Joe Burns should replace Cameron Bancroft as Australian Test opener, with Chris Tremain picked as a back-up quick ahead of Chadd Sayers for next month’s Test tour of South Africa.
Bancroft was given five Tests on fantastic batting tracks against a limp, one-dimensional England attack and still could only muster 179 runs at an average of 25.
Given the way England’s quicks exposed his weakness against fuller deliveries on and around off stump, it’s hard to imagine Bancroft could improve on those numbers against a vastly-better Proteas attack on juicier pitches.
At just 25 years old, Bancroft has plenty of time to refine his technique and return to Tests in the future as a more-rounded batsman. Burns is the obvious choice to replace him.
The 28-year-old was shown very little patience by the selectors last year, dumped twice in a matter of months, despite averaging 38 across his first 13 Tests.
First he was axed in Sri Lanka after making 34 runs from four knocks across the first two Tests of that series. Then he was recalled to replace the injured Shaun Marsh against South Africa in Hobart, only to be dropped for Matt Renshaw the following Test.
Burns took this poor treatment in his stride, returned to Queensland and has since hit 1068 runs at 46 in the Shield. It’s easy to forget it’s only three Tests ago for Burns since he was man-of-the-match in a rousing Test victory in New Zealand.
He made 170 and 65 in that Test in Christchurch against a full-strength Kiwi attack of Trent Boult, Neil Wagner, Tim Southee and Matt Henry.
Up to that point, Burns had made a dominant start to his Test career, piling up 838 runs at a tick under 50 from ten Tests, including three tons. His resilience in the face of being harshly dumped twice was impressive and is another reason he should be given first crack at taming the Proteas pace attack.
(AP Photo/Tertius Pickard)
The two reserve batsmen positions should go to a pair who know Burns’ pain in Glenn Maxwell and Peter Handscomb. They, too, have been on the receiving end of some tough calls by the Test selectors in recent times.
The most controversial choice in my 15-man squad is Tremain over Sayers.
The South Australian swing merchant has been the most consistently effective bowler in the Sheffield Shield for the past five years. Not only has he excelled in the Shield, with 218 career wickets at 23, but he’s also flourished when picked for Australia A, taking 28 wickets at 25.
I found it hard to choose between Sayers and Bird. But that was the choice that needed to be made, as the Australian squad would lack variety if both of those men were selected. The generous success of the Australian Test attack across different conditions in the past year was the result of how well balanced it was.
Mitchell Starc offers a left arm angle and swings the ball, Josh Hazlewood targets the top of off stump ceaselessly, Pat Cummins intimidates with vicious short balls, and Nathan Lyon ties it all together with his accurate spin.
Bird and Sayers are suited to performing the Hazlewood role, while the much quicker and more aggressive Tremain could better fill in for Cummins or Starc.
The 26-year-old Victorian is 193cm tall, which helps him get sharp bounce, and was clocked at up to 148kmh during his debut ODI series in SA in 2016.
With James Pattinson and Nathan Coulter-Nile battling injuries, Tremain is the most dynamic first-class quick outside of the Test XI. Tremain isn’t quite as swift as Starc or Cummins, but he is the best part of 10kmh faster than Bird or Sayers.
And it’s not just pace and bounce which Tremain has going for him. He’s also a natural swing bowler, and boasts good precision, giving up just 3.07 runs per over in his first-class career.
In mid-2016 Tremain took seven wickets at 23 for Australia A in two red-ball matches a strong South Africa A line-up including Dean Elgar, Temba Bavuma and Vernon Philander.
Most importantly, Tremain’s been as effective as Sayers over the past three Sheffield Shield seasons, taking 100 wickets at 20, compared to Sayers’ return of 115 wickets at 22.
Australia, of course, will hope that none of these back-up bowlers are needed – their hopes of beating the Proteas will rely heavily on their first-choice attack staying fit.
My 15-man Australia Test squad for South Africa
1. David Warner (vc)
2. Joe Burns
3. Usman Khawaja
4. Steve Smith (c)
5. Shaun Marsh
6. Mitch Marsh
7. Tim Paine (wk)
8. Pat Cummins
9. Mitchell Starc
10. Nathan Lyon
11. Josh Hazlewood
Reserves
12. Chris Tremain
13. Jackson Bird
14. Glenn Maxwell
15. Peter Handscomb
Saurebh Gandle
Roar Guru
Well CA Selectors have made their call.
Saurebh Gandle
Roar Guru
Cameron Bancroft needs to be backed if they thought of him as man for future makes no sense to drop him after Renshaw was dropped unceremoniously.
Matt P
Roar Rookie
Fair enough, my bad. But there's competition there. They have similar roles in the team and are competing for the same spot. Professional, not personal, is the key. There is a difference between "Bancroft is a failure" and "Bancroft didn't do well enough". Most of us are saying the former. I argued for Bancroft at the start of the Ashes, but he's had a fair chance and hasn't done well enough. I haven't said any of that, either. I've always rated both the Marshes, I've argued for Maxi on his own merits. I was saying he needed to replace Ussie, because Ussie wasn't doing much either. I'm still not 100% convinced there either. A century would've been something. A few fifties would've been something. Hell, even two fifties would've been *something*. He simply hasn't shown that he's ready.
Don Freo
Guest
Not between posters...although many want that. I mean conflict between players. In this case the call to pick Burns is based on claims that Bancroft is a failure. The call to pick Maxi is because the Marshes are hopeless. They are all worthy. Why put down a player because he is not you preferred choice? I'd much prefer to hear what Lehmann, Smith or Hohns says and look at what they are affirming. One player is not good because the other isn't. They are both good...in many cases, all 5 or 6 candidates are good.
Matt P
Roar Rookie
Mate, when have I ever tried to set you up for conflict? I have no intention of doing so, no need to take what I say at anything other than face value. Burns' technique is more suited to being a middle order bat, yes, but that doesn't mean he's not a proper opener, nor does it mean that he's not as good at opening as Bancroft (or any other opener). Bancroft didn't take his chances this series. 5 tests in (generally) fairly docile batting conditions is a good enough chance. He performed half as well as the next worst batsman. There is, and should be, pressure on him for his spot. Pure and simple, one 50 and a 25 average for a batsman and "pure" opener in these conditions is not good enough. Burns has objectively better FC and test records.
Don Freo
Guest
I have no problems with Burns in the middle order. That's where his batting is suited, not opening. Once again, I'll state, I am not claiming one is superior to the other. Why do people keep wanting to set up a conflict. We have well over 30 batsmen in Shield cricket that would make a go of Test cricket given a chance. Simply Burns is not as suited to opening as Bancroft. Burns will not be picked to open for Oz in SA.
Matt P
Roar Rookie
Correction, 8 tests, not 7.
Matt P
Roar Rookie
That's not quite accurate, Don. Burns averaged mid-30s after his *first* series, which was the second half of India's test tour, where he scored a pair of 50s in his second test. Batted at 6 as well. His first stint as opener was the subsequent home summer, where he scored 3 centuries and 2 fifties from his next 7 tests, including 170 and 65 in the second test in NZ. First dumped after two tests in Sri Lanka (along with Khawaja), then got the twin failures in Tassie and the "reshuffle" of the Aussie outfit. Your statement there isn't quite right, he averaged almost 50 by the SL tour (which is even in the article), and was then only given three tests over two stints. Less than what Bancroft has so far been afforded. You can say what you like about Burns, but the fact that, even if he isn't "a solid opener", he still has better FC and test stats than the bloke in there now speaks volumes.
Don Freo
Guest
Gilchrist hardly played for WA...Ryan Campbell was our keeper through that time. Gilly played for Oz mostly. I have no problem with an import. Just don't claim state superiority if you don't BYO.
Don Freo
Guest
Nowhere am I arguing one is better than the other. Burns is very loose outside off. He is not a solid opener. He averaged 50 after his first series. He averaged 38 by the time he was omitted. How do you think his average went down by 12? By getting 50s? He began to get out cheaply and that impacted on his numbers.
matth
Guest
Joe Burns should tour and so should Bancroft. Let them have a bat-off if required. Burns can cover the top and middle order. Bancroft can cover a back up wicket keeper at a pinch. so the squad get's flexibility there. I personally would like to see Burns get another chance. I believe the selectors should think long and hard before discarding an opener that hits 3 centuries in his first 13 tests. I would back Handscomb to work on his problems and he would be my other back up. As for the bowlers, I agree that Tremain looks the goods, but so does Bird at Shield level. So for now i would stick with Bird and Sayers, but give Sayers first crack if there is an injury, especially at Cape Town, where Philander has a ridiculously good record.
matth
Guest
You seemed to accept Gilchrist for WA ok though, Don?
matth
Guest
That comment is just strange. It does mean, subject to not outs, that Burns has on average scored 13 more runs per innings than Bancroft across their test opportunities to date. Sure it won't happen every innings, but consider Bancroft was not out in one of his 10 innings as well. Burns has no not outs. Burns has 3 centuries in 13 tests. Bancroft has none. I'm not saying Bancroft should necessarily be thrown to the wolves, but to deny that Burns currently has a better test record than Bancroft is delusional.
matth
Guest
Agreed. If you are going to play with the order in that way, I'd be moving Khawaja up. He also has a very good record opening. Having said that Burns is my choice as well.
matth
Guest
So not travelling to South Australia anytime soon, Ronan? At least you could have picked Ferguson, Lehman or Weatherald as a back up bat to sooth the Croweaters!
Don Freo
Guest
You can be parochial when you play Victorian players. Are the locals not good enough? Boasting about other states' cast offs is not a winning argument.
Matt P
Roar Rookie
Averaged 25 in the JLT Cup, and 11 in the Shield at selection time - which he continued until his last knock brought it up to 16. Not stiff at all, he shouldn't have even been there in the first place and was extremely fortunate to be given the opportunity - which doesn't happen if the selectors don't shaft Burns. Hopefully he'll pick himself up but he's been shocking this season.
DaveJ
Guest
Good point. And apologies to Ronan.
Rob
Guest
The Australian fielding has been ordinary and it's been slowly getting worse. I did consider Smith to have a safe set of hands. If I compared Smith to M.Taylor the Waugh's or Ponting he wouldn't hold a candle to them. The Marsh boys couldn't catch a cold and when Khawaja is looking good in the field you know the overall standard isn't very high.
DaveJ
Guest
Correct.