Australia have been able to paper over the cracks of David Warner’s lack of output at the top of the order because the team has been winning.
Losing the third Test at Headingley means they can longer ignore the issue as they look to regain the momentum in the fourth Test at Old Trafford, which starts next Wednesday.
But that is not their only problem – Scott Boland’s place in the pace attack is in jeopardy, Todd Murphy was barely used by Pat Cummins in his Ashes debut while it’s no longer a fait accompli that all-rounder Cameron Green will come back into the side after Mitchell Marsh’s century at Leeds.
Cummins rightly wasn’t overly concerned about claims that England had seized the momentum after their rousing win, pointing out that “every Test you start fresh”.
Nor should he be reaching for the panic button. No English team has ever come back from 2-0 down to win an Ashes series, even when they were six-match contests, and the only side to achieve the feat was Sir Donald Bradman’s 1936-37 squad on home turf, helped in no small part by The Don’s back-to-back double-tons in the final two matches.
Stuart Broad celebrates dismissing David Warner. (Photo by Stu Forster/Getty Images)
If the Aussies make the monumental and long-overdue decision to drop Warner, effectively ending his Test career before his planned retirement on home turf at the SCG in January, there are several options on the selection table but none of them are without concern.
Marcus Harris is the reserve batter in the squad after Matt Renshaw was released from the squad prior to the third Test. The Victorian left-hander is a specialist opener and he piled up the runs for Gloucester on the county scene before the Ashes with two hundreds in his 457 runs at 57.12
On the down side, it’s nearly two months since he last played a first-class fixture (or any match for that matter) and in his previous 14 Tests, he’s only made three half-centuries in 26 innings while averaging 25.19.
His presence would hardly strike fear into the hearts of English bowlers as he averages 19.75 against them from seven Tests, including a paltry 58 runs at 9.66 in three matches on the 2019 tour.
The selectors have the option of a stopgap option like Travis Head, who filled in at the top of the order on the India tour in March when Warner went home with a fractured elbow, while Green and Marsh have each opened in white-ball cricket for Australia.
Even though Head has been entrenched in the middle-order for nearly the entirety of his first-class and Test career, his haul of 223 runs at 55.75 in just five knocks in India is more than Warner’s tally of 221 at 18.41 from 12 trips to the crease.
It might not be his specialist position but Head looks a much safer option than the guy who has played 107 matches in the role.
Marnus Labuschagne is another left-field option. First drop is his preferred position and he’s got the footwork to cope with opening but, in the midst of a lean spell, the selectors would be weakening one position to strengthen another if they partnered him with Usman Khawaja.
Green was bothered by a slight hamstring strain after an increased bowling workload in the second Test but was back to full pace in training during the Headingley fixture so fitness is unlikely to be a factor if he is left out.
The selection panel of coach Andrew McDonald, George Bailey and Tony Dodemaide have been criticised for their conservative approach to the Test team in particular so with England rejuvenated after keeping the series alive with their narrow win, it is likely Australia will again play it safe with their line-up.
Boland has been surprisingly ineffective in his two Ashes outings. After ripping England apart in his three-match debut series on home turf with 18 wickets at 9.55, he’s been picked off without too much bother by their batters this time around.
His normally miserly economy rate has ballooned to 4.91 and after taking two wickets in the Edgbaston series opener, he didn’t strike a blow at Headingley.
Mitchell Marsh celebrates his century. (Photo by Stu Forster/Getty Images)
Josh Hazlewood, who played the first two Ashes Tests, is likely to be rotated back into the pace attack while Mitchell Starc, who was controversially dropped for the opening match, has bagged 13 wickets at 23.38 and should play out the rest of this series.
There has been a cacophony of calls for Queensland’s Michael Neser to get a run – he’s been released from the squad to return to county duties at Glamorgan this week but will rejoin the squad for the Old Trafford outing so he’s not out of the running.
Murphy only bowled 9.3 overs in Leeds with just two of them in the second innings when the spinner would normally be given plenty of chances to exploit a wearing wicket.
Cummins said the pitch did not suit the young Victorian but you get the feeling that Nathan Lyon would have been entrusted with more overs if he hadn’t been sent home with a torn calf.
The Manchester surface is known to be usually conducive to spin and with no other options in the squad, Murphy is set to hold his spot.
Despite winning, England have issues to resolve. Ollie Robinson (back) is likely to be unavailable but he was probably going to be rotated out of the line-up anyway so James Anderson can return to the ground which bears his name at one of the bowling ends, possibly for the last time in a Test.
Chris Woakes celebrates with Mark Wood after hitting the winning runs. (Photo by Ashley Allen/Getty Images)
Ben Stokes now has a glute problem to exacerbate his knee injury so he is likely to play as a specialist batter again with player of the match Mark Wood and Chris Woakes retained after their starring performances in their first appearance of the series.
First drop and wicketkeeper are their problem areas. Jonny Bairstow’s glovework has been terrible and his tally of 141 runs at 23.5 is not enough to justify picking him ahead of Ben Foakes.
Moeen Ali has plenty of experience batting at No.3 in county cricket but the experiment at Test level failed in the second innings when he was castled by Starc for five.
Harry Brook also went cheaply when he was promoted two spots in the first dig and he looked much more comfortable back in the middle order with his match-winning 75 on day four.
Stokes has only batted at three for the Test team once – out for 19 against Sri Lanka in 2018 – but if he does not have a bowling workload to worry about, he has the technique and temperament to be successful in the role.
Big decisions need to be made at both selection tables before next Wednesday – with each of the first three matches going down to the wire, making the wrong choice could prove the difference between winning and losing the Ashes.
Woof
Roar Rookie
My gramma was pretty bad, she used to steal flower jars from the cemetery to use for her jam.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
Warner out, Murphy out. Harris to open with Khawaja, Marnus, Smith, Head, Green, Marsh, Carey, Neser, Starc, Cummins. Batting bolstered, we only need to draw to retain ther Ashes.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
I can go with that. I had plumped for Bolo as he is a fantastic bowler but not the traditional strips being offered up is not up his alley. With Hazlewood I still fear the side-strain issue could just come on at any time. —— Manchester has been a good ground for spin and l reckon The Smurf should be picked. I think the biggest thing that’d make it for him is to be encouraged. Expressions of confidence go a long way into the development of a player. It’s the art of the possibility, not the worry of being carted.
bowledover
Roar Rookie
They wont drop warner. He should have been dropped ages ago! They need to replace Bolo with Hazlewood; Bolo is a champion but he is clearly off at the moment, maybe its the uber aggressive batters or maybe it is more than that. I dont think Murphy stays for the next test unless the wicket looks particularly dry... id keep Marsh, replace Bolo and bring in Neser for Murphy. Warner, Khawaja, Labuschange, Smith, Head, Marsh, Carey, Neser, Starc, Cummins, Hazlewood.
Papa Joe
Roar Rookie
I see Tubby has come out and questioned Murphy's spot. A bit harsh on Murphy but I agree with Tubby here; if his captain doesn't trust him enough to bowl in a 4th innings, then they should just rely on Head and Smith as the spin option. That frees up a spot to include both Marsh and Green. And Davey's last innings convinced me that he's too far gone now - we can't afford a walking wicket at the top of the order. Just shift everyone up one spot in the order. And please bring in Neser - he's a wicket-taker and can score runs. I thought he should have been in from the start. It won't happen, but I'd replace Warner, Murphy and Boland with Green, Hazlewood and Neser.
Pop
Roar Rookie
MICHAEL NESER 176 for Glamorgan 24 4s , 2 6s . HIGHEST SCORE ever . MUST PLAY FOURTH TEST!!! Paul if this doesn’t change selectors thinking nothing will.
Opeo
Roar Rookie
No, Bumrah is a brilliant test cricketer, but he was a brilliant first-class cricketer BEFORE he played test cricket. Pandya has an ordinary first-class record and his test record is equally ordinary. He also has not played a test in five years. He was such a good test player that India dropped him? I never said that good white ball cricketers cannot be good test cricketers anyway, but these examples are not helping your case.
Panthers
Roar Rookie
Really .. That’s where you’re going? Bumrah has made a real mess of Australia on many an occasion. Including here in Australia. Just as Pandya has. Warner himself has also done pretty well, since moving across to tests . Good luck with that point of view.
Opeo
Roar Rookie
Far out… this is getting weird. Pandya has a test batting average of 30? Bumrah has played 60 first class matches with a bowling average of 24 and played first class cricket for six years before his test debut!? The Australians with the highest first class averages over the last four years that have played at least 35 matches are: Harris, Maddinson, Handscomb, Bancroft, Renshaw. You do not just look at one season. You certainly do not look at one season and come up with some criterion that excludes two guys that were averaging over 55 and missed half the season because they were playing for Australia because they were making runs in the Shield.Panthers
Roar Rookie
Not confused at all. You claim that the players must be doing well in Shield to be considered. That’s your whole argument. No better time to look at shield averages than last season. None of the players being currently considered are at the top of the shield averages from last season. Then even those chosen on such a theory ( who are currently up for test team consideration ) from previous seasons, have been a failure. The rest of my argument is sound. The more recent success of players such as Hardik Pandya , Jasprit Bumrah for example. Proves that short form cricketers can be very successful in tests . As they only came to prominence & were chosen for other honours, due to their short form cricket success. Now when tests seem to be moving more to a short form style , if bazball is an example of how test matches are going to be played? Considering all available successful players , is a valid option.
Opeo
Roar Rookie
So you seem to be confusing a couple of seperate topics. The first topic was whether it is better to pick players for the test team based on first class form, or white ball form. Now you seemed to have switched to arguing about the approach that the selectors for Australian test team use. These are separate things. Regardless, all of batsmen that are on the periphery of the test team, like Harris, Handscomb, Renshaw, and Bancroft, I can assure you, have been among Australia’s highest run scorers in first class cricket for the last few years. As I said, Handscomb and Renshaw did not make it to 10 matches for the season because they were playing for Australia l. Thisnwas partialy because they were averaging 60 halfway through the season. As for the debate about selection strategy: a good test cricketer is certain to be a good first class cricketer. A good test cricketer might not be a good white ball cricketer and a good white ball cricketer might not even be a good first class cricketer. If you were a selector you could save yourself at least some, if not a lot of, guesswork by just picking good first class cricketers. It is unclear if England are better with their new aggressive approach to batting. They look like they might lose their first series at home to Australia in 20 years. England’s tactics are irrelevant to this discussion anyway.
Panthers
Roar Rookie
I’ve made a mockery of your idea . That players have to be going great in Shield cricket. To be considered for the test team . You’ve got one name from the list , that has a decent average . From last season.. Yet he’s not even up for consideration at this time. So I think my point is pretty clear. The must be batting well at Shield level to be considered for Test selection, is indeed nonsense. Other countries players have indeed made a good transition from short form cricket, to test cricket recently. England in fact is playing short form style cricket, in test matches. In doing so, are more successful than when they didn’t play this way. So in my view your argument that players can’t be considered for test duties ( unless they are successful in shield cricket ) when they are successful in short form cricket, is rubbish.
Opeo
Roar Rookie
Lol. What point are you trying to make here? Handscomb, Harris, and Renshaw all missed parts of the Shield season because they were in the Australian squad because of all the buckets of runs they had scored in the most recent season and in previous seasons. Bancroft, the one with the highest average in the list that you provided, was in the squad in India.
Panthers
Roar Rookie
Yes & only one example. P.S. You have no idea of how he’d go at test level either?
Panthers
Roar Rookie
If you’re all about Shield averages? Here’s the best players batting averages for players who’d played 10 or more games of Sheffield Shield in 2022. Bancroft: 10 games, at 59 Webster: 10 games, at 42 Matthew Short : 11 games , at 41 Cartwright: 11 games , at 39 Jewel: 10 games , at 38 Silk: 10 games , at 36 Don’t see a lot of those names up for selection in the test team? Less games than 10 really doesn’t give any clear indication of how they went? So much for the must be going great guns in Shield Cricket.
Opeo
Roar Rookie
Tim David is the one player, as far as I am aware, that plays international cricket for Australia that has never played first class cricket?
Panthers
Roar Rookie
You’re picking out one player as an example? I suggest you have a look at the successful Indian players in recent years , from the cricket short forms of the game . Some otherwise unheard of players , now play for India at test level. With more to come. To add to that. What type of game has England played, since it’s become more successful as a test playing country? Is it playing a traditional test style ? Or a more expansive shorter style game ?
Opeo
Roar Rookie
Yes, picking players based on their Shield performances is a gamble, but picking white ball players that have not played Shield cricket is a bigger gamble. If Tim David, for example, played in the Shield there is no guarantee that he would average over 30. If he cannot average over 30 in the Shield then he is very unlikely to succeed at test level. Picking someone like David to play test cricket, therefore, is a much bigger leap of faith than picking someone that has performed in the Shield. Picking players based on white ball performances will result in more misses when compared to picking players based on first class form. Also, I do not think it is that much to expect players that want to play test cricket to play some first class cricket. The county season is running right now. Maxwell is playing. If Agar and Zampa, and others, want to play test cricket, they should be in England right now. If they are playing in some franchise T20 competition in Kenya instead they are probably not that serious about playing test cricket.
Panthers
Roar Rookie
Doesn’t matter if you can’t see the Zampa comments, under other stories here now. Again, those averages in Shield cricket have proven zero when it comes to tests. You’re saying those players are safe options , yet they failed? I guess they were a gamble? I was just offering another angle on possible selections. It’s not like those who choose players for test games are going to change their selection policies? Regardless of how many failures those policies bring about.
Opeo
Roar Rookie
I cannot see the Zampa comments. There are loads of brilliant white ball cricketers that are only OK at first-class level, let alone at test level. To pick someone based purely on white ball performances is a huge gamble.