At the time of writing this piece, there were seven stories on the cricket page of The Roar specifically asking questions about who should open the batting for Australia in the first Test.
The current candidates in no particular order include Marcus Harris, Tim Paine, Marnus Labuschagne, Matthew Wade, Joe Burns, Usman Khawaja and Shaun Marsh. I even saw a suggestion for Pat Cummins to show us what he could do with the bat. Most people were bemoaning the choices available, but at the end of the day, does it matter who opens?
First of all, it’s the first Test in a four-Test series, so it’s not the end of the world if we lose this game. Of course we want the Australian side to win, but the series is still very much alive if we don’t.
The odds are also stacked in Australia’s favour with quality players likely to be available for the rest of the series, whereas India will lose their best batsman and inspirational leader after Adelaide. In other words, we can be one down and still come back in the following Tests.
Ravi Shastri (right) and Virat Kohli are Team India’s brains trust. (Matt King/Cricket Australia/Getty Images
Second, there’s an assumption that whoever is chosen to open will fail. In fairness, that seems like a reasonable assumption, given the quality of the opposition bowling, the fact that it’s a day-night game, the likely pitch and weather conditions, as well as the form of the potential openers. It is, however, only an assumption and there are so many variables that could lead to a different result.
The Indian bowlers might spray it all over the place, the Aussie innings starts in broad daylight, the pitch and weather conditions offer little to the Indian bowlers, luck goes Australia’s way with decisions, the Indian team drops chances allowing the batsmen to settle or the Aussie openers dig deep and bat for an hour or more – there’s a lot that can happen.
Third, this same team has had recent form in combating very ordinary starts. Cast your minds back to the 2019 Ashes series. The following table shows when Australia lost its first and second wickets in that series.
| First Test | Second Test | Third Test | Fourth Test | Fifth Test | ||
| First innings | 1/2, 2/17 | 1/11, 2/60 | 1/12, 2/25 | 1/1, 2/28 | 1/5, 2/14 | |
| Second innings | 1/11, 2/27 | 1/13, 2/19 | 1/10, 2/36 | 1/0, 2/16 | 1/18, 2/29 |
That was a series played against a world-class attack in their home conditions, yet Tim Paine’s men went within one poor review and one bad umpiring decision of winning that series. They did enough to overcome poor starts and played as a team to win two Tests. Most of the XI from that series are back for this Test, with the difference being they are far more experienced and way more comfortable playing in home conditions.
Yes, the side will be up against a strong attack, but even if they lose early wickets, as they did in England, the team has shown remarkable resilience in overcoming poor starts to still post match winning scores.
Fourth, the Indians have to face some of the best bowlers in Test cricket.
Even if Australia loses its openers cheaply, even if the team fails to make gargantuan scores, the bowling attack is still perfectly capable of restricting the Indian line-up to totals less than Australia makes. It showed last season, especially against the Black Caps, the sort of pressure required to completely play a team out of the game, through searching bowling backed up by great catching and ground fielding.
In summary, it doesn’t really matter who opens the batting. We can all be sure they will be trying their best.
It’s only one game and if the rest of the team makes enough runs and all contribute to taking 20 Indian wickets for fewer runs, the side wins anyway.
Ace
Roar Rookie
Well, they didn't make solid starts and regardless of what is said to support selectors there is no denying they have blundered with Burns. Langer repeatedly says its runs that matter.. well why Burns? Any other time they would say its time to go back to shield cricket , or club, and find form not in the initial test match. Pathetic decision. Riles me to think they spent so much time coming up with the decision to play him. Anyone else please. As for Head. He will need a big one soon against quality. You get roasted in the past few weeks saying that there is a flaw with these two but if they have not got it then play the kids with technique. Get them out in the middle. At least Green was out to a great catch when he was punishing a loose ball. Not out to LBW or caught behind because of their obvious weaknesses
Rohan
Roar Rookie
I guess 16 overs is better than 4 :stoked:
Rohan
Roar Rookie
And who cares if Labs and Smith have to look at a ball that’s been down less than 20 times? When has a day night test gone the distance. Pujara knows what he is doing, tire out the seamers and the best players set for the new ball in the night session. It would have worked but for Rahane’s brain fade. If only Virat had kept running … Mat Wade can stay in I reckon, prayers for Joe may go unheard.
Rohan
Roar Rookie
Renshaw has averaged 98 in Shield in 20/21
Rohan
Roar Rookie
Rohan
Roar Rookie
Yeah who cares, our bowlers are so invincible that we can just give India a wicket on tick! Seriously? No-one has mentioned Aaron Finch. He was taken apart but Bumrah in the previous tour, yes, otherwise he looks pretty solid I think. There's no question of his attitude and commitment. Since the in 15 ODI innings, Bumrah has had him twice. Renshaw also given the flick for why?
Rohan
Roar Rookie
Yes, so true. Not only Burns ????
PeteB
Roar Rookie
So we drew a series in England we probably would have won if we had a better opening pair. It’s a poor argument to say it doesn’t matter. With a wet summer forecast there’s every chance a couple of tests could be washed out. To risk going one-nil down could cost the series.
Ben Pobjie
Expert
If it doesn't matter, why not bring Trevor Chappell out of retirement?
JamesH
Roar Guru
Form, technique, headspace... doesn't really matter what the reason was. My point is that they failed, and it made the Ashes campaign harder. "I’d be very disappointed if fans DID say our opening combination isn’t important." Then why are *you* saying this? The entire premise of this article is summed up by your line: "at the end of the day, does it matter who opens?". I'm assuming you chose the "who cares..." title. The fact that we did okay even though our openers failed in the Ashes doesn't mean we shouldn't be worried about our openers. You say we were one bad DRS call/umpiring decision away from winning that series. You could just as easily say we were one good opening partnership away from winning. India's bowling is as good as England's is but their batting is much better. I can't see us winning this series unless we get some good contributions up top.
Paul
Roar Guru
Bancroft was chosen for the Ashes on the strength of his form in County cricket, but as we saw, the step up to Tests was a step too far.
The Bush
Roar Guru
It's definitely a hard place to bat in general and especially open, so they should try and get as much experience there as possible. I'm not really sure how to research these things properly, but I've seen that Bancroft has had at least one decent season in County Cricket - he averaged 45ish I believe, though it was with a second division team (though that didn't seem to hurt Labuschagne). Harris doesn't appear to have ever played cricket outside Australia. As an international, he's eligible to play county cricket, so either he's not wanted (suggesting he's not much chop) or he's getting some bad career advice.
Andrew
Guest
Pretty hard task to do well as an opener in English conditions with a dukes ball. A bit of experience goes a long way but also look what happened to Warner. I think both those players have been judged a little harshly so far but Burns' form is worse than them.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Yeah, I’m no expert on batting, but from the mental side, I think hitting the ball off the square 20 times v 5 times (2 or 3 of which could have been snicks narrowly evading slips) is the main theory Simmo was getting at. He wrote an outstanding book in 1996 called ‘The Reasons Why’ just after his contract to coach Australia was not renewed again.
JamesH
Roar Guru
I'd say Khawaja and Marsh - both bat at 3 normally but they have opened plenty of times, including at test level. They've both been in great Shield form and Khawaja in particular has an exceptional test record at home. I know they are getting towards the end of their careers but we're talking about stop-gap solutions here. At least one and probably both of Warner and Pucovski will be fit for Boxing Day.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Maybe. I suppose the idea is really about time in the middle. If you got to 20 all in singles, you've probably faced 40-50 balls, so you've got more chance of being properly in. While if you got there in 5 fours, it may well be from a few loose slashes and you still aren't really in. But it's also not unusual that after scrapping for a while, it's one boundary cracked right off the middle of the bat that's the point where suddenly everything changes around.
The Bush
Roar Guru
I agree that I don't think Harris or Bancroft were "out of form" in the Ashes - they're just not very good or at least they're not that great in English conditions. Dunno about Warner, he's had some shocking tours around the world, but even by low standards, his Ashes was abysmal. Not sure if that was form or his head space.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
A bit off topic I know, but Bob Simpson said 25 years ago that an innings of 20 singles will help a batsman's form more than one of 5 4s. This is the approach Burns should take I think.
Andrew
Guest
Best response I've read on the matter. Thankyou. :happy:
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I don't know that things have been different previously. It's a slightly unusual situation. The standard line with selection is that first class runs are how you get into the test team, but getting dropped from the test team is then judged based on your test results, not on first class results. That's basically the argument they are putting for Burns, that he should just be judged on his test results only. But in a situation where the most recent test results are almost a year ago and his form has been this incredibly bad this season, I don't think you can go with that. It's very much the Renshaw situation. Form so bad to make him unselectable. If Warner and Pucovski were both fit then I'm sure there's no way he'd be playing. Maybe even just a fit Warner might have given a Warner/Wade opening partnership.