Tearing up an opponent with the ball is something that the current Australian setup is always a chance to do. Before Mackay, no Test team had ever had all four bowlers in the 300-wicket club. Two of those four ended the match among the top 10 wicket-takers of all time. A sport that is fundamentally about outscoring your opponent becomes a lot easier when your opponent can\u2019t score. Plenty of times in recent years, Australia\u2019s bowling has ensured that not much is asked of Australia\u2019s batting.<\/p>\n
While losing in Darwin, where the visiting batters were able to cope with Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazlewood, Pat Cummins and Nathan Lyon, the home team\u2019s batting failed badly enough to almost lose by an innings. While winning in Mackay, Australia\u2019s specialist batting did not improve. Positions of 152-6 and 193-6 in the first Test worsened to 146-6 in the second. But this decline was offered a reprieve by such extreme bowling dominance that even one mid-strength score was enough to complete a win.<\/p>\n
Cameron Green was one of few bright sparks for Australia during the Bangladesh series. Photograph: Robert Cianflone\/Getty Images<\/p>\n
The upshot is that Bangladesh\u2019s visit has left the ideal Australian team structure even fuzzier than it was before. A few weeks before travelling to face South Africa, a team with fast bowlers and conditions to suit them, Australia\u2019s batting order has more question marks than the Riddler\u2019s suit. Only one spot has more clarity thanks to Bangladesh: No 5 for Cameron Green. With more support, his rearguard century might have flipped the Darwin result, while even the ascendancy in Mackay might have been in trouble without his 67. After many mediocre returns, his patience and decision-making were encouragingly improved. There is more to do, but here\u2019s the start.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, Steve Smith still looked clearly Australia\u2019s best when up for the task, though the steel-trap concentration that once carried him to hundreds now seems more likely to run out of juice between the 40s and the 70s. Smith at No4 is the only other locked-in spot; Travis Head is a certainty to play, but after a series that was bust rather than boom as per the risks of his style, there is already conversation about whether his sojourn at the top of the order should be temporary, and whether he should take his talents back to the middle.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s also a function of other instability at the top after dropping Jake Weatherald, the lone sacrifice to atone for Darwin. Weatherald was allowed the latitude of a poor Ashes, selectors greeting that performance with encouraging spin and a national contract. There was a chance that he could make something of the opportunity. But if selectors were to make a move against him, it needed to happen back then. If deciding to keep backing him eight months later, that support needed to last beyond two innings. Now the team has the best of neither world. In his place, Matt Renshaw got 10 balls, a leading edge, and no chance to build momentum. Is he the right choice for South Africa? Nobody knows, least of all Renshaw.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/1782455907_861_500.jpg\")
<\/p>\n