Craig O’Donoghue: Nathan McSweeney deserves better than to be thrust into pressure of opening on Test debut

Nathan McSweeney is being set up to fail.

Not set up as in deliberately being selected to play Test cricket in the hope that he won’t succeed. Set up as in being denied the opportunity he deserves to turn his form into an impressive debut if he’s named to replace the injured Cameron Green for the first Test in Perth on November 24.

Asking a middle order batter to open in his Test debut is nothing more than gambling.

If Test cricket was an ASX-listed company, how would the chairman respond at the Annual General Meeting if a shareholder questioned why he’d approved for a massive decision to be made based on a hunch.

Would that company advertise for a CEO and include “no experience necessary” in the criteria?

Of all the candidates that the Australian selectors are considering to open the batting against India, McSweeney is the least qualified.

He’s not a proven opener at any level. He’s not a proven Test cricketer either. At least if he’d played a few Tests and made some runs, he could open the batting knowing he is good enough to play at the highest level.

If McSweeney opens on debut, he’ll be facing Jasprit Bumrah with question marks hanging over too many parts of his game to feel comfortable. Everyone will be crossing their fingers and hoping it all works out. That’s not the way to introduce someone to Test cricket.

There’s a bloody good reason why there is so much doubt around who should play as Usman Khawaja’s opening partner. It’s because it’s a bloody hard job.

Steve Smith is one of the best players Australia has ever produced and he lasted just four Tests as opener.

Australia has used 24 openers in the last 20 years. Some have been long term. Some have filled in a really short period.

Coincidentally, of those 24, half opened on debut and the other half moved up the order after originally batting lower down the order.

The players who opened on debut averaged 21.5 in their first innings. Seven of them scored 10 or less.

The players who moved up the batting order averaged 33.75. But that figure includes six runs from Matt Kuhnemann who is actually a number 11 and opened as a nightwatchman.

Wicketkeeper Alex Carey also filled in for a second innings after David Warner sustained an injury during the game.

Carey was dismissed for nine as Australia easily chased down the 20 runs needed to win. So the 10 guys who were actually picked to open after debuting in a different position averaged 39 in their first crack at the job.

History is always a great guide. If we look at Australia’s leading Test run scorers through history all the way down to the great Sir Donald Bradman, nine of the 13 batted at number five or lower on debut. They were given the chance to settle into Test cricket.

Ricky Ponting started at five. Allan Border, Steve Waugh, Michael Clarke, Mark Waugh and David Boon were at number six.

Bradman debuted at number seven. So did Greg Chappell. Steve Smith’s introduction to Test cricket was at number eight.

Ponting scored 96 on debut. Clarke belted 151. Waugh helped himself to 138 and Chappell also produced a ton with 108.

Three of those eventual greats opened on debut. David Warner, Matthew Hayden and Mark Taylor opened the batting for their states yet they made three, 15 and 25 respectively on in their first Test opportunity.

Warner and Justin Langer have both spoken of the challenges for Australia’s opening contenders in the last week.

Warner raised the issue of how Sheffield Shield batters don’t get enough chances to face genuine pace which denies them the chance to work on weaknesses outside of the Test arena.

Langer pointed to Marnus Labuschagne as the man who could move up the order because it’s easier to do that when you’re already batting at number three. Langer was a seasoned player at number three when he became Hayden’s full-time opening partner.

Australia’s selectors made a statement last year when they overlooked all three of the genuine opening candidates in favour of pushing Smith up the order. They said the policy was to pick the best six batters.

But if you’re going to do that, surely you have to put the batters in positions where they are most likely to perform well, especially when they’re new to the team.

Runs are the currency that matter. Marcus Harris, Cameron Bancroft and Matt Renshaw’s reputations suffered because they weren’t able to seize their chances when selected in their preferred batting position.

If McSweeney is the next best batter in the country, he deserves to be selected in a position where he can have the best chance to succeed.

Australia’s batting incumbents weren’t asked to play out of position when they made their Test debuts. They weren’t thrown to the wolves and told to figure it out.

Those players know that opening is a tough gig which is why nobody is putting their hand up for the job. And that means, expecting McSweeney to do so is setting him up for failure.