I don't really get the opposition to McCullum opening. I still think he's more suited to 6 or 7 than anywhere else but I certainly don't think he's any more likely to succeed at three than he is at the top and with the comparative riches in middle order options compared to opening options, it should be a no-brainer to have him open. Frankly it should be one of the most obvious selection decisions the hierarchy has to make.
I know he's had a good start to his time at #3, but he had a good start to his opening career as well. In his second Test there
he scored a double century ffs and he backed that up in his very next series against Test class opposition (albeit not in a Test match) with
another double century. A couple of fifties at home against South Africa at 3 is not any more impressive than that by a long shot. He was found out as an opener by Australia in Australia but the cold, hard truth of the matter is that he would've been found out at #3 as well, and probably at #6 too, because he doesn't have the technique is handle really high quality bowling in favourable bowling conditions consistently (but that's no real shame as not that many do). That did not happen because he was out of position, and massaging his ego by letting him think it'll all be sweet if he moves one position down to the detriment of the balance of the team is not going to help anyone. It's just absolutely absurd, IMO, to pick someone like Nicol ahead of Flynn, Brownlie or even Sinclair, Franklin etc - or worse yet, sacrifice someone as an opener who has been batting as low as six for his provincial side while Yovich opens the batting - all so McCullum can bat one position lower in a role he's not any more likely to succeed in.
