After five humiliating Test defeats on the trot, it took courage by the selectors to throw rookies Matt Renshaw and Peter Handscomb in with the tried and tested David Warner, Usman Khawaja, and Steve Smith.
But the punt has paid off, with the top five producing serious numbers to win each of the next four Tests.
Individually their runs, average, centuries and half-centuries in those four victories are as follows.
Warner: 414 at 59.14 – 144, 113, 55.
Renshaw: 315 at 63 – 184, 71.
Khawaja: 412 at 68.67 – 145, 97, 79*, 74.
Smith: 540 at 90 – 165*, 130, 63, 59, 59.
Handscomb: 399 at 99.75 – 110, 105, 54, 54.
All up eight centuries, and ten half-centuries – a mighty impressive effort by all concerned.
Their collective runs add up to 2080 at an average of 74.28 a wicket.
So how do the current top five compare with previous top fives over their first four Tests?
I’ve selected the three most successful Australian opening batting combinations, and the next three in the batting order in those Tests.
In chronological order:
Bobby Simpson, and Bill Lawry first opened the batting at Old Trafford in July-August 1961, followed by Neil Harvey, Norm O’Neill, and Peter Burge.
Simpson: 268 at 38.28 – 71, 51.
Lawry: 388 at 55.43 – 102, 98, 74, 57, 52.
Harvey: 173 at 24.71 – 57.
O’Neill: 289 at 41.26 – 117, 67, 56,
Burge: 309 at 51.5 – 181.
All up three centuries, and eight half-centuries.
Their collective runs add up to 1427 at 41.97.
Mark Taylor and Michael Slater began their opening partnerships at Old Trafford in June 1993, followed by David Boon, Mark Waugh, and Allan Border.
Taylor: 327 at 54.5 – 124, 111.
Slater: 370 at 61.67 – 152, 67, 58.
Boon: 504 at 100.80 – 164*, 107, 93,
Waugh: 291 at 48.5 – 99, 70, 64, 52.
Border: 365 at 73 – 200*, 93, 77.
All up six centuries and ten half-centuries.
Collectively it amounts to 1857 at 66.32.
Matt Hayden and Justin Langer first opened at the Oval in August 2001, followed by Ricky Ponting, Mark Waugh, and Steve Waugh.
Hayden: 352 at 70.4 – 136. 91, 68, 57.
Langer: 414 at 82.8 – 133, 104, 102, 75.
Ponting: 281 at 56.2 – 157, 62.
Mark Waugh: 269 at 53.8 – 128, 86, 75.
Steve Waugh: 227 at 56.75 – 157*, 67.
All up seven centuries and eight half-centuries.
Collectively that’s 1543 at 64.29.
At a glance comparing the four eras over their first four Tests.
The Warner-Renshaw era – averaging 74.28 a wicket.
The Taylor-Slater era – averaging 66.32.
The Hayden-Langer era – averaging 64.29.
The Simpson-Lawry era – averaging.61.97.
Individual averages?
Boon – 100.80
Hsndscomb – 99.95.
Smith – 90.00.
Langer – 82.8.
Border – 73.00.
Hayden – 70.40.
So it doesn’t matter what set of stats are used to find the most successful quintet, the current crop has been superbly successful.
Long may they reign at the top of the order.
richo
Guest
maybe your reputation as a Roar columnist is so bad that no-one wants to agree with anything you have to say, the knocks are for you.
Rabbits
Guest
What does that say about the saffas last month in Australia?
Tanmoy Kar
Guest
Australia's present top 5 are very good. they have to find-out a good No.6 (a batsman or an all-rounder) and a good wicket-keeper-batsman.
Mitcher
Guest
Nobody is saying they are the 'best'.
tyrone
Guest
you certainly can only play against what you face but surely the stats for your article should include comparisons with opponents bowling averages. It is a lot easier to have a high average against Pakistan in 2016/7 compared to the Windies in the 80's. Too hard to say they are really the best.
Mitcher
Guest
T
soapit
Guest
when 90%+ of an article consists of numbers based analysis i would have thought it fairly self evident the two arent mutually exclusive. its possible you missed the entire article tho seeing as you seem to be blaming me for bringing it into the discussion if you want to avoid discussion of maths, articles like this probably arent for you. however a lot of people have no fear of it tho so personally i dont think it should be avoided by the authors to pander to the few who cant fathom how the two could possibly be combined. if they are going to do it tho they should probably have some ability at it. tho the same could be said for writing and it hasnt significantly affected some careers evidently.
sham
Guest
True just hype. Australia rarely loses at home and most series now are boring thrashings but do you expect people to predict that? No point watching most touring sides unless you enjoy watching one sided smashings which are of no real interest to anyone but a test cricket tragic I can think of no other sport where people turn up consistently to watch one sided boring non contests.
davSA
Guest
Hi David , Stats are always going to be open to interpretation but they do give us an indication of whats going on . I have compared the Australian top 5 to that of SA : 1. Cook Honest grafter , Looks awkward but gets runs . I'm afraid he is no David Warner though . He will be the first to admit I,m sure. 2. Elgar In the mould of Cook . Very similar to Renshaw . Longer track record.I'll go with Elgar. 3. Amla Love watching him bat , Needs no introduction but cant buy runs at the moment . Have to go with the in-form Khawaja. 4. Duminy flatters to deceive , has poor test average. Smith is the worlds standout batsman right now. No contest. 5. FAF Du Plessis . Poor average but really on form . Just gets better. My pick over Handscombe who still has a bit to prove. I mentally did the same with the England side and still found the Aussies compare very well. So I also don't get the knockers , this lineup looks very good.
Nudge
Guest
Totally agree with everything you've said Perry.
Charlie Turner
Guest
Oingo tip of the hat for slipping your first line past the mods.
Jacko
Guest
The funny thing is that if Warner, Khawaja and Smith had scored these sort of runs in the first 2 tests against SA then Renshaw and Hanscombe would never have been selected
Craig
Guest
It's cherry picking because you're picking a stat to suit a story. They have had a wonderful start, I'm not a knocker. I'm a huge fan of Handscomb and I'm happy Renshaw has done well (and deserves to be given another couple of series, regardless of if he fails in India). But the stat is completely pointless. Not to mention your comparison includes comparing their stats on home soil (including a debut in a dead rubber) v all of the others were away. Next lets compare Khawaja in his 15th, 17th, and 19th tests against Ponting in his of the same...its completely pointless. Or Khawajas first 4 tests? I'm excited for the test against India and these guys to be a part of it. 10/10 for pointlessness in this article.
Jacko
Guest
Yes remember Ronan's article...Australia will beat SriLanka and it wont be close.....Well it wasnt close
bigbaz
Roar Guru
I didn't realise this was a math sight, mistakenly thought it was a sports opinion sight, my bad.
chump
Guest
Peter Roebuck used the phrase a fair bit.
Perry Bridge
Guest
#Nudge - I certainly rate the standard of the test cricket far higher this summer than last summer. The oppositions provided by first South Africa and then Pakistan both were a step up - in the main - on those last year. That's largely due to the poor form of Boult/Southee for NZ with the ball and the much more placid pitches served up. I feel that Amir bowled much, much better than his stats reflect. Rarely seen a bowler so desperately unlucky to continue beating the bat, continue having batters in strife - and not get the wickets. One can suggest that the main downfall for the Pakistanis was their fielding, including Sarfraz behind the stumps who made Wade look better by contrast - the interesting question, a combined team of the series - who gets the nod?? Also - the lack of decent preparation - left the Pakis desperately underprepared in the first test. They always seemed on the back foot from there on. The pitches this year tended to be better - an extra pink ball test served up a blinder of a match at the Gabba in the end. The SCG pitch provided a good contest - gave the spinners a chance and ironically Lyon bowled really quick well for a 2 for 100+ in the 2nd innings. I reckon the centuries scored this summer - for me - hold far more merit than those of last summer when some monster scores were achieved in seriously placid conditions. The vast majority of 100s this summer have been hard come by. Even with the 3 scored in Australia's first innings v Pak in this last test - the variety - Warner rode his luck to smash a 100 before lunch. Renshaw dug deep, worked long and hard and scored the classic openers ton - bringing it up after tea. And Handscomb - a slice of luck early - as with his first 100 - he started very watchfully, worked through tough periods - ground down the bowlers and built in the end a solid innings.
soapit
Guest
given the sample size any half decent analyst (or hsc maths student for that matter) would have simply avoided trying to make the comparison in the first place.
twodogs
Guest
Very pertinent point there Mr Bush. If he is embarrassed over there, I'm sorry to say one of my favorites of all time shall always wear the label 'flat track bully'. So a ratio of 4.5:1 home/away centuries? That could be bettered so here's his chance.
qwetzen
Guest
Pom, if you're going to call someone "vitriolic" & "spiteful" then it'd be a good idea to avoid negative stereotyping. It makes look a bit of a hypotwit...