No matter how settled the Australian Test team is at the beginning of any summer, pundits everywhere will have some form of criticism on the makeup of the team.
Whether it’s “this bowler is underperforming” or “he hasn’t made a century in his last six games”, the list is usually endless, but this summer had a different feel about it.
The chorus is rarely so unanimous for an incumbent to not be picked, and Joe Burns looked woefully out of form in the lead into a series against one of the best bowling attacks in the world.
Burns’ statistics made for sorry reading with his previous five innings in the Sheffield shield garnering an average of just 11.
It was not just the low average, but the frenetic way he was batting and the truly uncomfortable nature of his dismissals.
The selectors, however, decided the party line they wanted to parade around was that Burns was the incumbent and had earned his position in the team.
This made a lot of sense in the mid-2000s when the incumbents were Justin Langer and Matthew Hayden, who may have only briefly been out of form.
Burns, however, had only been recalled to the team at the beginning of the summer prior and other than one score in the 90s against Pakistan, he only averaged 32 against subpar bowling attacks when his teammates could not stop making runs around him.
The incumbency argument made little to no sense as Burns had not performed exceptionally well the summer prior.
They then stated that Burns was the likely option as David Warner enjoyed batting with Burns and felt comfortable with him.
Whilst obviously having a good relationship at the top of the order is pivotal, positions cannot be wasted on batsmen who are not performing.
Once Warner was ruled out through injury it became clear to most fans that Burns should not be playing in the first Test, however, the selectors decided to stick by the underperforming batsman.
The faith only lasted two Tests as Burns has been removed from the Australian squad for the final two Tests against the Indians.
Whilst it was clear to much of Australia that Burns should not have been selected originally, the selectors appeared to need to see him underperform on the Test arena to make their decision.
The question must be asked, do they lack any sort of faith in the Sheffield shield?
The argument could be made that the early rounds may not have been the best indications of form as players like Mitch Starc were almost making centuries and Sean Abbott was making centuries so maybe the flat tracks that were being produced were not providing a clear indication to selectors.
Surely though if Joe Burns could not make runs on the flat wickets he was batting on, it would be even clearer that he was woefully out of form?
The COVID summer had provided for the first time in a long time a good consistent run in of four-day cricket as opposed to the regular one-day series that had become the norm of the previous few summers.
The selectors had finally got what they wanted for the lead into a Test summer, a clear indication of form, it was good enough to pick 21-year-old Cameron Green but apparently not good enough to drop Burns.
(Photo by Mark Brake/Getty Images)
Once again, the powers to be at Cricket Australia have been shown the importance of a strong Sheffield shield scene in the lead up to the summer as a way to guide the selectors.
Burns is a perfect case study that even though they may be the incumbent, the Shield is in a strong enough position that if someone is underperforming it’s a pretty clear indication that they will not perform in the Test side.
The coming summers must provide a strong run in of four-day cricket to provide the selectors with an opportunity to assess form for the Test team.
Burns, average 38, Marsh average 34. Enough said
So he's good enough to bat top 5? lol
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
That's right. My idea was to only play Marsh until Warner was fit again.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Good question, why only him. I get he was looking aweful but he is the only player to make a 50. But his long run with only one 50 cost him. Head is on the same path, Smith hasn't scored a hundred for a year and a half.
Kopa Shamsu
Guest
You mean chasing 90 runs? Why was he dropped then?
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Well actually SMarsh was very hit and miss, much like Burns himself. Had some big scores but too many failures where he didn't get going at all.
U
Roar Rookie
Harris could at least guarantee us a Cowan. He’s like Head. Gets starts and then throws it away
U
Roar Rookie
Marsh has a tendency to score big in his first couple of marches back. I don’t think anyone considers him anything more than a temporary stopgap selection.
U
Roar Rookie
Carey averages around 40 the past couple of seasons including 3 hundreds. He showed good application against the Indians in the warmup games.
Rellum
Roar Guru
The 50 to win the game, remember.
Experience............omg it counts for nothing when you're a proven failure time and time again like he is. The only people who seem to want to pick him must love that he loses us games of cricket.
Carey averages 34 in FC cricket.....he is so far from being test quality its not funny.
Kopa Shamsu
Guest
What decent contribution?!!
Rellum
Roar Guru
He made a decent contrabution to our only Test win so all that you typed is rubbish.
Dasilva
Guest
I sympathise with the selectors here The two main selection alternatives was Pucovski and Harris Pucovski got injured with concussion and would almost certainty replace Burns if he was fit Marcus Harris has only recently been found wanting at test level and was dropped. Yes he came back to Shield and scored runs but only for less than a shield season When players are dropped they are expected to return to shield and to fix whatever technical issues that led them to be drop before returning. I have not personally seen the match to see if Harris achieved that goal or not but I assume the selectors did If you keep reselecting players who succeed in Shield level but failed at test levels without fixing technical issues you’ll just have a merry go around of selecting them and dropping them Similarly Khawaja and Marsh have been tried and tested players who both already failed against this current Indian attack. Marsh had a diabolical series against Indian side that we smashed and Khawaja failure in previous series in Australia where we needed him to stand up as the senior player after Smith and Warner were suspended. Really Marsh and Khawaja does seem like the merry go round selection of being dropped going back to Shield scoring runs and returning and then being dropped again So you stick with an out of form incumbent and encourage him to work back in form who at least we know had a potential to score test century if he works himself back in form (which Harris has yet to prove) and who hasn’t been tried and failed against the Indian attack (Marsh and Khawaja). Even if he fails at least it gives a message to future cricketers such as Pucovski that we will give you a fair chance to prove yourself and we will not going to just drop you due to temporary dip in form and allow you some time to recover it.
Kopa Shamsu
Guest
"They then stated that Burns was the likely option as David Warner enjoyed batting with Burns and felt comfortable with him." Is that sarcasm?
Kopa Shamsu
Guest
Naa you can't. The score line says 1-1. Big chunk of it due to his "major" contribution. The damage has been done. Burns has been done for. Selectors aren't.
PeteB
Roar Rookie
But what good is it including Burns who was guaranteed to fail ? Better off trying someone who would have at least been a slim chance to succeed.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
The experience factor. The situation prior to this series is the only instance I would ever plump for SMarsh, no matter what form he was in.
JFarrell
Roar Rookie
Couldn't agree more, I think we need to ensure our shield is as competitive as possible so making sure we are mimicking test wickets as much as possible