At the moment (asterix for players with less than 20 matches, two for less than 10)

David Warner: 79.59
Steve Smith: 56.59
Matthew Renshaw**: 50.54
Adam Voges: 48.46
Sam  Heazlett** :47.11
Lynn: 45.88
Travis Dean*: 44.83
Jake Lehman*: 44.76
Khawaja: 42.58
Burns: 41.77
Callum Ferguson: 41.43
Ed Cowan: 41.1
Michael Klinger: 40.32
Shaun Marsh: 39.85

Still pretty poor but better than say 5 years ago. Also most players have similar shield and international averages. Lehman has 16 matches so nearly a long enough good period. But selecting the best players with 20 or so games
David Warner
Joe Burns
Usman Khawaja
Chris Lynn
Steve Smith
Adam Voges
With Peter neville at 7 that actually looks like a side that isn't prone to collapse and can be competitive on most days at home and away

Chris Lynn has been injured a lot and he has not played in either of Queenslands Shield matches this season. Is he injured again? He is quality if he can stay fit.

Jake Lehmann's average is 48.96 from 18 matches. These include matches for Yorkshire in county cricket.

You can add Kurtis Patterson to the list.

32 first class matches at an average of 42. 

I mentioned this in another thread but Handscomb is also another option, only has an average of 38 but he's been great the last two seasons;

14/15: 647 runs @ 53. 
15/16: 784 runs @ 43. 

Bancroft is another like Handscomb. (37 avg)

14/15: 896 @ 47. 
15/16: 732 @45. 

I haven't watched the batting of Heazlett and Renshaw but it sounds encouraging.

The main issue for Australia is a lack of technically competent batsmen (even batsmen with decent averages but lousy technique used to batting on roads).

What the selectors need to do is what England around the millennium. They prepped themselves for the long haul by identifying technique and talent (even if it wasn't getting the best results) and persisting with it and encouraging it. This sometimes meant favouring such talent over batsmen who were getting more runs but had technical trouble which would probably catch them out at Test level.

Basically, Cricket Australia should do everything in its power to send Heazlett, Renshaw, Patterson, Bancroft, etc. to play county cricket in England (being aware that Renshaw was born in England). Greg Chappell was playing county cricket very young. Basically, we need those batsmen to learn how to play the ball later when the ball is doing a lot (because it doesn't do jack shit most of the time in Australia and our batsmen are at sea when it does anything). Use Chris Rogers as example.

Lehmann's already doing this.

If we can build a solid top-middle order with young batsmen who can play in any conditions, then there's already Warner and Smith (great in Aus but hit and miss overseas), then we're going to have some kind of a decent side.

And less likely to be humiliated each and every match we play in England and the subcontinent.

Another concerning thing is that young batsmen such as Marcus Harris, Jordan Silk and Jake Doran showed so much promise initially. They seemed technically very good and did very well when they started playing first-class cricket (at least the former two), then it went nowhere and they had average innings after average innings after average innings.

I reckon the coaching and mentoring is not of a high enough standard. They have the talent. But it needs to be nurtured. Admittedly, the Big Bash League and the fact that they play on roads in long-format cricket doesn't help. But the job's not being done properly and it is costing Australia dearly.

As Ian Chappell said, why aren't there 22 year old batsmen knocking down the door? There were when he was around. There always have been. So at the minute the system is failing miserably to nurture talent.

I would add Travis Head to the list of promising batsmen from a few seasons ago who have not kicked on in the long form of the game. Head played well as a teenager but struggled to get through the 90s but now seems to be better at the shorter games.

Interesting post, QF.