Does the Australian Test team have the right openers?

Australia played well in patches against South Africa, however, every lost series should result in a post-mortem of sorts, in order to ascertain what aspects of the team’s performance require improvement.

There will no doubt be a few questions that require answering if Australia wish to maintain their ascent back up the world Test rankings, and I believe the opening partnership is one such area worthy of a question mark.

34.47 and 41.89.

Those are the Test averages of Ed Cowan and David Warner.

The numbers are hardly disgraceful. In fact, you could label them quite solid if you were being positive and optimistic. Though in brutal honesty, they are not high enough to exclude the respective Australian openers from scrutiny.

A large part of that scrutiny actually has nothing to do with numbers or statistics.

I somewhat get the feeling that Ed Cowan will never truly win over the selectors or the Australian public. It seems as if he is always batting for his spot, even after scoring a magnificent century in the First Test at the Gabba.

Whilst I personally think he’s done more than enough to hold onto his spot for a significant period of time – and actually believe his style is exactly what Australia requires at the top of the order – should the selectors truly believe he’s not the long-term answer as opener, then they should drop him now.

If the selectors have their doubts about Cowan and will unfairly analyse him more than other players, then they should just end the charade now and pick the player they really want to see open the innings, whomever that may be.

There is no point selecting a player whom you really don’t want in the side, because the constant doubt and speculation about said player does nothing for team morale.

Perhaps my perception of the Cowan situation is media-driven, because I’ve never heard the Australian selectors publicly say they have doubts about his ability.

Though having said that, where there is smoke, there is invariably fire, and I think it would be naive to believe that Cowan doesn’t seem to perennially have the selection axe hanging over his head.

As mentioned, I personally think Cowan has a done a good job and deserves an extended opportunity to play for Australia.

I would actually turn my attention to the other opener, who despite a superior record, deserves some intense scrutiny.

David Warner’s snick in the first innings was the result of a terrible, terrible shot.

A lazy waft with minimal footwork, as the South Africa bowling was really showing its class, and with Australia in a precarious situation, was a severe case of flatulence from Warner’s cerebral cortex. To put it mildly.

I cannot stress how bad of a shot I thought it was, considering the circumstances.

I appreciate the defense of ‘that’s his game’ and I understand that if you applaud his swashbuckling century in Adelaide, then you can’t condemn him when the same attacking instincts brought him undone in Perth.

Yet herein lies the issue with selecting David Warner: he’s been picked because of his ability to win Australia Test matches almost single-handedly, due to his penchant for completely destroying bowling attacks.

Cricketers with that ability are rare. If you’ve got a player like that in your team, you need to appreciate them, not scold them. That means you need to take the good with the bad.

Yet by the same token, if Damien Martyn can get hung out to dry for his attempted lofted cover drive against South Africa in 1994 – a shot which almost ruined his career – and Brad Haddin can get pilloried for charging down the wicket when Australia was 5-18 in Cape Town in February, then Warner deserves the same level of judgment.

I’m not necessarily calling for Warner to change his game. As much as I’d love him to be a little more selective with his shots – and his attitude – the second you do request that of him, you may lose what makes him special.

What I will question is whether opening is the right role for Warner in the Test team.

As much as I love the strategies and notions of ‘getting off to a flyer’, ‘putting the opposition on the back foot straight away’, ‘setting up the Test Match in the first session’, etc, etc, I’m also a fan of playing smart cricket.

Australia currently has a bit of an issue at first drop. Ricky Ponting has retired, Shane Watson is often injured, Rob Quiney will presumably only be looking ‘polished’ for Victoria from now on, Michael Clarke reportedly doesn’t want to bat there, whilst Phil Hughes and Usman Khawaja aren’t even in the team.

This number 3 issue means Australia have to think carefully about their batting line-up.

If Warner is going to be boom or bust, then Australia requires a rock solid man coming in next. Unfortunately, Australia doesn’t even have a settled number 3 at present, which means the team runs the risk of starting Test innings’ two wickets down for not very many runs.

Until that number 3 spot is shored up, I think it’s too big of a gamble having Warner open. Therefore, I’d like to see him move down to number 6, where his ability to counter-attack in the mold of Adam Gilchrist would be a vital asset for the team.

The thought of Warner facing off against tired bowlers with an old ball is a tantalising prospect, whilst his ‘hit or miss’ approach can be more easily accommodated down the order.

Of course, there are two major problems with my strategy.

Firstly, what if Warner’s batting is better suited to the hardness of the new ball and the pace of fresh bowlers?

More importantly, if Warner does drop down to 6, who opens with Cowan?

From the contenders, is Hughes any more ‘boom or bust’ than Warner? Seeming as Australia needs Watson’s bowling, can they really return him to opening? Should Quiney get another chance? Can Khawaja be a Test opener? Should Hussey return to his batting origins at the top of the order? Or should Warner just stay where he his?

Questions, questions, questions. And more of them than answers, at present.