Moving Warner to six is key in Australia's batting rebuild

This is a really interesting idea. I'd be tempted to give it a go, however I'd be questioning how Warner would go batting with the tail-end. Partnerships are very important in test matches, but will batting with numbers 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 allow him to build these partnerships? Yes Warner can score runs and score them quickly, but without him doing this at the top end, we would be relying on him to do it if the batsmen struggled. And generally if the batsmen struggle, the bowlers tend not to do very well either (more so than usual). However, I could also see how it could be a positive, having Warner come in to the middle order and scoring some quick runs and possibly turning the game around (if losing), but I'm not sure I'd be game enough to try it.

Hi Tim. I've had this thought many times. But why not put Warner into the mark Waugh roll at 4 and put your most consistent batsmen at 5. Alah Steve Waugh. Keeps the best 2 batsman away from the new ball.

Nudge, bit angry there mate. I have no idea where you get that Williamson is my favorite player, guess you needed something to pick on. If you regard Warner's record overseas and particularly his recent overseas record and his performances on decks that have something for the bowlers then great for you. I expect more from a "world class" opener and a senior Australian player. But like I said, I am encouraged by his efforts this season. His play in the Test's has generally been good.

I think this is a very valid point and you only need to look back to the last time Australia was performing so poorly in the mid 80's to justify the reasoning. In the mid 80's they went for a solid top 3 and their role was to protect the middle order. The selectors went with players such as Geoff Marsh, Mark Taylor and David Boon. Solid players who placed high values on their wickets. The middle order featured younger players with more expansive strokes, players such as Dean Jones, Mark and Steve Waugh. And at number 6 you had Allen Border, a wise head on solid shoulders if the middle order collapsed. That is the type of balanced order they need to go back to. If you follow this formula then Warner's batting position could well be 4.

I've been around mate...loitering. ;)

It is interesting how 'top order struggles' weren't a factor when we went and dropped the best wicketkeeper in the country and recalled Wade

Good to see you back Jimmy, you've been missed

'You don't seem to have much idea. You can't take a players best series out and come up with a different average. Why not take out his worst performance instead?' Loving your consistency Nudge. ;)

What could Warner do at six. I would suggest he would probably come in at 75/4 by the time he got to 20 it would be 105/6 then he would panic and get out. With his style he has be given a chance to face as many balls as he can. His average of about 48 of 65 balls per innings suggest he wont be there that long. He wont be the next Gilchrist at 6 simply because Australia haven't go the depth. Australia once had a team with three Players, Waugh, Hayden, Ponting who averaged over 50. Then Waugh, Lehman, Slater and Gilchrist who averaged over 40. Australia just don't have that depth. That team top 6 averaged about 300 aggregated. It that team Warner could play as low as seven. Its too risky. Australia don't win when Warner doesn't fire. Australia won the Ashes 5-0 when Warner set the tone with that 100 in the first test. Australia won a series in South Africa when Warner scored 3 hundreds and two 50's in 6 innings. Warner batting at 6 will have to adjust his game to suit the situation. Its not him. Warner needs to have a clear head to play his way at 0/0 he can do that. At 105/6 he cannot.

As an Aussie supporter, Cook has never really worried me. In 7 ashes series only once has he averaged more than 36. 5 times he's averaged less than 30. His record is even worse against South Africa. Against the best 2 teams over his career he hasnt performed, simple. Will certainly have more concerns next year about Root, Bairstow and Stokes. Regards to Khawaja the context I was talking in was away from Asian conditions. He is or is not far off world class. Averages 43 or so and 60 odd since he returned to the team a year or so ago. And of course I'd love Warner to average 55 away from home, I just don't get how you can't see that 43 is very impressive. Hell we can't even pick a shield player with a first class average of 43 even though our wickets have been flat for 3 years

"Great opener on true pitches but very flawed on decks that offer any seam/swing." Yet Warner's averaged 45 for this series on two pitches which have offered plenty of assistance to the brilliant Proteas pace attack.

You don't seem to have much idea. You can't take a players best series out and come up with a different average. Why not take out his worst performance instead. An away record or 43 is excellent for a test match player. Just because he has a phenomenal home record doesn't mean 43 away from home is a poor. Far out Mark Waugh had a career average of 42, Ian Bell around 43 and your having a crack at a guy that averages 43 away from home. Laughable. What does one of the best batsman in the world and one of your favourite current players Kane Williamson average away from home, maybe 43?