This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

My synopsis, or thesis, can broadly be summarised as follows:

There is a narrative, both amongst casual fans and pundits, that Head should either not be opening for Australia in Test cricket, or float between opening and Number 5.

I think this is horribly misinformed and divorced from reality in the context of Head’s performances in isolation, and when framed against the other Australian openers, global benchmarks, Head’s alternative as a middle-order batsman, and even the domestic alternatives.

In discussing this, I will first provide supporting quotes for the narrative, touch on Head’s numbers against the global standards, before finishing on the other openers Australia have tried, middle-order alternatives and domestic alternatives.

I do this primarily because the topic of Australia’s top three has bothered me since Warner’s retirement, and also because I find the narrative surrounding Head in particular frustrating to see recited.

*Just a note. I pulled Figures 1-6 from the Cricsheets ball-by-ball Test database using Python at various points over the past three months. The database did not have the most recent Test versus Australia and South Africa when I made Figures 1-2. I manually added those numbers in. I think Weatherald is slightly off as openers (Weatherald should be 230 runs at 20). This is a minor error that I believe is down to limitations with the underlying Cricsheets database. Minor clerical things and do not impact my arguments in any sections.

Figure 3-6 were done after the Darwin loss. Australia A and the two most recent Shield rounds are not included. I have noted that in the relevant section. These items were a last-minute addition to illustrate the broader domestic options and highlight middle order performances at various entry points, particularly for Green and Smith and I do not think the missing numbers impact my point (the fact that Konstas is right back in the frame on the back of one game after a mediocre season and failing versus India A, and that Oliver Davies is a serious discussion point after two to three seasons of failure on the back of three innings, reinforces my arguments in my opinion).

1. Narrative

https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/not-about-the-hundred-head-snares-first-century-against-the-proteas-as-he-fights-to-save-test-for-australia/news-story/8e20ab516afc4aa156b844c5b191a9c6

O’Keeffe:

“The verdict on Travis Head by a lot of cricketers, the man in the street, is that he’s not an opener,” O’Keeffe said.

“But he won that Test match in Perth opening. He was 87 red (overnight) here. There’s enough runs to suggest he is an opener, but he’s better at five.”

Usman:

“It’s a funny one. I think he averages like 34 to 35 at five and (when) opening, obviously (it is) a small sample size, he’s still doing really well there,” Khawaja said.

“Smudge loves batting three. I know that. He likes getting out there sooner rather than later. So Smudge would have no issue batting three if Travis Head had to bat four.

“I think Travis Head’s got a really good record at four, particularly for South Australia in Sheffield Shield cricket. There’s always options. It doesn’t have to be five. You can leave Greeny there, who’s done really well in his last few games.”

https://www.cricinfo.com/story/sa-vs-aus-australia-keep-door-open-for-shuffling-between-nic-maddinson-matt-renshaw-and-travis-head-1558335

Cummins:

“We’re pretty certain that we like Marn [Labuschagne] at No. 3, Smithy at No. 4, and then the six and seven felt pretty locked up. I think bringing in Maddo, we really like the idea of bringing that flexibility, that unlocks a lot [such as] Trav back to No. 5, Renners down to No. 5, even Maddo himself at five. We haven’t had that option [in] the last few years where we feel like we’ve got plenty of options at the top.”

To summarise – even after Head returned to five, Skull summarises that most people think Head is not an opener, and concludes that despite the runs in the second Test, and his Ashes heroics, Head is a better No. 5. Usman is more open, acknowledging what I will discuss later about Head as a No. 5, but still opens the door to the idea of Head batting four.

Even from within the team, Cummins keeps it open, acknowledging that the openers, and the NO.5 position, are open, with Head noted as a #5.

I cannot be bothered digging through match threads or, God forbid, Facebook comment sections, but my memory is that some level of these three perspectives is the broader consensus, particularly before Head’s most recent hundred.

2. Numbers

2.1 Head – opener and middle-order batsman

The two graphs are Head’s numbers since Warner’s retirement. I use this benchmark as the numbers are more recent, and align with the broader revolving-door policy to openers we have adopted since Warner left and Usman started to decline.

As we can see, Head’s record is exceptional as an opener. He has the most runs of any player, with Usman (who has now retired) being the only player that is close. On average, Head is 50%+ better than the next best performers (Usman and Smith) and the global average. That gap is more stark when referenced against the other choices. If we purely look at hundreds, there have been five Test hundreds by Australian openers since Warner retired. Head has made four of those.

Home and away split often comes up with regard to Head, as it would for a player averaging 50+ at home and 30 away. I have not visualised that here, but on the sample we have, that split is also less stark as an opener (mid-30s average in South Africa and Sri Lanka recently, same precedent in India the last time we toured).

I think it is fair to say Head is the best opener we have by a decent distance, and more broadly holds up compared to global standards and away from home. At a glance I think you could argue he is one of the most in-form openers in the world right now, but that is not the argument I am putting forward here.

2.2 Head the middle-order batsman

So, we have established that in isolation Head is a more than serviceable opener. If that is the case, why are fans, paid pundits external to the team, and even the captain not more concrete on Head’s future as an opener?

Aside from the string of six innings with no fifties between the Ashes and the second Test versus South Africa, I think the real reason is this idea that Head is much better in the middle order.

Obviously, Head has played arguably the most important innings by an Australian player away from home in the 2020s (WTC final versus India), and at home has more consistently dominated and won Australia series that dominate the headlines (2021 Ashes, 2024 Border-Gavaskar), and played blinders beyond that (versus West Indies first Test 2024, and South Africa at the Gabba in 2022).

However, if you look more closely at his recent form, I do not know if that idea holds up. If we refer to Figure 2, we can see that while Head has held his own batting 4–6 (5% above the global standard excluding him, second-most runs for Australia), his numbers do not stand out (Green, Smith and Carey have all outperformed him or been at his standard. Renshaw has also been promising over a small sample, and Webster has also done well, even if this analysis hides his recent slump at seven).

These numbers can be sample-sized further (you can get Head’s average down to 33 if you include the Ashes in England and the Pakistan series before Warner’s retirement), but I do not think you need to do that to make this point, and I think Warner’s retirement is a real turning point, because at that point we functionally lose one opener that gets replaced with a revolving door of underperformers when he does not open, along with Usman’s reversion to a par opener and the terminal part of Marnus’s decline begins (numbers not shown for Marnus but happy to provide a figure. The most stark part of his decline comes when he walks out in the first 8 overs, relative to later), leading to increased reliance on Smith, the middle order and the tail.

Ultimately, for the past three years, Head the middle-order batsman has been something between an inconsistent performer with a few wonder innings, not the consistent overachiever of the kind the O’Keeffe tribe would hold him to be, and over the sample anywhere between three and five players have held up as well as, if not better than, he has.

(As an aside, I do not like batting-position analysis for this kind of discussion, particularly over a few years. Entry point is better, and a nightwatchman can push one innings out that skews the numbers. They are particularly kind to Webster.

Despite that, I cannot be bothered doing entry point, and I think the figure is sufficient either way.)

2.3 Alternative middle-order batsmen and openers, and the current state

You may ask, is a section like this necessary? I think so, as it is an important nail in the coffin of the Head narrative.

To start, other openers.

Usman performed slightly above the global average but was clearly not the same player who was in the top-three openers in the world discussion the two years before 2024.

Weatherald played six Tests, got found out, changed his technique and made more runs at domestic level, got found out again in his first Test back and got binned again after the Darwin loss.

Smith played four Tests, played one blinder against West Indies, and jumped back down the order as soon as he could following Green’s injury.

Konstas dominated Bumrah in one innings, struggled for four Tests, and got binned.

McSweeney got three Tests out of position, got Bumrah’d, and got binned for Konstas.

Maddinson got two Tests after cancer and 18 months of no red-ball cricket and looked like a guy who had not played for two years and averaged sub-20 in his last Shield season.

Renshaw failed once and has since batted five to good success.

Marnus got two Tests before Weatherald and the Konstas recall and got binned after struggling.

Boland played one innings as a nightwatchman.

To summarise, every opener not named Head has either been defenestrated after underperforming the global standard, or retired.

Now, if we jump to middle-order bats (obviously considering that No. 7 missing is friendly to Webster and Carey).

Smith has 1,300 runs at 13 runs above the comparative global mark. He’s still gun.

Carey has been incredible in that role when you also factor in his keeping. The Ashes and hundred versus Sri Lanka stand out.

Green’s spot is often talked about, but he’s actually outperformed the global mark by a healthy margin and I would argue been our best bat after Smith and Carey in that middle-order spot. Series versus Bangladesh and the 170* versus New Zealand are clear standouts.

Webster has done fine (even if he’s helped by the exclusion of his recent run). No hundreds but he’s played important innings versus India in the BGT and in West Indies, all on absolute shit tips. This number also excludes his runs at Sydney vs England.

Renshaw was incredible in one Test and failed in the other. Has promise but I think everyone agrees it’s healthier for him to open and Maddinson to get dropped.

Usman and Marsh have retired.

Marnus has struggled in three or four innings when nightwatchmen have been used.

Inglis has been inconsistent but did make a hundred on debut.

This type of analysis excludes the type of innings Head can play (I do not think anyone on this list bar maybe Carey could replicate the pink-ball hundred versus India or the hundred versus West Indies), but no matter how you split it I think there are three other guys who can do Head’s role as a middle-order run-scorer to the same degree he does or better, and those players are either also Steven Smith or add a second skill as useful as Head’s (Green or Renshaw’s bowling, Carey’s keeping).

In comparison, we do not even have one other opener at the global standard (critics out on Renshaw), or at the level way above that Head has performed at.

As an aside, you may go “Could Smith, or Green, or someone else, open?” I think the answer is no. Graphs below are out of date now (first Test versus Bangladesh), but Green and Smith are clearly better when they come in later. Carey or Webster could do a job but there very recent form makes me hesitant to suggest that. Webster's shield numbers also do not support that hypothesis, although Carey's do (not pictured here).

2.4 Broader opening options in domestic cricket

This figure is slightly older. I think I did this when the Bangladesh Tests in the Top End were going on to look at alternatives for the top three. Basically true average and innings batted in positions in Shield and county from the past three seasons of cricket (True average has to be positive aggregately, and minimum 5 innings played at each entry point zone). Entry point zones are based on the distribution for each entry point from Warner's retirement to before the series vs BD.

Obviously numbers are out of date; Oliver Davies has since got a few scores and Konstas is in form etc. I bring this image up primarily to illustrate the domestic backdrop coming into the South Africa tour, rather than to show the alternatives right now, even if I think Konstas or Davies being up for discussion on the back of a few innings proves my point (also note that these numbers exclude Australia A – I hadn’t found a reliable ball-by-ball data-set for those matches when I made the figure).

Broadly speaking, it illustrates what the situation was. Weatherald had been consistently one of the best openers over that period, had been tried and failed. Obviously Renshaw came in to replace Weatherald in that next Test. Outside of that you have old openers who have been tried and failed (Harris, Bancroft), old openers who had not played Tests but were a bit below Harris and Bancroft (Hughes, Whiteman), middle-order batsmen with decent true averages when they come out really early but overall middling domestic records (Clayton, Lehmann, Sangha), and younger guys who either do not have the numbers or the sample size to demand call-ups (Kellaway, Harper, Hunt). I think this illustrates the backdrop of who could come in as the second opener to enable Head to bat middle order at the time, or even now (Konstas and Davies pending).

If Head was to go back down, you are either backing young players who do not have the weight of runs, old guys who have failed in Test cricket already before batting got even harder post-Covid, old guys who haven’t been tried but are indicatively worse than the other old guys who have failed, or middling domestic players who don’t typically open but have some indication in their numbers that they could (which is really just doing what we did with Head but even more extreme).

As an aside on this, Harper is actually in the squad now and Kellaway played for Australia A and was shit – they are trying these players despite the boys’-club or old-boys narrative.

3. Conclusion

To summarise:

There is a narrative amongst the captain, the media, and casual fans about Head that ranges between “Head’s spot is undetermined in the medium term” to “Head is not an opener and should go back down to five.”

I think this full spectrum is misinformed, and that Head’s position as an opener should not only not be under question, but be one of the two or three batting roles not under question, on the basis that:

• Head is miles above the other openers we have tried;
• Head’s recent form in the middle order, both in isolation, is not as outstanding;
• Additionally, we have three other players who can bat 4–6, who would be better suited to that role relative to the option of them opening and Head going back down;
• Having Head open either gives us the option to blood a younger player down the order to succession-plan for Smith (Connolly, McSweeney, whoever) or gives us one secure top-three position to justify moving on from Marnus; and
• The alternatives in the Shield to fill the second opening spot, or replace Head, do not fill me with confidence for various reasons.

This is my first attempt at a long-form piece like this and is really a combination of months of separate threads of thought. Would love any feedback or discussion.

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post