In the last three years Matthew Renshaw, Cameron Bancroft, Aaron Finch and now Marcus Harris have all made their debuts at the top of the order for Australia, all in an era when our top six has been in relative flux and batting collapses have become more common.
Those four players have first class and test records as follows.
Matthew Renshaw
Tests: averages 33.5 from 11 matches with one hundred.
First class: averages 39 from 47 matches with ten hundreds.
Cameron Bancroft
Tests: averages 30.9 from eight matches with no hundreds.
First class: averages 38.4 from 76 matches with 11 hundreds.
Aaron Finch
Tests: averages 45.3 from two matches with no hundreds.
First class: averages 36.6 from 79 matches with seven hundreds.
Marcus Harris
First class: averages 35.6 from 67 matches with nine hundreds.
Joe Burns
Tests: averages 36.8 from 14 matches with three hundreds.
First class: averages 40.0 from 100 matches with 15 hundreds.
So how did Burns fall so far down the pecking order? Compared to the other players in the list above, he has the most experience at first-class level. He has scored more Test and first-class hundreds than the others. His Test average is better than any bar Finch’s two tests so far. His first-class average is better than any other.
Let’s have a look at Burns Test career. He started in the middle order against India and in only his second match he hit a 50 in each innings, so he was dropped. Can you imagine Mitch Marsh being dropped after two 50s in a match? Cameron Bancroft?
Burns was not selected for Australia’s next two Test series, against the West Indies and the 2016 Ashes in England. After Chris Rogers retired and Shaun Marsh was dropped again Australia were looking for new top order options. Enter Joe Burns the opener. In his first Test back he scored 71 and 129.
So Burns had made four consecutive over-50 scores in his first three Test matches. Then there followed a lean spot. In the next three matches Burns’s highest score was 40, but in the Boxing Day Test he again scored a century. So after his first full Australian summer Burns’s record was two centuries and three 50s from 14 innings. He had averaged over 35 in all three series and had improved in each.
But this was all at home. Could Burns play away from the Australian roads? A fourth-ball duck in the first Test on the February 2016 tour of New Zealand may have caused some doubts, but in the second Test Burns hammered 170 in the first innings and 65 in the second to earn the man of the match award.
Burns was on top of the world after averaging over 78 for the series. His career Test average was approaching 50 after just ten matches. He was hitting a century every three innings and had managed another four 50s on top of that. One would have expected a long stay at the top of the order.
But then Burns had one bad series and was dropped after two Tests of a three-test series in Sri Lanka. In those two Tests the entire Australian batting line-up was exposed as naive and frankly poor against the spinning ball. In four innings Australia’s best innings score was only 203. Only one Australian batsman hit even a half-century across the two games – Steve Smith with 55. This was Burns’s first series without a century.
But Smith and David Warner were untouchable, and rightly so being in the middle of a golden period. Adam Voges was coming back to reality after unprecedented success, and Mitch Marsh had so much potential. And they had all performed slightly less inadequately than Burns and Usman Khawaja. So the two were made scapegoats and paid for the collective failure. In Khawaja’s case this took two years of away-match learning from a player obviously in our top six bats in the country.
(AP Photo/Themba Hadebe)
In the case of Burns, he was sent into the wilderness. Again, can you imagine Mitch Marsh or Cameron Bancroft being dropped two Tests after a man-of-the-match performance in an Australian overseas victory? After three hundreds in their first 12 Test matches and still averaging over 41?
Australia looked the goods in the third Test, compiling a decent first innings. Shaun Marsh, opening in place of Burns, scored a century. But in the second innings Australia again failed to pass 200. After a 23 from Marsh, none of the middle order reached double figures.
Despite his stellar home record the summer before, Burns was missing from the team sheet for the start of the home summer. Khawaja, on the other hand, was brought back immediately now that he was away from those nasty Asian pitches. Shaun Marsh was preferred at the top – and he was performing nicely, by the way. Voges and Mitch Marsh were preferred in the middle order, but they were not performing nicely at all.
Australia were thumped by 177 runs in the opening Test and Shaun Marsh succumbed to one of his periodic injuries. Burns was brought back for the second Test.
And it was a disaster, with scores of one and zero. But it was a collective failure. In the first innings Australia were shot out for under 90, with Smith the only player in the top seven to score more than three. We managed to get all the way to 160 in the second.
The loss of the series with barely a whimper led to a savage reaction from the selectors. Burns (after one game), Voges, Callum Ferguson (after one chance), Peter Nevill and Joe Mennie joined the Marshes on the sidelines. In came Peter Handscomb, Matt Renshaw, Nic Maddinson(!) and Matthew Wade.
Renshaw was hailed as the second coming of Bill Lawry after scoring 44 runs in 183 balls and Handscomb 55. Maddinson managed a 12-ball duck and Wade scored four. But we won the dead rubber on the back of Khawaja, Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazlewood and Nathan Lyon, and a new era was born. Three Tests after a man-of-the-match performance in an away Test match and Burns was jettisoned, seemingly never to return.
So Burns plugged away. In the 2016-17 Shield season he topped the Queensland run-scoring charts with 724 at 40.22 with two hundreds. In 2017-18 Queensland won the Shield with Burns contributing 725 runs at 55.76 with two hundreds, one being a double. Double hundreds do tend to get opening batsmen noticed. This season so far Burns has made 356 from five matches at 44.5.
In March 2018 the Australian cricketing landscape was ripped apart, or at least scraped badly, by an errant piece of sandpaper. So straight after the Shield final Burns, along with Matt Renshaw and Glenn Maxwell, was flown halfway around the world to face, with no acclimatisation, the best pace attack in world cricket on its home turf with its tail right up. Maxwell was flown all that way to be made 12th man, but that is a whole other story.
Of course Australia were slaughtered. They struggled to 221 in the first innings, with both the jetlagged openers out for single figures. In the second innings it was worse. Australia was shot out for just 119. Burns top-scored by some distance with 42. Handscomb hit 24, and no-one else reached ten.
So with both the incumbent openers out of action – Bancroft had averaged a majestic 30 by this time with no centuries so was apparently a terrible loss – plus Steve Smith missing as well, you would have expected that a player who had scored three hundreds opening the batting for his country, had averaged over 40 for the last two Shield seasons and had shown the fortitude to top score in a terrible situation with the team melting around him would have been a valuable asset.
Apparently not.
(AFP Photo/Saeed Khan)
Burns was left out of the Australia A Tour of India. In the next available series after top-scoring for his country in South Africa Burns was no longer considered to be in the best 12 available batsmen in the country – 15 if you include the Sandpaper Three. Given no opportunity to press for selection, he was overlooked for the recent tour of Pakistan in favour of Renshaw, who he outplayed in their last test; Finch, who is not actually an opener in red ball cricket; and Khawaja, who moved from his spot at first drop.
Other batsmen who were now preferred to Burns included Travis Head and Marnus Labuschagne. Burns has hit more test hundreds than Labuschagne has hit first-class tons. Burns has hit twice the number of first-class centuries as Head. Burns averages comfortably more than both at first-class level and now at Test level too.
Australia put up a fight in Pakistan but still lost the series with a pretty poor second Test performance. The Marshes collectively contributed nothing to the series.
Fast forward to the summer of 2018. India are touring. Where is Joe Burns? He just hit 96 against a Victorian attack. The entire Victorian side made 167 in their first innings.
Where would we be if Burns had been persisted with in 2016? If he had toured Pakistan? We will never know.
Poor Joe Burns.
anon
Roar Pro
Given that Mitch Marsh was one of the players most to blame for the recent humiliation in the UAE, didn't stand up in South Africa when we needed him (and his brother), given that he has an average of 26 from 30 Tests, I don't understand the reluctance to experiment with other batsmen. What makes Mitch Marsh so special exactly? What makes him exempt from EARNING his spot like everyone else. It's not like he has any credits in the bank from having stunning first class average. A summer playing domestically might do Marsh the world of good. Sure, he might eventually come good, but how many Test series is he going to cost us in the meantime. He's a big reason for our UAE humiliation and series loss in South Africa.
Michael Keeffe
Roar Guru
If use that logic Burns should be in the current test team. If you combine from January 2017 until before last weeks shield games Joe Burns has the best first class average in Australia with an average of 48.56. Marcus Harris averages 43.48 in this time and his likely opening partner Aaron Finch averages 42.33 (not once opening for Victoria). So based on trending form Burns should be in the team.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
One test into that SAf tour and the selectors were patting themselves on the collective back with respect to M.Marsh (with the willow).
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#Matt H Certainly quality vs quantity is an issue - and that's what I alluded to with respect to the comparison of FC numbers for Finch vs Burns. Finch has been off playing international white ball cricket including national captaincy. That has impacted his ability for the sort of consistent run at FC cricket that Burns has mostly had. It's not an apples with apples comparison. Finch making ODI 100s for Australia counts just was D.Warner T20 form once upon a time counted, and before that A.Symonds white ball 'proof of talent' seemed to buy him an extend run in tests (hmmm, M.Marsh,....S.Watson.....).
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
The Handscomb 'average' is similar in respect to Burns - in that it started high and has fallen away. Just because a guy has an average of 43 doesn't make him in form. The trend was downward for a couple of reasons. Similar to Burns - first 4 tests, on fire - 399 runs with 4 outs, at 99.75 with 2 centuries. Beauty. Since then, 9 more tests, 430 runs at 28.6 with only 2 times past 50. You can't say that he has ever been averaging 43. It was either 99 or 28. Likewise for Burns. He was going at 57 or 30, never has he averaged 36 other than 'career' long but that doesn't allow for what makes up a career which is the trending of form. And that trending of form is why for example Marcus Harris is in the side based on his last couple of seasons for the Vics and not his overall average.
Matt H
Roar Guru
What I will say is your analysis ignores the qualitative aspects of my post above, as to the circumstances of when and how he was dropped and recalled on four occasions.
Matt H
Roar Guru
I don't pretend to be up to critiquing your analysis here Mike. I guess all I can say is that without comparing this data to the other cricketers I mentioned in the article, This data on it's own does not tell us how he compares.
Harvey Wilson
Roar Rookie
The stats make it seem bad he was dropped. Handscomb still averages 43 when he was dropped, i seem to remember Slater was dropped while averaging mid high 40s....yet some are immune *cough Mitchell Marsh
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#Matthew Pearce and #Matt H You need to be careful about the sample set of data at any time - especially when dealing with a mean/average which in the case of cricket we know can be a major distortion of true expectation. Overall he still has a reasonable strike rate of a 50+ score every 3.5 innings. His avg overall of 36.76 falls in a zone (30-50) where he's only been dismissed on 3 occasions. In his first 3 tests he had great numbers. 4 times over 50. Ripper. Trend analysis though shows in 11 tests since then that his bell curve of expectation has completely change skew. Statistical analysis tells us to note that his median score since then is 11. His mode is easy, it's 0. His average being 30 in those 11 tests, +/- 1 Standard Deviation is a range of -16 to +76. His 2 centuries in that time fall outside.
Matt P
Roar Rookie
Yeah, I seriously don’t get how people think this argument of taking away good performances to show a “true” average has any merit. Cricket’s a team sport for a reason. Would also love to know why this argument only seems to be used negatively.
JohnB
Roar Rookie
Ed Cowan on ABC Radio yesterday, when asked about who'd open said he'd have solved the problem by picking Burns and batting Finch down the list. So there's one (maybe Ed had read this piece!). On the other hand I heard a few weeks ago, also on the radio, Jim Maxwell when asked how come Burns (and others) weren't being talking about, saying that maybe Burns didn't fit in with the character over cover drives mantra. I thought at the time it was probably just Maxwell being typically ignorant, and casting a throwaway and completely unsupported slur at a non-NSW player - but maybe someone really doesn't like him.
Matt H
Roar Guru
Sorry for the multiple replies, lost my train of thought. Yes I am old fashioned in believing first class results should be important in determining a test team, given that is the game they play. I wouldn't advocate putting Chris Rogers in a T20 side any more than I would D'Arcy Short in a test team.
Matt H
Roar Guru
So the crux of the article was, would we have a top opener or middle order bat with decent to good results if the selectors had just shown the sort of blind faith and continuity that they gave to Mitch Marsh? We will never know.
Matt H
Roar Guru
Isn't it true if you exclude every player's good tests they look pretty bad? That tapering off period included two terrible test in Sri Lanka where the whole team failed, a single recall against South Africa nearly two years later and another single recall against South Africa during sandpaper gate where he top scored in his last innings. I can understand his exclusion, I can't understand how that exclusion started and continued - Fist time excluded after a fifty in each innings. Second time excluded two tests after a man of the match performance in an overseas test win. Most recent time excluded after top scoring in his last game on a terrible preparation. and after that last one he wasn't even in our top 15 batsmen?
Michael Keeffe
Roar Guru
Spot on. Burns should be the second batsmen picked behind Khawaja. In first class cricket over the past two calendar years (2017 & 2018) Burns averages more than any other Australian fc player with an average of 48.56. Peter Handscomb who has been recalled to the squad averages 33.56 in 2017 & 2018. He could open or play in the middle order and has a better record than Harris, Finch, Head, Handscomb & M Marsh. He's in the 6 best batsmen in the country even when Smith & Warner return. Should have been playing over the past two years. Crazy that he hasn't.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
Perhaps it's an old fashioned approach by the author - to restrict the scope of review to FC figures for test aspiration. However - a quick comparison of J.Burns (age 29, 101 FC matches, 14 tests, 68 List A and 6 ODIs) against Finch (age 32, 80 FC matches, 2 tests, 175 List A and 96 ODIs plus 50 T20Is and captaincy experience of National side); this comparison illustrates part of an ongoing issue. How do you be fair to the guys across all formats? It's very difficult. Both are pretty good players of cricket. Much better than most and both deserve their chances. If Burns never plays another test he's already had a much longer career than so very many. I felt the issue for Burns became his 'feast or famine' returns. After the home track Gabba test in Nov 2015 he was sitting on 346 runs at 57.67. 3 50s and 1 100 from 3 tests. Very nice start. In the 11 tests since - 573 runs at 30. Okay - he's tapered off. But in fairness - he hasn't been granted another crack at the Gabba!!! In amongst these next 11 tests with 19 innings he's gone past 50 just 3 times. 3 from 19 ins't flash. That's not test material. 5 from 19 past 40. 8 times past 20. Failed to reach double figs in 9 of those 19. And while he had a test of a life time vs NZ in Christchurch (235 runs in the 2 hits) - that just makes the other 10 tests in this sample look all the more ordinary. That leaves 338 runs from 17 hits at 20 across those other 10 tests. Yeah - nah, I'm comfortable with his exclusion.
Ben
Roar Rookie
He is in better form then head and finch and has a better average.
Matt H
Roar Guru
Thanks for the ‘stats boys’ comment Simoc. Stats aren’t perfect but it’s better in my opinion than gut feel and potential, because a teams win by scoring more runs and taking 20 wickets, not whether they look good. As for Burns that playing the shots comment is partially true but if you note his last shield match, which I watched, in the first innings he blazed away and his 96 was from around 120 balls or so. In the second innings when it was needed he dropped anchor to ensure victory he did scoring 25 or 30 off around 90 balls. So he can do both. I’m not saying Burns is Hayden reincarnated, I’m just saying he’s been held to a different standard than others. E.g. burns scores 42 in a losing cause in South Africa and is dropped. Renshaw scores 40 or so across two innings on debut and because it’s at home and we win it’s hailed asa monumental achievement and there was talk of a 10 year test player.
Matt H
Roar Guru
Exactly I’m choosing ‘better amongst the worst’ because the ‘better’ got dropped for it.
Kopa Shamsu
Guest
Ohhhkaaaa,that was good :-D :-D :-D :-D