The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Opinion

Why picking Joe Burns was the right decision

Autoplay in... 6 (Cancel)
Up Next No more videos! Playlist is empty -
Replay
Cancel
Next
Expert
28th December, 2020
8

Picking Joe Burns was the right call for the first two Test matches against India.

There are multiple layers behind the choices made in national selection meetings, more than the casual onlooker on social media would care to consider.

Much has been made of his form in the lead-up games – Burns averaged just over seven runs per innings heading into the first Test match.

Beyond the clearly failing figures was a player struggling against a moving ball, with a lack of direction on the front foot resulting in him being off balance and struggling to play any shots outside of anything through backward square.

If we were going to chastise every player for their technical deficiencies, there would be no-one left to pick for Australia.

Burns’s issues were clear but not unfixable.

What Australian coach Justin Langer prides himself on are loyalty and creating an environment of strength and support.

Watching Burns in the early matches of the Australian summer, the struggles in technique looked adjustable, but the increasing noise and criticism were clearly having a bigger effect.

Advertisement
Joe Burns

(Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)

Anyone who plays cricket understands that a couple of failures only increases the need to perform, and the vicious cycle only heightens in importance the longer it goes on.

As a professional who has performed well in the past, Burns earned the right to be given the chance to overcome his own issues.

But in an age where social media makes athletes easily accessible and amateur observers can share particularly vitriolic opinions, the aforementioned cycle that usually occurs internally becomes irresponsibly dangerous externally.

Everyone thinks they know better.

Anyone can look at statistics and form an opinion, but what the Australian selectors and Justin Langer looked at goes beyond that.

Averaging a perfectly reasonable 38.3 through 21 Tests, Burns has proven himself to be an excellent foil to a more accomplished batsman, thriving in counterattacking situations and turning the strike over.

Advertisement

Burns was the most recent opening batsman for Australia, and with David Warner and Will Pucovski unavailable it was obvious Langer was going to be loyal to the man he has backed in before.

The general accusation would lean towards blind loyalty being shown, but in this unique scenario with these particular absences any such calls should be retracted.

The benefit of selecting Burns was beneficial in multiple ways for Australia.

A sense of familiarity atop a batting order going through a few issues was certainly well intended.

Perhaps where that thought fell apart was not necessarily the number of runs he scored going into the Test series but rather the fact that Burns had to be the leading batsman against a fiery Indian attack, where his natural game required more freedom.

Surrounded by a supportive cohort, however, there wasn’t much more confidence that could be placed in him.

Sports opinion delivered daily 

   

Advertisement

The other benefit in Australia giving Burns the opportunity to perform is that it provided the selectors with a clearer look at the future. There was a clear hole at the top of the order due to injury and Australia needed a solution.

Many assumed Burns would be blacklisted without truly considering the domino effect.

Picking the 31-year-old would lead to two different solutions. He could perform well and justify his backing, perhaps prolonging his immediate future in the baggy green. On the other hand – and unfortunately this was seen as a strong possibility – he would continue his run of poor form and be an easy swap for whichever opener was fit to return, which will happen for the New Year’s Test.

In a time Australian cricket is going through a little change and uncertainty, with underperformers everywhere, selecting Burns actually limited the carnage.

Reactionary comments will suggest Marcus Harris had to have been picked.

Indeed, outside of Will Pucovski, Harris was the most in-form opening batsman in the Sheffield Shield, scoring 355 runs at an average of 118.33.

Advertisement

The 28-year-old had three good starts for Australia A and was drafted into the Australian squad as cover, but his position was always going to be a toss-up with Matthew Wade rather than with Burns.

The reason is actually simple. When Warner and/or Pucovski become available, can you simply drop Harris and thank him for his temporary services?

Warner is clearly Australia’s best batsman and Pucovski is the generational talent who simply must be playing as soon as he passes concussion protocols.

Introducing a completely new opening batsman to the conversation after their good form would simply create more issues, and in hindsight the last thing Australia needs is more issues given the current form of the top six.

Joe Burns

(Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)

Do you risk picking Harris and having him, perform well, thus further delaying a Pucovski debut and not maximising his form?

Or does Harris potentially fail and no other options arise to replace him in time, thus hurting his confidence going forward and potentially affecting his form?

Advertisement

Unfortunately the reality in picking Burns means that the decision is far easier, and we see a coach willing to back in his players when push comes to shove.

At worst Burns could’ve performed well and created a selection headache, which is much easier to digest when discussing the incumbent compared to a new player.

Of course a couple of other names were thrown up in discussion if it wasn’t to be Marcus Harris.

The decision to use Matthew Wade as an opener was also a smart decision driven by a loyal coach, giving a previously reliable hand another opportunity to perform at international level.

Most recently many have spoken up Sam Whiteman as someone who should have been considered given his proficiency at the defensive aspect of the game.

With 333 runs at an average of 55.5 this season, following two 50s and a century in his last four innings of the 2019-20 season, Whiteman’s form has certainly turned the corner, but national selection seems a step too far.

Six centuries in 63 first-class matches and an average of just 34 over his previous two seasons would indicate that recency bias is kicking in rather than assessing the player as a whole.

Advertisement

Plus, selecting Whiteman would be a far worse scenario than picking Harris, as the selectors would need to completely rule out Pucovski in order to support a new player.

Unfortunately we are in the situation where Burns has been dismissed early in three of his four innings, and the 50 was much shakier than pure numbers would care to indicate.

Coach Langer has been supportive of Burns and stern in the nets but has shown a great level of care towards a player struggling for form and confidence.

It shows that the Australian cricket culture is better and the environment is strong enough to back each other in, which is a big tick.

And given the batting woes that have emerged, the simple move of removing Burns for a returning star or a young prodigy is just the boost Australia needs.

If Burns wasn’t backed in, everything would be much harder heading into the third Test.

Advertisement

The selection committee and Justin Langer should be commended for backing their man in, and casual fans should look to be supportive of any incoming player rather than maintain pessimism and direct criticism towards a clearly struggling athlete.

Joe Burns is good enough to bounce back from this, and sliding back to the middle order is the solution that will assist him greatly.

But with his competitors’ fitness improving, he has certainly done his job for Australia and should be seen as a player who stood up in a difficult time if he doesn’t break back into the team going forward.

It was the right decision to pick Burns for the start of the series against India, but now is the time that Australia needs its best prospects the most.

close