Australian cricket has a top order dilemma

Im thinking Cowan/Warner (his gutsy 100 vs NZ is enough for me to keep him there and potential to take it to an attack, also a handy legspinner) Ponting and Khawaja in the squad for #3 (rest Ponting for the Sri Lanka series, he scored 200 late last season but can be ruthless against a pace attack such as South Africas. Watson at #4 Clarky at #5 Hussey at #6 Wade at #7- Australia are missing Watson as a bowler so I think Starc in the meantime relacing Hilfenhouse is the go- Johnson is far too hot and cold for my liking and batting shouldn't be factored in for you top three bowlers. I feel Clark should bowl himself more and give Warner a roll in the next test if Watto can't bowl- Hopefully batting at #4 will give him more time to recover from long bowling stints.

I'm not ready for Hughes just yet. He is scoring at Shield level, but has he overcome the issues NZ exposed so brutally or is he just getting by because of weaker, and not so well prepared, attacks?

Australian selection panel and team members don't like Khawaja. Domestic record of Khawaja is better than Edward Cowan and Robert Quiney. Khawaja has plenty of patience because he is a pilot by profession and a pilot has plenty of patience.

It may indicate the depth is there, or that the quality is absent. Like with our bowlers, its easy to have a lot of apparent depth if they are all second raters.

Cowan was a revelation with his new ball technique. He played correctly forward to the fast men, drove well albeit rarely and dealt with the short pitched stuff to perfection. Phil Hughes has never played correctly forward or in any way for that matter in my time watching him. Khawaja is promising and George Bailey is adequate I suppose. Quiney looked good with his footwork and was unlucky to get out. Warner isn't a test cricketer.

Yes, it was such a lifeless track - what was Ponting's excuse then?

Interesting that we have options. Many people recently lamented Australia's lack of depth in batting. But the variety of options available and questions being asked indicate the depth is there. The most interesting question for me is Ponting. He has made clear his desire to avenge recent Ashes defeats. He is an all time great and may deserve the chance to make is own call. It will be a massive Ashes series and England have been in Ponting's head for years now. Purely for the sake of theatre and his knowledge I would let him go. Sad for the likes of Hughes and Khawaja who may fight all season for a spot that does not exist. But they are both young and a couple of summers slogging it out in the Shield may be what they need for a foundation to a solid international career.

Meanwhile, Chris ''Bucky" Rogers rattles off another ton...barely reported on...surely one of the most under the radar, high performers of Australian cricket of the last decade??

Maddinson - what has Maddinson done to deserve to be considered - apart from averaging 30 in first class cricket and in the teens last season,

Australia need a Batting in reshuffle as far as I am concerned. I think Ponting should be 'rested' against Sri Lanka in order to give a younger player some test experience. Hussey should move to the top of the order to partner Cowan. Watson should move to his best position when he was scoring tons in the Shield Cricket at 4. Khawaja should return to the number 3 spot and the 6th spot should be for a development player, this could mean batting Warner at 6 (his play against spin and the moving the ball is worrying) introducing Joe Burns to the international set up or even someone like Mitchell Marsh/Moses Heriques. Bailey and Forrest who were being touted as Ashes tourists might also come into consideration but neither of them are currently showing the form worthy of selection. For the next test against South Africa, Ponting should bat at 3 and Hussey at 1. Watson at 4 and Quiney/Warner at 6.

Rhys, let's forecast in two years, when it's likely both Hussey and Ponting will be either forced out or have retired. I'm assuming Khawaja and Hughes will be there: Cowan (32) Hughes (25) Khawaja (28) Watson (33) Clarke (33) Warner (28) Wade (27) Back ups would include Quiney, Burns, Maddinson. Hopefully Shaun Marsh gets his act together by then as well. Plus by then a couple of younger batsmen will be in the reckoning as well. In the meantime, it is imperative both Hussey and Ponting keep scoring runs so that the contenders can state their case in the Shield and build up their experience. The Australian team can handle carrying one inexperienced but highly talented youngster among a team of performers. But two is tough.

I am going to guess that would leave Watson ... injured!

I'd say Warner is a little less convincing against spinners than pace...

Good player yes. Decent technique, okay. But surely there are a few more names higher in the pecking order for a test birth than Baily. If not, then why wasn't he selected in the Australia A side recently.

Vas, I can't disagree with anything you've posted. But where might Warner moving to #6 leave Watson? If I've read your post correctly, a potential top six would be - Cowan Hughes/Quiney Ponting/Khawaja Clarke Hussey Warner

I'm glad you mentioned Hobart Rhys, for that was a truly phenomenal effort on that pitch to withstand whatever damage was occurring to his teammates. Warner's spot at the top has been purely designed for us to follow the Virender Sehwag method of success, merely because Warner's ascension to the Test team was done on the back of Sehwag's personal seal of approval. Problem with that is that you make the assumption that every pitch you play on is a flat deck where the bounce is true every time. Plus Sehwag's early career was during a period of flat wickets across the world, and where the quality of bowling (Australia and South Africa aside) was generally less good. Warner is playing at a time when South Africa, England, NZ and the West Indies are all forming handy attacks, and on pitches that usually has grass and lateral seam movement. Simply put, Warner doesn't have the footwork to withstand the new ball on a green pitch against those attacks. The other thing that you miss about Warner is that by opening, he needs to stay in to face the spinners, and that's where he truly is strong. The number 6 move makes sense, but will require Cowan to stay on top, plus either Hughes or Khawaja to return. Also Quiney could easily open, and if Ponting is in the team, there is no difference between batting 3 or 4 for him.

The downside to Warner batting at #6 is when Australia need someone to bat them out of trouble after a top order collapse. The current #6, Michael Hussey, has proven time and again he has the grit and determination to turn an innings around. I'm not sure Warner could manage the same rescue act (though his Hobart century against the Kiwis was a fine effort). I still think Warner and Cowan could yet prove a solid opening combo.

I feel the same Adam. Someone (cant remember who) mentioned he would be a highly useful player to come in at 6 and perform a similar role to what Adam Gilchrist did for us, as Warner's game is built on an aggressive mindset, which would be extremely useful in Test cricket. But in ODIs and T20s, I dont mind him opening to catapult us to fast starts. A lot rests on Hughes and Khawaja though to make this happen, as well Cowan cementing his place in the team.

He may not be the answer as an opener but could be better suited to the middle order.