Steve Smith must bat at number four

Just be done with it. Open with Warner, Bancroft,then, Khawaja, Smith (c), Burns and Marsh-just shading Faulkner Maxwell and Stoinis.

Smith must stop playing crap shots to balls he can leave whether he bats 4 or 9

I agree he hasn't got the ideal method for first drop, but I have little confidence that anyone else will be able to bring any level of solidity to the position. Most of his dismissals this series have come from poor decisions to play rather than leave, something that he usually does extremely well. So I think he can largely iron that out. The other problem (which he spoke about on cricket.com.au recently) is that his weight isn't always going forward when he plays off the front foot, because of his sideways momentum. I expect that played into his second innings dismissal where he hit it low to point (if I understand correctly what he meant). The allrounder thing is definitely a big issue. We really need someone to nail that spot down in a batting sense - personally I'd consider Nevill at 6 with the allrounder at 7.

He's thrown away his wicket on at least two or three occasions. He was set up in the second innings TB. Fell for it hook and line. Seen Clarke play to set-ups often enough, I hope Smith's smart enough to learn from that. Noticeably, to me anyway, at Lords he looked to be trying to hit the ball along the ground. That good sense seemed to desert him in the next two tests.

Somebody needs to bat at 3. The captain always used to didn't he? Useless and scared. Protecting averages etc. Grow a pair Australian cricketers!

I agree with this a lot. The problem with the allrounder obsession and having Clarke and Ponting at 4 and 5 for so long, was that there was no lower order position for our inexperienced batsman to make their way through. People forget that Ponting and Clarke both came into the side at No6 as the junior bastmen and then climbed up the list (though Clarke really should have stayed at 5). Problem is that number 6 is now the allrounder spot so players really need to just slot straight into wherever they bat at FC level. Having said that, I do prefer Smith down the order as he just doesn't strike me as a first drop, but I can't be specific beyond the feeling of watching him. My preference would be to put in a bloke who has FC experience at it, is young, and just back him for an extended period.

"Ideally the number three should be a batsman that could just as easily open the batting, and hence since Ricky Ponting’s retirement in 2012 we have seen Rob Quiney, the late Phillip Hughes, Usman Khawaja and Shane Watson used in this position – all recognised opening batsmen. " And yet each and every one of them was a failed experiment. Out of all the batsmen we'll be taking to Bangladesh, Steve Smith has shown by far the greatest ability to play the seaming and swinging ball, such as his brilliant 100 at Centurion last year. We've spent so long looking for a decent first drop, and now people are calling for us to throw away the only one we've found. The big mistake with our post-Ponting No. 3 selection has been a tendency to throw inexperienced batsmen in the deep end and force the middle order to score all the runs anyway. It's inexperienced batsmen that should be shielded down the order, not our best and most assured player. If we have any level of stability at the top it will make it easier for the young middle order to gain confidence and rack up scores. If we don't, Smith will often be virtually batting at 3 anyway. I have always felt that batsmen (except openers) should begin their careers at 5 or 6 to build confidence and experience. We've seen it succeed for Smith. Had Joe Burns been left at 6, we might have seen the same. Now he's going to have to face the music against New Zealand's new-ball attack with a series and a half of Test cricket behind him. Not a good way to develop top order players.

While Smith may or may not be suited to batting at no3, at the moment we desperately need someone to shore up the middle order and Smith is clearly the man. It doesn't hurt that most of the more promising candidates are also top order payers as well. Burns and Khawaja are the two most ready to come in with Voges most likely to stay on until other contenders show some consistency.

It's sort of like football in penalty's. In regards to the aussie cricket team, you'd want your captain or your best player to be batting fourth or fifth. It's the exact same in penalty's in football. Often you'd rather have your best kicker to kick fifth if you are looking to win the game, or fourth if it's a player that has to score to save themselves from losing. So therefore you should put your better batsmen like smith in that position.

Khawaja, Burns, Lynn and Bancroft are the young options to come into the team and I think any 2 of those is the perfect amount. That gives you 2 "future" players, 2 "now" players in Warner and Smith, and 1 "stop-gap" player to fill out the side and protect an entire team of youngsters being thrown to the wolves. The candidates for those 2 stop-gap positions would have to be Ferguson, Voges, Marsh, Klinger, Cowan and Bailey. All of them have enough experience to cope with a variety of match situations and contribute as necessary, without ever being likely to win a game off their own bats. I'd actually be happy to see any one of them picked. The other option would be to pick 2 stop-gap type players (or, though I think it would be a poor choice, a third youngster) and not have an all-rounder. Another option still would be to trust Nevill at 6 and give you more flexibility to pick an Agar, Maxwell, Faulkner or Starc at 7. But for me Mitch Marsh has to stay in the team as a genuine top 6 batsman and 5th bowler. I think he's good enough.

Steve Smith was initially picked as a spin bowler and number 8. He batted below North and Paine and ahead of Johnson. In the second innings of his debut test, Johnson acted as nightwatchman so Smith actually batted at 9. He made 13 runs in his 2 innings. He took 3/51 as a spinner (wasn't used in the first innings as the quicks bowled Pakistan out cheaply... in the second innings he was outdown by North's part-time spin taking 6/55). Smith batted at 8 again in the second test against Pakistan (both these tests were in England) and made 10 and 77. He bowled 10 overs for no wicket over the 2 innings as Australia lost. I doubt anyone at this stage thought he'd go on to be easily Australia's most important test batsman. I also doubt someone who started their career as a spinner and late-order batsman, no matter how good they have become, should be batting at 3. Burns, Khawaja or Klinger (if he gets a look in) at 3. Lynn, Marsh, Voges or Ferguson at 5. Smith seems like 4 should be perfect for his style and ability.

Yeah I would have Ferguson close - I almost added him as a named option at 5. I agree he's shown in past ODI performances he can handle the step up, plus he's scored heavily in FC cricket lately. How old is he? That's the biggest issue. The same as SMarsh?

I think its more than a slight weakness of off-stump awareness at this point. He has been shocking in 3 of the 4 tests, i was really looking forward to the competition between him and Root this series.

Warner, Khawaja, smith, Fergus, vogues, Mitch marsh, neville

1. Warner 2. Bancroft 3. Burns 4. Smith 5. Khawaja/Lynn/other - question mark here 6. Nevill/MMarsh 7. Faulkner/Nevill Easy

Smith was never a number three. The only reason he is batting there is due to a lack of options. Smith is more of a middle order player coming in at four or five. In future, I would be pick Khawaja at three and more importantly persist with Khawaja at three. He has already being dropped three times in nine tests.

Given that Smith will be captain, he can bat where ever he wants. It's what captains do.

Given the whole first innings at Trent Bridge lasted 111 balls (the shortest in the history of test cricket) if you want Smith to be sure of not facing a brand new ball maybe number 11 is the best option.