andrewmaroc113

3 ай бұрын

You are the only one who has labelled him that. Has anybody else heard this stupid label ? I have never heard such rubbish. Deano was a great player that's reflected in both his figures and the accolades.@@Bernie8330

@davidgeisler9885

14 күн бұрын

@@Bernie8330that actually was the reason he eventually lost his test spot, just couldn’t count on him against quality bowling in important early tests of a series

Top man DEAN MERVYN JONES.Huge here in India.The way he played with fast hands ,quick feet and the manner of his running between wickets like a startled hare on skates! Regular on a million plus tv shows. RIP.

@Bernie8330

3 ай бұрын

India were a shit team in 1986 - almost as shit as we were at the time. He was not our stand out star in the 1987 world cup victory either. So, I don't know why he would be so huge in India.

He and Sir Viv Richards changed the style of One day Cricket by attacking fast bowlers. ❤😢

He was ahead of his time in ODI cricket

Deanno, you are missed.

Australia treated him badly. A geat player who English bowlers feared but respected. RIP

RIP legend ❣

Deanos omission from the test team has never been explained. Something mysterious there.

@davidgeisler9885

14 күн бұрын

There is an explanation on the net of you look. Written by John Benaud. The reasoning was they were tired of him only making big scores once test series were over. He’d go missing in the early tests then finish off with huge scores in dead runners at the end.

@Bernie8330

14 күн бұрын

@@davidgeisler9885 The best example of that is the 1991-92 home series against India: in the first 4 tests plus the first innings of the 5th and final test, Jones scored 160 runs in 7 innings passing 50 only once, 59 in the second test. In the pivotal first innings of that 5th test, Jones contributed 7 in Australila securing a first innings lead of 72, which was already decisive in the conditions. On the fast, bouncy Perth track, against a four pronged pace attack, the Indian batting line up never had any hope of even reaching 200 in the 4th innings - entering at 2 for +104, Jones went to stumps on 3rd day on 32 with the real score now 2 for +178. Jones being out first ball next day to spark a 'collapse' of 8 for 71 would still have seen India with a doomed target of 250 under the circumstances - they got skittled for 141 when they batted again. Jones used this completely pressure less situation to accumulate 150 not out against a pop gun attack (Kapil Dev was jaded by this point having carried the Indian attack through the series) which left him on 310 runs for 7 times out in the series, and the resultant precious average of 44 gave the severe distortion of him having had a 'pretty good series'. Innings like this 150 not out do not increase a team's chances of winning one little bit, all they do is increase the margin of an already certain victory.

@Bernie8330

14 күн бұрын

@@davidgeisler9885 I really appreciate your common sense, it is not that common when it comes to Dean Jones - the lost causers far outnumber those such as You and I. This is a little something I keep on file for when needed - I am not sure if I have posted it on this video yet or not. Any sarcasm towards the end is not directed at you, as it is a generic composition … Dean Jones played 15 tests against minnows India, Sri Lanka and New Zealand, the third of those in a once off on a Perth featherbed in 1989-90 with Richard Hadlee missing from the attack. His average in these games was 62.7. Apart from Kapil Dev, these were club standard attacks, as was the England attack in 1989 against whom he averaged 70.8 in 6 tests. Against stronger England attacks at home in Australia in 1986-87, 87-88 and 1990, in 11 tests he averaged 41.9. His 56.8 average in the 1986-87 Ashes summer, when he was riding the crest of an early career wave, was bloated by his 184 not out in the Sydney dead rubber. While this was an outstanding match winning innings in an isolated context, remove it, as well as the second innings 30, and his average when the series was actually alive was a less flattering 37.1. Jones played 20 tests against the big boys of his era i.e., West Indies, Pakistan and New Zealand with Richard Hadlee leading the attack. Three of these were dead rubbers, one of them a completely meaningless high scoring draw on a pitch flat enough that Merv Hughes, with a previous test high of 16, was able to score 72 unconquered, the two first innings totaled 885 combined, and neither side’s bowlers were able to snare more than 14 wickets across five full days, or more than 4 opposition second innings wickets. One of the 17 ‘live’ tests i.e., when it actually mattered, was rain-ruined with Jones not batting. In the other 16, he reached 50 in just 1 of them - a mere 1 in 16! These were his scores: 1984 in West Indies 48, 5, 1, 11 1987-88 v Hadlee 2, 38 no, 0, 4, 8 Note: the 38 not out was in mopping up a mere 97 for victory from 1 for 39 i.e., absolute zero pressure with Hadlee saving himself for the next test 1988 in Pakistan 3, 4, 16, 21 no, 0, 0 Note: the 21 not out was at the back end of a small declaration in a push for victory when Australia were already in control of the game. 1988-89 v West Indies 28, 18 1989-90 v Pakistan 0, 10, 116, 121 no 1990 in NZ v Hadlee again 20, 0 1991 in West Indies 0, 34, 3, 21, 39 no, 22, 37 Note: the 39 not out was scored when the match was already a doomed draw when he went in Leaving out the 1989-90 outlier v Pakistan in Adelaide, this equates to 314 runs in 28 innings at an average of 12.6 with every single score below 40. Even re-including those twin centuries, this only raises the average to 19.7. To get the numbers for result tests, we need to include his 81 and 4 in the dead rubber 1991 test in Antigua, as well as his 24 and 29 not out in Sydney 1988-89, and then it becomes 337 runs in 20 innings at an average of 18.7 with just 1 solitary half century - just ONE! In result tests when series were still alive it is 199 runs in 16 innings at 13.3 with a big fat ZERO half centuries. These are not the proper numbers of a batsman who has been supposedly hard done by at the selection table. What these numbers demonstrate is that against the big boys of his era, Jones was a massive liability to the extent that he was a complete non-contributor in wins, bar one dead rubber, and the worst of the non-performers in losses when it actually mattered. Footnote: the only test that was neither a result test, nor a ‘live’ one was … yes, you guessed it, none other than Adelaide 1988-89!!!

@davidgeisler9885

13 күн бұрын

@@Bernie8330 even in this interview Dean acknowledges that at this time Australia were close to being the best side in the world and there was a line up of young batting talent lining up for a go. The selectors had turfed Geoff Marsh a few months earlier and then unfortunately it was Deano's turn.

Dean was the best thing that happened to one day cricket. Ridiculous there was no obvious reason to drop him from test cricket. Sadly missed.

@Bernie8330

3 ай бұрын

Boy oh boy, clueless idiotic comments like that really piss me off. The following gives some very clear reasons why he was rightly culled from the test team at precisely the right time for the continued advancemet of Australia's Number 1 aspirations. This is a special little something I keep on file for every Dean Jones lost causer that rears their ignorant head to save me having to rewrite it every time. Enjoy … Dean Jones played 15 tests against minnows India, Sri Lanka and New Zealand, the third of those in a once off on a Perth featherbed in 1989-90 with Richard Hadlee missing from the attack. His average in these games was 62.7. Apart from Kapil Dev, these were club standard attacks, as was the England attack in 1989 against whom he averaged 70.8 in 6 tests. Against stronger England attacks at home in Australia in 1986-87, 87-88 and 1990, in 11 tests he averaged 41.9. His 56.8 average in the 1986-87 Ashes summer, when he was riding the crest of an early career wave, was bloated by his 184 not out in the Sydney dead rubber. While this was an outstanding match winning innings in an isolated context, remove it, as well as the second innings 30, and his average when the series was actually alive was a less flattering 37.1. Jones played 20 tests against the big boys of his era i.e., West Indies, Pakistan and New Zealand with Richard Hadlee leading the attack. Three of these were dead rubbers, one of them a completely meaningless high scoring draw on a pitch flat enough that Merv Hughes, with a previous test high of 16, was able to score 72 unconquered, the two first innings totaled 885 combined, and neither side’s bowlers were able to snare more than 14 wickets across five full days, or more than 4 opposition second innings wickets. One of the 17 ‘live’ tests i.e., when it actually mattered, was rain-ruined with Jones not batting. In the other 16, he reached 50 in just 1 of them - a mere 1 in 16! These were his scores: 1984 in West Indies 48, 5, 1, 11 1987-88 v Hadlee 2, 38 no, 0, 4, 8 Note: the 38 not out was in mopping up a mere 97 for victory from 1 for 39 i.e., absolute zero pressure with Hadlee saving himself for the next test 1988 in Pakistan 3, 4, 16, 21 no, 0, 0 Note: the 21 not out was at the back end of a small declaration in a push for victory when Australia were already in control of the game. 1988-89 v West Indies 28, 18 1989-90 v Pakistan 0, 10, 116, 121 no 1990 in NZ v Hadlee again 20, 0 1991 in West Indies 0, 34, 3, 21, 39 no, 22, 37 Note: the 39 not out was scored when the match was already a doomed draw when he went in Leaving out the 1989-90 outlier v Pakistan in Adelaide, this equates to 314 runs in 28 innings at an average of 12.6 with every single score below 40. Even re-including those twin centuries, this only raises the average to 19.7. To get the numbers for result tests, we need to include his 81 and 4 in the dead rubber 1991 test in Antigua, as well as his 24 and 29 not out in Sydney 1988-89, and then it becomes 337 runs in 20 innings at an average of 18.7 with just 1 solitary half century - just ONE! In result tests when series were still alive it is 199 runs in 16 innings at 13.3 with a big fat ZERO half centuries. These are not the proper numbers of a batsman who has been supposedly hard done by at the selection table. Don’t bother claiming these stats are cherry picked because I have included every single innings he played against those three top teams. What these numbers demonstrate is that against the big boys of his era, Jones was a massive liability to the extent that he was a complete non-contributor in wins, bar one dead rubber, and the worst of the non-performers in losses when it actually mattered. Care to argue away against such unimpeachable numbers? Footnote: the only test that was neither a result test, nor a ‘live’ one was … yes, you guessed it, none other than Adelaide 1988-89!!!

@joecolvin3617

2 ай бұрын

Ok who's better DAMIEN MARTIN

@Bernie8330

Ай бұрын

@@joecolvin3617 Damien Martyn was an obvious choice to replace Jones in the test team for the then upcoming home summer against the mighty West Indies. If you are talking one day cricket, I am not sure whether I would rate Jones higher than Martyn or not, I would have to look into Martyn's record at chasing. In any case, there are at least six (6) Australian batsmen superior to Jones in one day cricket.

@joecolvin3617

Ай бұрын

@@Bernie8330 chill out I loved him

@Bernie8330

Ай бұрын

@@joecolvin3617 You can love him as much as you like, in fact you can love whoever you like, but just don't make ridiculous claims that he was hard done by to be dropped from the test team when he was or that he is Australia's best ever ODI batsman. Neither claim could be further wide of the mark. Not saying you have made either claim, not saying you haven't (elsewhere) but multitudes of clueless types have made both claims and refuse to budge in the face of overwhelming evidence. I am totally chilled.

Love ya Deano RIP Legend

Interestingly it must have been competitive with having the likes of Mark and Steve Waugh and David Boon to fight for positions in that Australian batting order in the mid nineties....it must have been a challenging decision to leave him out averaging in the fifties with 52 tests....would have been interesting if He got another 48 tests...

@Bernie8330

3 ай бұрын

You are clueless. Firstly, averages don't mean Jack Shit, and Secondly, it was 46 not 'in the fifties' in any case. Enjoy .... Dean Jones played 15 tests against minnows India, Sri Lanka and New Zealand, the third of those in a once off on a Perth featherbed in 1989-90 with Richard Hadlee missing from the attack. His average in these games was 62.7. Apart from Kapil Dev, these were club standard attacks, as was the England attack in 1989 against whom he averaged 70.8 in 6 tests. Against stronger England attacks at home in Australia in 1986-87, 87-88 and 1990, in 11 tests he averaged 41.9. His 56.8 average in the 1986-87 Ashes summer, when he was riding the crest of an early career wave, was bloated by his 184 not out in the Sydney dead rubber. While this was an outstanding match winning innings in an isolated context, remove it, as well as the second innings 30, and his average when the series was actually alive was a less flattering 37.1. Jones played 20 tests against the big boys of his era i.e., West Indies, Pakistan and New Zealand with Richard Hadlee leading the attack. Three of these were dead rubbers, one of them a completely meaningless high scoring draw on a pitch flat enough that Merv Hughes, with a previous test high of 16, was able to score 72 unconquered, the two first innings totaled 885 combined, and neither side’s bowlers were able to snare more than 14 wickets across five full days, or more than 4 opposition second innings wickets. One of the 17 ‘live’ tests i.e., when it actually mattered, was rain-ruined with Jones not batting. In the other 16, he reached 50 in just 1 of them - a mere 1 in 16! These were his scores: 1984 in West Indies 48, 5, 1, 11 1987-88 v Hadlee 2, 38 no, 0, 4, 8 Note: the 38 not out was in mopping up a mere 97 for victory from 1 for 39 i.e., absolute zero pressure with Hadlee saving himself for the next test 1988 in Pakistan 3, 4, 16, 21 no, 0, 0 Note: the 21 not out was at the back end of a small declaration in a push for victory when Australia were already in control of the game. 1988-89 v West Indies 28, 18 1989-90 v Pakistan 0, 10, 116, 121 no 1990 in NZ v Hadlee again 20, 0 1991 in West Indies 0, 34, 3, 21, 39 no, 22, 37 Note: the 39 not out was scored when the match was already a doomed draw when he went in Leaving out the 1989-90 outlier v Pakistan in Adelaide, this equates to 314 runs in 28 innings at an average of 12.6 with every single score below 40. Even re-including those twin centuries, this only raises the average to 19.7. To get the numbers for result tests, we need to include his 81 and 4 in the dead rubber 1991 test in Antigua, as well as his 24 and 29 not out in Sydney 1988-89, and then it becomes 337 runs in 20 innings at an average of 18.7 with just 1 solitary half century - just ONE! In result tests when series were still alive it is 199 runs in 16 innings at 13.3 with a big fat ZERO half centuries. These are not the proper numbers of a batsman who has been supposedly hard done by at the selection table. What these numbers demonstrate is that against the big boys of his era, Jones was a massive liability to the extent that he was a complete non-contributor in wins, bar one dead rubber, and the worst of the non-performers in losses when it actually mattered. Footnote: the only test that was neither a result test, nor a ‘live’ one was … yes, you guessed it, none other than Adelaide 1988-89!!!

Wow, facing Holding/Garner on a wet pitch facing five bouncers an over shows how tough things were back then. Unlike todays soft cricketers who don’t face such stuff…

@Bernie8330

Ай бұрын

Jones played 7 non-dead rubber tests against the West Indies and did not reach 50 even once. Next most 'live' tests against them in the 1979-97 period not to record even a single half ton was Michael Slater, 4 live tests. Every single other Australian batsman in that period who played more than 2 live tests against them had reached 50 no later than his 3rd live test. He was the duddliest of all duds against the top teams of his era when it mattered in series. They didn't call him Dead Rubber High Scoring Draw Deano for nothing.

@Steve50663

Ай бұрын

@@Bernie8330your correct. It was still the right move to bring in young hot shot Damien Martyn for Deano in 1992.

I was disgusted when he was dropped from the Australian squad without being allowed to retire on his own terms.

@davidgeisler9885

14 күн бұрын

Not many get to retire on their own terms

never knew why they dropped him from tests so early

@roshanariyaratnam8225

Жыл бұрын

There’s a podcast that Mark Howard does - the Howie Games, his interview with Dean Jones is one of the earliest episodes. Worth a listen.

@Bernie8330

3 ай бұрын

Then wonder no more: Dean Jones played 15 tests against minnows India, Sri Lanka and New Zealand, the third of those in a once off on a Perth featherbed in 1989-90 with Richard Hadlee missing from the attack. His average in these games was 62.7. Apart from Kapil Dev, these were club standard attacks, as was the England attack in 1989 against whom he averaged 70.8 in 6 tests. Against stronger England attacks at home in Australia in 1986-87, 87-88 and 1990, in 11 tests he averaged 41.9. His 56.8 average in the 1986-87 Ashes summer, when he was riding the crest of an early career wave, was bloated by his 184 not out in the Sydney dead rubber. While this was an outstanding match winning innings in an isolated context, remove it, as well as the second innings 30, and his average when the series was actually alive was a less flattering 37.1. Jones played 20 tests against the big boys of his era i.e., West Indies, Pakistan and New Zealand with Richard Hadlee leading the attack. Three of these were dead rubbers, one of them a completely meaningless high scoring draw on a pitch flat enough that Merv Hughes, with a previous test high of 16, was able to score 72 unconquered, the two first innings totaled 885 combined, and neither side’s bowlers were able to snare more than 14 wickets across five full days, or more than 4 opposition second innings wickets. One of the 17 ‘live’ tests i.e., when it actually mattered, was rain-ruined with Jones not batting. In the other 16, he reached 50 in just 1 of them - a mere 1 in 16! These were his scores: 1984 in West Indies 48, 5, 1, 11 1987-88 v Hadlee 2, 38 no, 0, 4, 8 Note: the 38 not out was in mopping up a mere 97 for victory from 1 for 39 i.e., absolute zero pressure with Hadlee saving himself for the next test 1988 in Pakistan 3, 4, 16, 21 no, 0, 0 Note: the 21 not out was at the back end of a small declaration in a push for victory when Australia were already in control of the game. 1988-89 v West Indies 28, 18 1989-90 v Pakistan 0, 10, 116, 121 no 1990 in NZ v Hadlee again 20, 0 1991 in West Indies 0, 34, 3, 21, 39 no, 22, 37 Note: the 39 not out was scored when the match was already a doomed draw when he went in Leaving out the 1989-90 outlier v Pakistan in Adelaide, this equates to 314 runs in 28 innings at an average of 12.6 with every single score below 40. Even re-including those twin centuries, this only raises the average to 19.7. To get the numbers for result tests, we need to include his 81 and 4 in the dead rubber 1991 test in Antigua, as well as his 24 and 29 not out in Sydney 1988-89, and then it becomes 337 runs in 20 innings at an average of 18.7 with just 1 solitary half century - just ONE! In result tests when series were still alive it is 199 runs in 16 innings at 13.3 with a big fat ZERO half centuries. These are not the proper numbers of a batsman who has been supposedly hard done by at the selection table. What these numbers demonstrate is that against the big boys of his era, Jones was a massive liability to the extent that he was a complete non-contributor in wins, bar one dead rubber, and the worst of the non-performers in losses when it actually mattered. Footnote: the only test that was neither a result test, nor a ‘live’ one was … yes, you guessed it, none other than Adelaide 1988-89!!!

@Bernie8330

3 ай бұрын

@@roshanariyaratnam8225 Do you have a link to that interview? I would love to see it. I thought only myself and the selectors at the time knew why he was correctly dropped.

Only 52 test matches for Australia? I always thought he played about 80 or 90

@Bernie8330

3 ай бұрын

Nope. He was lucky to play that many - only the all-time nadir Australian cricket was at in the mid-1980s allowed him to play so many.

Douglas jardine

2a

If you go through some of these stories , they lie.

@Bernie8330

3 ай бұрын

I am sure you are right, just curious for some examples. Cheers

I can’t remember why but I was never a fan of deano Great fielder but would drop the occasional sitter Very inconsistent and that’s why he was dropped

@BowieDownunder

2 ай бұрын

Well his batting average and strike rate in ODI tell a completely different story. They were MILES ABOVE any other Aussie of that era - and he usually came in at position number 3. Formidable player. His fielding was absolutely fantastic - the catches - the throws - all at a time when great fielding was hardly a common trait in the Aussie team.

Dean Jones is NOT a legend. His performances in test cricket against the strong teams was absolutely ratshit (and don't bother citing his meaningless 216 on a flat featherbed in a dead rubber high scoring draw). In one day cricket, he was a bat first wonder, not good at chasing at all - and again, if you are going to throw an average at me, be sure to only include times the target was higher than 200.

@couldabeenanything

2 ай бұрын

You've really done your research on this! Have to ask why? It's a level of analysis rarely seen.

@Bernie8330

2 ай бұрын

@@BowieDownunder The criticism is totally valid. You correctly assert that " ... The game is equally as much about setting a big target as it is chasing ... " but then in your next breath seem to also assert that a player only has to excell in one of these two key facets in order to be considered a complete ODI batsman. Then you lose all credibility with the well worn cliche "seem to have been watching different games". As for strike rates, Jones was only around 5% higher than par for his era. Average is irrelevant, it can be bloated by a number of things, especially in test cricket, but ODI cricket is not immune from it either. Jones was not faster between wickets than Javed Miandad. Jones was Australia's best one day batsman from late 1986 until mid-1991, and the world's best from late 1989 until that aforementioned mid-1991. However, his historical reputation is bloated somewhat by the fact that this 18-month period coincided with Richards, Greenidge, Haynes and Javed being in decline, while Mark Waugh, Bevan, Lara, Tendulkar and Saeed Anwar had not yet 'arrived'. Jones is number 7 for Australian ODI batsmen at best, but this is still very good. However, he was not superior at setting targets than Greg Chappell, Mark Waugh, Bevan, Ponting, Gilly and Smithy, and, unlike Jones, those 6 could all chase legtimate targets above par for their respective eras. Of those 6, only Chappell does not have a comfortably superior world cup record to Jones, but Chappell only played one WC comprising 5 games, whereas Jones played in 2 WCs comprising 16 games.

@Bernie8330

2 ай бұрын

@@couldabeenanything You aint seen nothing yet lol. To answer your question, it grates big time when clueless fans assert that he was unlucky not to play more tests, should have played more tests, shouldn't have been dropped (from test team), was a disgrace to drop him etc. It is simply not true. Another falsehood is the claim that reasons were never given, as well as the desperate clinging to straws that it was political, he wasn't popular in the team et el. An excellent source is then selector John Benaud (Richie's brother) in his 1998 book 'Matters of Choice' devotes a whole chapter to Jonesy. Cheers.