No, it's not time for David Warner to step aside

Even before the just held Ashes, Warner did not make runs away from Australia. Overrated, overhyped and unfortunately still around. Move him on.

@Jero How about some bleeding obvious common sense. Select all Test players (with no exceptions) based on current form over past 6 months in forms of the game (and locations) as close as possible to what they will experience in the real Test match for which you are selecting. If Aust selectors had followed this simple bit of common sense we would have won a lot more Test matches the past 10 yrs imo :) It's too early to select the Test team now. I'd keep to common sense and decide on 1st day of the Test match :)

Possibly not, though the same rationale also seems to explain Khawaja and Shaun Marsh being virtual locks in the team in recent years. They wouldn't even play Khawaja on the subcontinent until the Capetown suspensions forced their hand for last year's Pakistan series. The gulf states aren't on the subcontinent I realize, but you get the point. Shaun's overseas Test record is a nightmare. He survives entirely on his domestic record, which has overall been solid since his horror start against India here in 2012/3.

"They’ll stick with Warner for a while longer due to his great home record..." A reason that I can't recall ever being given before.

Waxhead, Iirc, Roar ratings/titles have nothing to do with expertise. 'Expert' can be either someone who has made >= x posts *or* is a regular article writer. So nothing to do with knowledge, achievements, qualifications or even talent.

Paul, Using your logic should Alec, a county player, be commenting on international players?

They'll stick with Warner for a while longer due to his great home record and the fact no-one is putting their hand up as an obvious replacement. I think he has earned the right to be given a chance to find some test form. There has to be a limit to the forbearance shown by the selectors but he's safe for a few games I'd say.

"Do you come from a land down under? Where women glow and rubbish batsmen plunder?"

Your comment was disparaging, to state the bleeding obvious. Can you illuminate us as to the bleeding obvious about who should open for Australia in three weeks time? About who's "earned it"?

I get the point about the batting, which has been bolstered by Warner and Smith over the last five years and made Mitch Marsh’s lack of success at 6 manageable over that time. But as you point out above, while manageable with just four specialist bowlers, it also comes at something of a compromise in terms of bowler speed and defensive field settings. As I type this, Pucovski LBW for 7.

@Paul I'm not claiming to be an "expert" like Alec is. I am claiming to have some common sense though and like everyone else I'm entitled to an opinion. My comments were not demeaning either. They are just a statement of the bleeding obvious and playing 77 or more county games does not qualify anyone to have common sense :)

Lets assume Australia has to bowl 90 overs in a day on a pretty unresponsive pitch. Lyon knows he's likely to get at least 30 of those so that leaves the other 10 guys to bowl the other 60. Each quick should be capable of bowling 20 overs in a day, though they might not have to, depending on whether Labuschagne & Smith help out. Even still, the guys cut their pace, bowl to defensive fields and try and wear down the batsman, just as sides have done for decades. If there are concerns about bowling on dead flat surfaces, eg the MCG, include guys in the squad who can bowl long spells - but don't weaken the batting simply because guys might have to bowl more overs. PS Totally agree player management, especially for the quicks, will be paramount between Tests.

I might not agree with Alec's opinion, but I'd certainly respect and not insult someone, good enough to play 77 county games. What's your claim to fame as a cricketer that you can make such demeaning comments?

I like the golden armer idea, but it relies upon Marnus doing a fair bit more work than he's been doing to date, other than at the SCG. Smith seems to have lost all interest in bowling. Assuming Kane Williamson gets over his hip issue and given what Ross Taylor did at the WACA on the last tour, there's potentially some long spells for our quicks to be bowled. Managing bowlers within, not just between, Tests is something which also has to be taken into consideration. Especially if the difference in batting output between who you might pick as a specialist batsman and who you might pick as an all-rounders isn't necessarily that stark at this moment. Stoinis has hit three successive Shield 50s in the middle order, which is actually pretty flattering compared to everyone bar Shaun Marsh and Nic Maddinson right now. There's plenty of grey area to make a case for an all-rounder so long as our specialist batsmen continue on this trajectory. For the Perth and MCG Tests in particular.

I think should Warner's struggles continue this home season of five tests (unlikely) then the possibility of seeing him ousted remains. As most would suspect though, he will probably have a productive time within the pitches and conditions where he boasts a terrific record. A lean series and being dumped might just see that T20 freelancing life - which many have spoken of - begin.

@Alec Swann What an absurd article you wrote - you call yourself an expert huh :) Warner should be selected as opener in Test team for Nov 21 irrespective of form you say. The form reality is that Warner has played only 1 series of Test matches in the past 18 months ie the Ashes. And we know the outcome there. So you don't care if Warner makes any runs in Sheffield Shield post Ashes. You say batsman should be selected based on form from 2 yrs ago and ignore the past 12 months. Forgot T20 form - it's irrelevant to Test form. So while you're selecting on form from some arbitrary number in the distant past why don't we select on form from 3 or 5 yrs ago instead of 2. How do you justify 2 yrs ago - why not 5 or 10 yrs ago? Warner may well have a few decent yrs left as a Test batsman in Aust only but..... like every player - he's got to earn it. It's a joke and farce if you ever select players based on form from even more than past 6 months ago. And you seriously propose we should make a special case of Warner and give him 2 yrs. And you call yourself an expert .... OMG :)

again though Jero, you're suggesting we need to support our strength, the fast bowlers and Lyon, by giving them an extra resource, which is likely to hurt our serious weakness, our batting. If anything we should be making our batting as strong as possible, even if that means using guys of doubtful Test pedigree, while best utilizing our strength, the depth of quality quicks, to get through the Test summer. I think we need to ignore the pitch conditions and focus on the timing of the Tests. The first is in 3 weeks and it's safe to assume all quicks should be fit and ready to go. There's only a 3 day break before the next Test, so if someone is carrying a niggle or selectors think they're a danger to get injured and leave the team with only 3 recognized bowlers, bring in a replacement. After the second Pakistan Test, we have a week and half before the First Kiwi Test, so there should be no issues putting together 4 good bowlers. In that series there's a decent gap between the First & Second Tests, so bowlers should be able to go back-to-back, but again only a few days after the Christmas Test to the New Years Test. Same thing should apply, swap out any bowler not 100% and bring in a replacement, but only if needed, not simply to rotate guys around.

It might also mean leaving out batsmen too. Fielding just 9 or 10 players would be a first in world cricket. Maybe Warner should bat on his own. Among our 458 Test players to date, if you look at all batsmen there are plenty whose raw stats suggest that they weren’t Test standard either. Since Warner debuted, only Burns, Voges and Head have Test averages above 40 (if this context is in any way applicable, given that Labsuchagne doesn’t either). The standard of players of the day might dictate what Test standard means, in real terms. I accept that there aren’t any front runners of the kind we would wish for in more fertile times, but that applies just as equally to batsmen as it does to all-rounders. It’s only our seam bowling stocks that are full to overflowing. Of all arguments for picking a specialist batsman at 6, Pucovski gets some traction when there’s a shallow pool of candidates simply because if he’s ready to go (IF) there’s a case for getting a reputed prodigy into the team sooner rather than later. But I think you always have to pick according to the conditions, and they strongly favour an all-rounder against New Zealand in particular, for the sake of managing our seam bowling and getting the overs we need bowled. If it were a Test at Bellerive I’d have no hesitation in picking six specialist batsmen. If it’s a choice between a non-Test standard batsman and a non-Test standard all-rounder on flat, lifeless wickets in hot conditions against a strong batting line up , it doesn’t seem to me to be any great dilemma to pick the best available all-rounder over the best specialist batsman available, in these times.

I’d back Marsh to do OK on Australian wickets, but can’t see the selectors going back to him. As for Stoinis, his bowling adds no more than Labuschagne, so might as well pick the best specialist batsman, which definitely ain’t him.

Quite right. Plus others have suggested he’s getting too old anyway and time to move on. But 33 these days for batsmen is just hitting the peak, given fitness levels and Warner looks fitter than most. Could have 4-5 more good years. Just depends on hunger and whether he’s njoying the game. You don’t write someone off just on the basis of one series if everything they’ve done before that points in a different direction.