You would assume that when an Australian team returns from an away Ashes series with the urn in tow for the first time in 18 years, said team would be settled, stable and with close to eleven automatic selections.
That assumption would be incorrect.
With the First Test in Brisbane just over a month away, there are potentially four spots in the Australian starting XI up for grabs, and possibly even two more, depending on how much you value continuity, captaincy or forward planning.
The opening rounds of Shield cricket have seldom been more important, as Australia looks to select a team that can build on the momentum of an Ashes series win (er, draw), while also removing any ‘dead wood’ from the squad.
There are questions aplenty surrounding the Test team, but somewhat bizarrely, the biggest question is who will open the batting. As in, both spots.
Australia took a trio of openers to England: David Warner, Cameron Bancroft and Marcus Harris. Between the three of them, they averaged just 30 runs, as the top of the order became Australia’s Achilles Heel.
Warner was nowhere from start to finish, looking as muddled mentally as he did technically, with Stuart Broad completely dismantling him. He played every Ashes Test, but probably shouldn’t have, after averaging a paltry 9.5.
Bancroft, who was far from settled in the position before he was suspended, was rewarded with re-selection, and then went out and appeared absolutely lost; getting dropped after two Tests while averaging 11.
Harris was a little unlucky to lose his spot to Bancroft in the first place, but then did little to reclaim it, returning in the Third Test to average a disappointing 9.7 the rest of the way.
It goes without saying, but all three did little in England to convince selectors they should be picked against Pakistan, and left the door wide open for another batsman – or batsmen – to take their place.
So who should open the batting?
(Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)
Well, the obvious – and right – answer is “Whoever scores Shield runs”, but that’s a bit boring. So I’ll just go ahead and pick Joe Burns and David Warner now.
Burns averages over 40 in Test cricket and has scored four hundreds, including 180 in his last dig, against Sri Lanka. According to espncricinfo.com, he’s also scored more Sheffield Shield runs than any other player since 2010.
It’s a pretty impressive record, and while at the time of Ashes selection he was coming back from a break due to fatigue caused by a viral infection, it still begs the question of how selection eluded him in England.
There’s not much Burns can do about that now, but what he can do is continue to score runs, and he’s certainly doing that to start the summer.
He notched back-to-back unbeaten half-centuries in the domestic One Day competition, (now called the Marsh Cup), and while I’m always hesitant to use limited-overs form to justify Test selection, it at least indicates he’s in good form.
More pertinently, he also registered a half-century in the first Shield game of the year; a match that New South Wales won yesterday.
Though I feel Burns should be given the Australian summer to cement his spot, he probably needs one more big score to silence any critics; especially as Harris is the incumbent and scored 116 in Victoria’s Shield game against South Australia.
However, looking at the scorecard and highlights, the Junction Oval wicket was an absolute road, which unfortunately puts a small asterisk against Harris’ century.
As crazy as it sounds, he probably needed an unbeaten double hundred to gain any real kudos from that game.
Meanwhile, Bancroft’s returns of 30 and a duck against Tasmania ensures he has fallen quite a long way down the pecking order.
Though there are still two Shield games to play before the Australian team is announced, someone would have to do something pretty special for me to overlook Burns.
Who should partner him at the top of the order?
There’s been a push to drop Warner, and I can totally understand the notion of moving on from the veteran opener, as he had a terrible Ashes series, and was a walking wicket by the end.
Yet Australia’s next five Tests are at home, and Warner averages 59.6 on Australian soil. Any way you cut it, that’s a sensational statistic.
Some have tried their hardest to disparage Warner’s record, and it’s become fashionable to label Warner a ‘flat-track bully’. Though there may be an element of truth in that, it also implies that most Australian batsmen aren’t in the same category.
Truth is, outside of Steve Smith, most of the Aussies are extremely comfortable in their own confines; and less so outside of them. Warner is hardly Robinson Crusoe when it comes to preferring the decks he has grown up on.
Say what you will about Warner’s troubles in England, but Australia won’t be touring there for another four years, so it’s a pretty redundant point if it’s your ammunition for dropping him for the Australian summer.
The bottom line is that Australia simply doesn’t have the depth to be ignoring someone who averages 46 in Test cricket, and 60 at home.
Don’t believe me? Then consider this: Warner’s overseas Test record is often cited as the reason to stop persisting with him. Yet at 33.2, his away Test average is only marginally less than the averages of Marcus Harris (37.9) and Cameron Bancroft (38.9)… in First-Class cricket.
There’s no way I’d pick Bancroft or Harris over Warner. Then given Matt Renshaw’s continued struggles, plus Usman Khawaja falling out of favour (along with scores of 1 and 24 in his Shield outing), and Warner’s gaudy home average means he’s an automatic selection.
Oh, he also just scored 125 against Queensland at the very venue the First Test will be played at.
Warner will retain his spot at the top of the order, and he deserves to.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
The thing is, even looking at your stats, Warner's period of "decline" still has him averaging more than the other contenders for the opening spot. I'm not sure if Khawaja's small sample set of opening the innings necessarily is proof that he's better opening than at number 3. It's only a small number of innings and there are other factors at work there too. Renshaw's issue is that he's completely lost form since last playing test cricket. He had one period in the second half of a Shield season where he came good, and then followed that with a good county season, but other than that he's been struggling so much that there might be pressure on him to even retain his spot in the Queensland side soon.
Rob
Guest
Bancroft is averaging 26 runs and 57 balls from 18 Test innings. Harris averages 24 runs and 43 balls from 17 Test innings. Khawaja averages 40 runs and 74 balls from 77 Test innings but what is even more frightening is his Test average when opening the bat is 96.80 from 7 innings. That’s a no brainer about where he should be batting. When looking at Renshaw’s average of 33 runs and 74 balls from 20 Test Innings he is light years ahead of Bancroft and Harris. Warner appears to be owed another home series but the fact is in the last 3 years over 38 Test innings his averaged 37 and I’m guessing the balls faced would be less than 60 during that period. Warner’s game is now appearing to be in decline and after the last Ashes series it might be time the blokes who have potential are given a shot.
jimmmm
Guest
warner burns khawaja smith labuchagne puckovski paine cummins j richardson lyon hazelwood if we play horses for courses o/s logically should apply at home - that top 6 has phenomenal domestic records - really want to see the richardson/ cummins combo back that destroyed Sri Lanka- bowled superbly together
Josh H
Roar Rookie
I don't disagree at all, Paul. My comment was simply in response to OP's claim that Renshaw needed to fix his technique, when in fact the opposite is true. He just needed to extend it in order to put himself in the position to score runs, which is more a mental thing than technical. His technique is almost perfect.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
You've spent a great deal of time (and words) discussing this, and I appreciate the chat; especially exposing a slight flaw in the thinking around relying on Warner's average on home soil as the reason to select him. I can keep this pretty simple: I think Warner's home record, overall Test numbers, and Shield century, put him at the top of the list for the choices to open the batting in the First Test. You think his average on Australian soil is largely irrelevant, and want to drop him on account of his average/performance in the last Test series, picking "on form". By your very own rationale, that also rules out Bancroft and Harris as well, who 'performed' at almost the same level as Warner in the Ashes. Renshaw is definitely out. And probably Khawaja too, if you're a proponent of ignoring home averages. So seriously, who is opening the batting for Australia with Burns, if not Warner?
anon
Roar Pro
I think you underestimate the politics involved. The national coach has far greater influence than any selector.
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
Small, but important, point: he’s not averaging 10 in Tests. He’s averaging 46. Oh don't be pedantic. You know what I meant. ...but he averaged 10 in England, and that’s simply not where the next Tests are being played. This is simply a (slight) variation on a theme. Warner failed dismally in his latest *Test* series. Traditionally this means he should be dropped, *regardless* of where the next Test is. And to look at the ridiculous logic of this 'Cos he's got a great record in Oz' argument another way; Recalling that he didn't play last Oz summer, the performances that are its base are between two and eight years old. Do you really believe that runs scored *eight* years ago should have any relevance to now? And if not eight, when is the cutoff? 7? 6? What? Use the current form. In the immortal words of Sam Kekovitch; "You know it makes sense". And while you say that it's a "very big stretch from ‘home record’ to ‘venue-by-venue’" that statement is using reasonable logic, a form which *isn't* being used to advocate Warner's selection, it being based on selective and historical performances. I say again, Pandoras' tin of worms awaits if Oz go down that path... Another point; If Warner does play in T1 and continues to fail, then, as his average in Oz will barely be affected, doesn't the lousy logic of using his Oz record dictate that he'll play the whole summer? But answer me this, if Warner scores another Shield century before selection, and no one else gets runs, would you pick Warner for the first Test? That's a tad, or possibly even two tads, hypothetical. (So I won't ask you if you'd pick him if he flops in all his remaining SS games). I did say earlier though that; "Atm, Warners’ *sole* hope of getting the T1 gig should be racking up Shield runs." so according to that he'd have to be in the top two rankings. Even "if", it'd have to be a very significant disparity between him and the contenders for me to pick him.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Small, but important, point: he’s not averaging 10 in Tests. He’s averaging 46. I know you know this, but he averaged 10 in England, and that’s simply not where the next Tests are being played. You think that last point should be ignored, I don’t. Guess we’re at impasse there. But answer me this, if Warner scores another Shield century before selection, and no one else gets runs, would you pick Warner for the first Test?
Dillon
Roar Rookie
My team for the First Test vs Pakistan 1. Joe Burns/Usman Khawaja (Either one will be better than Harris and Bancroft) 2. David Warner (can't drop him for a home test series) 3. Marnus Labuschagne 4. Steve Smith 5. Travis Head (should be recalled, don't need a batting all-rounder) 6. Matthew Wade 7. Tim Paine (c) (wk) 8. Pat Cummins 9. Mitchell Starc (maybe James Pattinson, if Starc doesn't regain his form) 10. Nathan Lyon 11. Josh Hazlewood
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
In Maddinson’s only Test he was dismissed chasing runs in the second innings. Ahhh yes. Leaving aside the trivial fact that Snic actually played 3 Tests, I recall the incident you're referring to well. Snic played an unorthodox shot to get off the mark with a four. "SEE! THAT'S WHAT HE CAN DO!!!" Screamed NSW uber fanboi MA Taylor at the mike. Alas, Snic played a poor attempted hook at the very next ball and trudged back to the shed with a Test average of 1.7 trailing behind him.
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
Actually, I did mention which facts you ignored. Namely, that if Warner is going to be dropped, then someone has to replace him, and you didn’t say who. And still haven’t, incidentally. Oh, that sort of "fact". I thought you meant a stat fact. Anyhoo, that there has to be a replacement is a self-evident fact, and I don't care who it is. You just can't keep picking someone in such dismal Test form as Warner is. What sort of message is it sending to the aspirants? "You averaging 30 in the Shield isn't good enough to dislodge someone averaging under 10 in Tests". And when do you cry 'Enough!' if none of the aspirants are doing well? Another full season for Warner? Nope, I believe 5 Tests is well enough. It's certainly more chances than a shedload of players have been given. T1 selections will be interesting. I'm guessing that the selectors are sacrificing chickens, goats etc to the cricketing gods to help Warner to a more than respectable Shield average by the time they pick the T1 team. There's a thought! Seeing as the SCG is once more unfit for fc cricket CNSW should reschedule their early games to Junction Oval. Problem solved! Warner & Hughes to open in T1.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Actually, I did mention which facts you ignored. Namely, that if Warner is going to be dropped, then someone has to replace him, and you didn’t say who. And still haven’t, incidentally. I think that’s the most important point there is, more so than Warner’s home average. The reason that number is even relevant, is because it can become a ’tie-breaker’ of sorts when choosing between batsmen, especially in the absence of anyone knocking down the door to replace him. And given that, the fact Warner has the 5th highest average (of all time) in Australia (of those that have scored 1000+ runs) is pretty salient, rather than ‘rancid logic’. Nope, not denying that Warner is a serial knucklehead, and has embarrassed his country on numerous occasions. Just not sure of its relevance when discussing the notion of “perform or get dropped”? Warner was terrible in England, as you pointed out. But so were the other openers, no? That puts them on level pegging, I would argue. But surely Warner’s experience and record gets his nose in front? Another contender is Renshaw, who has been nowhere in Shield for over a year now, which I’d say rules him out too. So the opposition for Warner’s spot is limited, which brings his home record into play. That’s my point. The other contender, for mine, was Khawaja, who averages 97 as a Test opener (albeit in a small sample size). And I had actually dropped Warner in my original piece for this article, and had Uzzy and Burns opening. But once Khawaja failed, and Warner got a hundred, things became pretty clear that Warner should get first crack. Hopefully that answer, in total, answers your last question. Specifically, that selectors will look at whatever information they need to make a choice, including someone’s impressive home record. I hope and doubt it ever gets down to venue-by-venue selection, and think that’s a very big stretch from ‘home record’ to ‘venue-by-venue’.
Hutcho
Roar Rookie
Thanks for sharing that excerpt from your new book "I Don't Like Davey"
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
I think you underestimate, or just plain don’t understand, the power of the Australian cricket selectors. They are not sounding boards for the coach; the selectors are . . . selectors.
Pierro
Roar Rookie
I think Jhye and Pattinson both deserve to be watched closely in next few rounds . Lets see how patto does in the next few tests with proper wickets . Pattinson quite unlucky not to get a start in 5th test in england actually as they slightly misjudged that wicket and siddle was carrying an injury apparently (as was lyon potentially) so it wasn’t great work from the selectors there if they knew a few of them had niggles as Pattinson may have got some swing there and got england in a lot more trouble saving australia valuable runs . Hence I think he was a bit unlucky not to get more of a chance in England. I still will never quite believe he hit roots off stump and some how the bails didn’t come off. Back to the kookaburra here though so have to give him a change next two rounds. In the bowling department its exciting, positive and we even have a few additional bowlers to fall back on still in Starc and Neser in tests and Berendorff in the ODIs. Im sure a few more are coming through as well . Only concern in the Bowling department is with the spinners . Hoping Lyon gets back to what he does best this summer.
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Its true after what he did I don’t think Warner is good for the Australian cricket side at all but perhaps good for the scoreboard in australian matches. Not a long term solution abroad any more with very little test cricket abroad until 2021 where Warner will be on the way to 33 going on 34 . If we are being honest he was the poison in the team for some time and disregarded his captain and disgraced his nation and no one will argue with that if they are honest, if thats the type of person one wants to represent Australia as a trade in for runs on the board then so be it. Not for me. He’d have been carrying the drinks in the fifth test after his smarmy smiles and entitled attitude in England at times on the pitch. As it stands since his ban he has done nothing with the red ball really except fail so he’s a lock in the mind of those looking at his Australian average beyond 2 years ago. On a run basis I think he will probably make some decent runs but others at the top can on australian wickets as well in test cricket and they could provide a more compelling selection for the long term outlook going in to away series in 2021 and a huge year on the road in 2022 where warner will be aging and exposed. He threw his captain under a bus and embarrassed his nation . He’s the main reason Paine is captain as well although nothing against Paine despite his poor captaincy in england. Paine has been an excellent cricketer during his career with bad luck and injuries. I think Warners a lock with selectors as Langer demonstrated in England and has an amazing australian average, flat track bully for me . I still believe on current form he needs to produce in the next two shield matches. Melbourne seems to be flat wickets. Im looking for him to make runs at the Waca . No batsmen , period has ever performed so poorly in a previous series. Every other nation would have binned him in that series at some point but not our selectors . If he does play I hope he makes runs but concerned about the younger openers getting valuable home test experience for away series in 2021/22. I do agree of the back of the first round of shield no other opener put his case forward more than warner but interesting to note his duck in the second innings. Burns was a bit more consistent in both innings. Be interesting to see if any openers can make runs in the next shield games in brisbane
Jero
Roar Rookie
Harold Larwood, Malcolm Marshall, Dale Steyn. Height isn't everything.
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Didn't realize he was that short actually. He definitely provides variation and before his injury had learnt to jam the breaks on run flow. His economy rate was outstanding. Cummins hazel wood and richardson are the three that have the ability to suffocate batsman and run flow
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
"You’re being a little selective with your facts there.". But then you *don't* mention what facts I've ignored. Yes, he's got a terrific record in Oz, but my point is that now distant form has always been irrelevant to selections. "Calling Warner a “serial knucklehead” probably revealed your irrational bias..." Shot yourself right in the foot here. Are you seriously denying that Warner *isn't* the worst behaved Test player in our history? Jaysus! And you call someone else "irrational"! It is beyond my comprehension that anyone could disagree with Warner being described as such. Throwing punches at Joe Root in a nightclub, drunken & abusive Twitter rants against cricket journalists (note the plural), abusing spectators, argy-bargy on the field and, completely failing to learn through either experience or age, the biggie, being the first Oz player to introduce ball-tampering to our Test side. "Serial knucklehead" is mild and, I would have thought, entirely accurate. "It’s way more credible than trying to build a case for Warner not to be picked based on his exceptional home record; which is so nonsensical, it was actually difficult to write.". And more difficult to read. And, like the Nile, impossible to determine its source without high tech & expensive equipment. Tell me, I've never seen this ridiculous rationale used before. Could you name an instance? (Actually, I've just thought of a near-precedent. But I'll keep that even more ludicrous episode dry) Selection is perfectly simple. You do well, you keep getting picked. You do badly, you get dropped. Warner has just had the worst 5 Test series by an opener in the history of cricket. I'd opine that falls into the category of 'bad without even touching the sides'. I can't imagine a batsman in Clubland holding their spot after averaging 9.5 in their last 5 games yet here we have "experts" advocating it at the highest level. And btw, you somehow neglected to respond to my pov that selecting Warner on this rancid rationale would create a very nasty precedent for the future.
anon
Roar Pro
No, he convinces them why he should play. Then they say okay we'll back your decision. At the end of the day the buck stops with the coach, so you give him the players he wants. The selectors are there to act as a sounding board for the coach. Very naive to think all three act independently of each other.