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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
(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?
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.
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.
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.
DingoGray
Roar Guru
Interesting points. But I think it was pretty clear that he's in the type of trot that isn't just turned around tomorrow. I'm really surprised the Selectors didn't go back to a Khawaja or Marsh. They at least had some type of form about them. I guess they weren't planning Pucovski getting hurt again.
Coss
Roar Rookie
This is a good article which has the courage to go against the flow. Thanks. Disagree on this on a couple of points though. Firstly, as someone has mentioned, the selectors have made a big point about going back to picking people who perform in Shield cricket. Burns obviously didn't do that, and although he was the incumbent, Burns was by no means a well established opener, and there was a long hiatus between series. But most importantly, picking a player at the wrong time doesn't necessarily help a player's career - it can hinder it and even end it. Given his poor domestic form, you couldn't really be confident you would see Burns at his best this summer, and in his last innings he was all at sea. That last showing looked terrible and could well now mark the death knell of his international career. Had he not been exposed to the big stage at that time, he may well have had a better chance of fighting his way back into the side at a later stage. It will be a much bigger struggle now. So I feel sorry for Burns, who seems a likeable character. In the end the decision to play him hasn't helped his chances of having a longer career and as far as his selection for the series is concerned, it was probably a case of needing to be cruel to be kind.
Short Arm
Roar Rookie
I agree with you Dem. As you said Burns has a respectable test average & deserved to be picked. Harris has been tried before & failed, his shot selection choices have been very poor in the past in this arena. This I feel can't be applied to Burns, once he gets in he goes on with it usually. He has trouble early on with the moving ball but I ask what batsmen wouldn't have? The balls that have dismissed him in these last few tests have been pearlers. Also, that ball from Boult last year in the MCG test where he got a duck was a jaffa. He was about the only Australian batsmen that got out from really good balls by the bowler that he couldn't really do much about. The rest of the batsmen have generally played poor shots that were under their control, hitting straight to fielders to get out. I think his future might be down the order to get away from the seaming new ball, because this is his major problem. I feel sorry for him with the amount of anti social media dialogue that's gone his way. Even from ABC radio's Dirk Nannes getting stuck into him every time he has a time slot, I thought it was disgraceful & embarrassing, you'd think he had a mate that was being considered for selection.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
Picking Burns was a mistake and a poor one at that. He has performed poorly in this season's Shield games and in the two Australia A games.
Sinclair Whitbourne
Roar Rookie
I enjoyed this article, thanks for the read. I don't agree with the general thrust, but that is another matter. What makes cricket (and rugby) great, for me, is that reasonable minds can take different views on how to interpret some shared facts. I did agree with the comment about social media. I agree that the injuries to the two most likely (and most justifiable) opening candidates created an option of difficulties, in which any decision had a fair chance of not looking good. I also agree that selection will often come down to more than just looking at some numbers and that numbers can be sifted and selected to suit most needs. A big issue will be 'fit' with other team members and assessment of how someone will work with the way the coach/es want to play and the type of team culture they are trying to build. I agree that on the latter aspects, Burns seems, by all accounts, to be an excellent option; he seems to be popular with members of the playing and coaching group and he seems to fit with the culture that Langer and co. have been given the go ahead to implement. On Burns, one issue I have is that his form was so wretched leading into the series. He wasn't just a bit up and down, or a bit out of form - he wasn't making runs at all and he looked in horrible form. There are players who seem to perform better the higher up the levels they go, so that you might be able to put aside some fairly uncompelling Shield form, but what Burns was going through was just dreadful. I say that as someone who has a lot of time for him as a player and, from what I can determine at a distance, as a bloke. The present situation looked very likely indeed, given that India started the series with an outstanding bowling attack and what looked like some depth in reserve. The negative I see in picking Burns was the message it sent about Shield form and selection at least being substantially based on the merit of runs made. Burns wasn't an established test 'great', with a record of producing at the highest level, despite indifferent Shield form and he was picked ahead of guys with better form, younger guys who might have more to offer long term. I have some serious doubts about Harris against strong bowling attacks at test level but he had Shield and Oz A form and he wasn't a guy who had a known rep for being 'difficult' in a team context. He had earned selection. I also don't agree that Burns' issues are fixable, as an opener, at this level, against quality test bowling attacks. His overall test record is barely acceptable at 38, his record in the last 12 months was even worse and there are fundamental technical issues that mean that short of rebuilding his batting method he will continue to fail against the moving ball. He tends to lurch forward , to play with hard hands, to lead with the bat and there is generally a significant gap between bat and pad. He might get away with this in the lower middle order, against a softer ball and less fresh bowlers (though with reverse swing and/or quality spin these would still likely be serious issues), but a relative few have the eye and reflexes to play like this successfully at the top of the order at test level. The fundamentals for an opener should be a very tight defensive technique, the ability to leave a lot of balls and great patience. A fixable technical issue might be a player having developed a tendency to play across the line before their eye is in, or playing the hook/pull with poor balance, for example. These are not really about the basic way that your batting is constructed. The entirely foreseeable, even likely, has come to pass. We now know what we knew before about Burns. We are no further ahead. We don't know if Harris' form was flattering to deceive, or whether he it to make the next step. We don't know if any of the possible other contenders have what it takes. As I said and as you identified, it wasn't an easy situation and Harris or whoever else was selected might have bombed and I don't think we should start shooting selectors, players or other bloggers with different views but I think the option that offered the least prospect of upside and the most risk of not just failure, but also of leaving us no better informed than before was taken. Easy, of course, from the armchair.
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
I still would have picked Harris. Burns had showed no form and no likelyhood of finding any. If Harris made some centuries and Pucovski had to wait one more season to get a game, then so be it. He's young and he's got plenty of time. Harris was clearly in better form than Burns and is mature without being too old. And David Warner isn't getting any younger, so why not give Harris a taste now? These two tests have simply confirmed that at least right now, Burns is not and should not have been in the opener conversation.
Dwanye
Roar Rookie
They had little choice really cause there’s no depth, injuries and Puk and his unlucky stuff. But I don’t know, how low a score would have disruptive team changes made? How low a score in future with those disruptions? To me they keep these players in, low scores still going to be the happening thing.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
I think you’ve listed some good reasons here in support of the Burns decision. It seemed like they had some hope he was regaining confidence after the first Test, but obviously it proved unfounded. Having Harris and Wade open in the first Test would have seemed too disruptive, and Harris still has question marks at Test level, though he needs to come back in now.