Where will Burns fire, at first drop or in the middle order?

Queenslander Joe Burns was a somewhat shock selection in the Australian squad for the Boxing Day Test against India.

At 25 years of age, Burns isn’t a baby, but he’s still quite young, and his selection over Ed Cowan indicates that the selectors are looking towards the future.

I think it’s a great choice, for I rate Burns highly.

He’s an elegant batsman, with shots all around the ground. He’s a classy player who exudes a little bit of ‘specialness’ about him. He’s got a solid technique, and is able to play at different paces, depending on the game situation. Described as ‘gritty not pretty’, I actually think he’s both. He just looks like a natural batsman, in the same way that Mark Waugh was easy on the eye; yet with a totally different style.

Opening the batting for Queensland, he has compiled 439 runs in the Sheffield Shield this season at an average of 54.87, so he has earned his call-up to the Australian side.

Burns has actually spent a lot of time in the middle order for the Bulls in previous Shield campaigns, and with all-rounder Mitch Marsh being ruled out of the next Test with injury, Davey Warner nursing an injured thumb and Shane Watson struggling for runs, Burns’ batting position in the Australian top six has been a subject of discussion since his name was read out on Sunday afternoon.

Many pundits have suggested that Burns should bat at three, with Watson moving down the order. I have to confess to originally believing that to be a horrible, horrible idea.

My thinking was that Australia has the chance to blood a new batsman, and bring him along slowly, thereby making his transition to Test cricket slightly easier for him, along with benefitting the team long-term. So why on earth would you throw him to the wolves, and bat him in possibly the most stressful position in the top six? That seemed like madness to me.

I believed Burns should bat at number six, thus easing the pressure on him in his first game in the baggy green.

Australia has a long history of success by allowing new batsmen to ease their way into Test cricket, courtesy of bringing them in down the order. Damien Martyn, Greg Blewett, Ricky Ponting, Stuart Law, Martin Love, Simon Katich, Darren Lehmann, Michael Bevan, Michael Clarke, Brad Hodge and Marcus North are just a collection of Australian batsmen who made their debuts at five or six despite batting at three or four for their respective states.

It’s worth pointing out that of the eleven batsmen listed above, all but Martyn and Katich notched at least half centuries in their debut Test match, with Blewett, Clarke and North all making hundreds. Just to reiterate, nine of the eleven batsmen listed above scored more than 50 on debut.

It goes without saying that making 50 or more runs in your first Test would fill you with confidence, and allow you to feel like you belong at the elite level. Such self-belief is crucial to success at Test cricket.

Normally during these discussions on where a debutant should bat in the order, a number of pundits bring out the line ‘If he’s good enough, he should bat at three’. Essentially, said argument amounts to a ‘sink or swim’ strategy.

I do wonder though, if those extolling the virtues of the ‘sink or swim’ theory actually throw their kids in the deep end of the pool in order to teach them how to swim? I’m hoping they don’t.

A better method of teaching your kids to swim is slowly building up their confidence, and preparing them properly and responsibly. Using floaties, for example. Or in cricket’s case, batting them at six.

Quite simply, there is less pressure batting at six. Come in at 4/400, and they’re facing tired, demoralised bowlers, with a good score already in the books. Come in at 4/50, and everyone else has failed, so no one will expect much from the rookie.

Tough, old-school, hardened, no-nonsense Aussies will claim it’s soft to protect a batsman, and that the debutant should ‘harden up and face the music’, or other such macho comments. Yet, like most testosterone-influenced banter, it sounds great, but it’s not actually that smart. I’d prefer if the decisions about Australia’s Test cricket top six were based on intelligence, with a desire for long-term success, rather than a need for masculine ‘hardness’ in the short-term.

Unlike when Rob Quiney made his debut, and Australia couldn’t find a number three – with Michael Clarke reluctant to move from number five and Ricky Ponting struggling enough at four – there are plenty of options at first drop.

Watson can stay there and try to find some form. Shaun Marsh has scored Test hundreds at number three for Australia. While many claim that skipper Steve Smith will eventually be the long-term solution when the side is one wicket down. So there isn’t even a need to bat Burns at three.

All in all, Australia has the chance to ease Joe Burns into Test cricket, and I figured that can only be a good thing for Burns, and the team. So why wouldn’t you do it? Why wouldn’t you start his Test career at six and let him gradually make his way up the order as he acclimatises to the highest level of cricket?

Well, yesterday, his state coach Stuart Law, and state captain James Hopes, gave an insight into Burns, suggesting that perhaps he should bat high in the order. Apparently Burns is a poor ‘watcher’ of cricket; he gets extremely nervous waiting to bat, and is better off just getting out in the middle and playing. In that case, batting at six may actually be the worst thing for him, as he’ll have too much time to think, and the mental demons may set in before he walks out to the middle.

Conversely, Burns’ desire to simply ‘get out there and bat’ may be at odds with his readiness for Test cricket. It’s all good and well to want to bat as soon as possible, but it’s pointless if you’re then back in the pavilion five minutes later. Sometimes you have to save players from themselves.

Darren Lehmann coached Burns at Queensland, and will therefore know the young batsman – and his mindset – very well. It should therefore be up to ‘Boof’ to adjudicate the position in the batting line-up that would best serve Burns, and consequently, Australia.

Three or six? What’s it going to be?