Who could replace Marnus Labuschagne in Australia’s Test team? Josh Inglis, Cooper Connolly and an order reshuffle involving Steve Smith or Matt Renshaw are realistic options from the recent Test group. Kurtis Patterson, Nathan McSweeney, Sam Konstas and Jack Clayton provide alternatives from domestic cricket. There is no confirmed replacement at the time of this review: Australia’s selectors still have to decide whether to retain Labuschagne, choose another specialist No. 3 or rebuild part of the top order.
Selection status: Checked November 2, 2026 (UTC), corresponding to November 3 in eastern Australia (Australian Eastern Daylight Time, AEDT, UTC+11). This comparison concerns Test cricket, not Australia’s separate one-day international selection decisions.
Australia lost its three-Test series in South Africa 2–1, with the deciding defeat in Cape Town completed on October 31, 2026. Labuschagne made 0 and 4 in the final Test and finished the series without the substantial innings Australia needed from its established first-drop batter. His run without a Test century reached 49 innings, dating back to the 2023 Ashes. These are reasons selectors may consider a change, rather than proof one has already been made. The ICC’s series report confirms the result, while Cricket Australia’s Cape Town review details his first-innings dismissal.
On November 2, head coach Andrew McDonald indicated the selectors would reassess Labuschagne after the tour. That is not the same as a formal omission from the New Zealand Test squad. Labuschagne’s established experience, ability to occupy the crease and past success at No. 3 also remain relevant; the decision is whether his expected contribution now exceeds what the alternatives offer.
| Player | Possible route into the XI | What helps his case | What selectors must weigh |
|---|---|---|---|
| Josh Inglis | Move from the middle order to No. 3 | Made 102 in the Cape Town Test | Limited recent first-class experience at first drop |
| Cooper Connolly | Promote from a lower batting position | Already in the Test setup; left-handed batting and part-time spin | Still developing as a long-form top-order batter |
| Steve Smith | Shift from No. 4 to No. 3 | Extensive Test experience at first drop | Changes the No. 4 role and depends on fitness |
| Matt Renshaw | Slide from opener to No. 3 | Test experience and recent flexibility across the order | Creates an opening vacancy unless another batter moves up |
| Kurtis Patterson | Specialist No. 3 recalled from New South Wales | Direct experience in the role; first-class runs | Long gap since his two Tests in 2019 |
| Nathan McSweeney | Middle-order specialist recalled from South Australia | Leadership, red-ball experience and recent half-centuries | His previous Tests came as an out-of-position opener |
| Sam Konstas | Return as opener, with Renshaw or another batter moving to No. 3 | Recent Sheffield Shield 151 not out | Selection would likely require a wider reshuffle |
| Jack Clayton | Uncapped Queensland batter joins top or middle order | Made 104 against Victoria in early November | More commonly a No. 4 or No. 5 than a Test No. 3 |
The table outlines plausible selection routes, not an official shortlist or a ranking. Australia can also decide that retaining Labuschagne is preferable to replacing him immediately.
Inglis strengthened his case by scoring 102 from 135 balls at No. 5 in Cape Town after a late call-up when Smith could not play. That was his second Test century and useful evidence that he can make a substantial contribution in difficult circumstances. The innings is documented in Cricket Australia’s day-three report.
The complication is positional. No. 3 can face a nearly new ball immediately after the first wicket, demanding a different tempo from batting at No. 5. Inglis offers momentum, but his century alone does not establish that a move to first drop would succeed. He could instead remain in the middle order if Smith or another player takes No. 3.
Connolly was included in Australia’s South Africa touring group, and selection chair George Bailey identified his capacity to bat higher as his game develops. His left-handed batting and additional spin option may also affect the balance of the XI. But a strong limited-overs record is not a direct substitute for sustained first-class evidence against the new red ball. In September, Cricket Australia reported Bailey’s assessment of Connolly’s positional flexibility, while noting his limited first-class history at No. 3.
Connolly played lower in the order in Cape Town. Selecting him at first drop would be a developmental decision as much as an immediate like-for-like replacement.
Smith has previously made major Test contributions at No. 3, and Bailey has acknowledged that moving experienced players is an option. It might protect a newer batter from the first-drop assignment, but would require a new No. 4 and consideration of Smith’s fitness after the neck problem that kept him out in Cape Town. Before assuming such a move, check the next team announcement.
Renshaw presents a different reshuffle. His 190 from No. 5 in the first South Africa Test showed his versatility, before he returned to an opening role later in the series. Moving him to No. 3 could create room for a specialist opener such as Konstas. However, it also risks disturbing an opening combination that Australia may want to settle. Cricket Australia documented Renshaw’s 190 and the selection reshuffle.
Patterson’s appeal is straightforward: he regularly bats at No. 3 for New South Wales, allowing selectors to fill the position without changing several others. He has two previous Tests, including a century against Sri Lanka in 2019, but has been out of the national side for years. His current Shield form matters more than treating that very small Test sample as a reliable prediction. A call-up would be an experienced, role-specific solution rather than a long-term youth experiment.
McSweeney was tested as an opener against India in 2024, a difficult assignment that should not automatically decide whether he can be a successful middle-order Test batter. The South Australia captain passed fifty in both of his first two Sheffield Shield matches of 2026–27, although he was dismissed for 66 against Western Australia in the third round. Cricket Australia’s round-three report provides the contemporary result.
His selection case depends on whether the panel values recent first-class consistency and suitability at No. 3 more than the fact that his brief earlier Test opportunity came in another role.
Konstas scored 71 and an unbeaten 151 for New South Wales against Western Australia in October. The Cricket Australia match report dated October 21 confirms the century. Those innings revive his selection case after a challenging spell in Tests.
He normally opens the batting. Selecting him to replace Labuschagne on the team sheet would not necessarily mean sending him in at No. 3. A more coherent scenario could be Konstas opening and Renshaw moving to first drop, but that introduces a second selection decision and additional risk. Readers should distinguish earning a Test recall from being the best fit for the vacant batting position.
Queensland’s Clayton compiled 104 from 207 deliveries against Victoria at the Gabba in the Sheffield Shield match running from October 31 to November 3. Cricket Australia published highlights of the innings. This innings strengthened the case for considering him as an uncapped Test prospect, particularly because he has contributed in longer-form cricket rather than only in the shorter formats.
However, his usual Queensland batting positions have been No. 4 and No. 5. Asking him to debut at No. 3 would introduce an unfamiliar responsibility. His candidacy is therefore stronger as an argument for selecting a productive batter than as proof that he is an immediate, like-for-like No. 3.
The choice should be judged against the job Australia needs done, not simply the largest recent score. A practical checklist is:
Different answers produce different selections. If continuity matters, selectors could keep Labuschagne or move Smith. If they want a specialist first drop without broader changes, Patterson or McSweeney makes more structural sense. If they prioritize rewarding recent form and shaping the next generation, Konstas or Clayton becomes more relevant, although neither is a direct positional swap. These are analytical scenarios, not statements of selector intent.
Australia is scheduled to begin a four-Test home series against New Zealand on December 9, 2026 at Perth Stadium (Perth uses Australian Western Standard Time, AWST, UTC+08:00), followed by Adelaide on December 17, Melbourne on December 26 and Sydney on January 4, 2027. Melbourne and Sydney are on Australian Eastern Daylight Time (AEDT, UTC+11:00) on those dates. The official Cricket Australia series page lists fixtures and will provide the latest match information. These are match dates, not squad-announcement deadlines; no firm selection announcement time is confirmed here.
Before a claim about who “replaced Labuschagne” is treated as fact, verify three separate developments: the named Test squad, the playing XI at the toss, and the batting order actually used. Squad inclusion alone does not guarantee a start, while a player in the same XI could be moved to a different batting position.
Not according to the verified selection information available for this review. His place is under scrutiny following the South Africa series, and selectors are expected to reassess it. A future team announcement may change that status.
Inglis has recent Test runs and is familiar to the national setup, but he generally bats lower than No. 3. Calling him a direct replacement would overlook the role change involved.
No. Konstas is principally an opener. Australia could recall him and move another player to first drop, so his selection does not necessarily identify him as the new No. 3.
No. ODI and Test squads serve different formats, with different tactical needs. Always check the Test-specific announcements before treating a white-ball omission or promotion as a Test decision.
Bottom line: Australia has credible internal and domestic alternatives, but there is no settled answer until selectors name their side. The central question is whether they want to preserve the current structure, bring in a specialist No. 3, or use Labuschagne’s position as the starting point for a wider batting-order change.
Who could replace Marnus Labuschagne at No. 3 for Australia? Compare Josh Inglis, Steve Smith, Sam Konstas, Nathan McSweeney and other Test options.
Why is Snowy Hydro 2.0 linked to A$25 billion? Compare its A$22.2 billion cost target, higher-risk scenario, delays, funding, and energy benefits.
How could Australian power poles support more EV charging? Explore the 2026 federal rollout, AC and DC chargers, parking limits, costs, and local availability.
Learn what UK indefinite leave to remain (ILR) means, who qualifies, application costs, residence rules, citizenship options, and 2026 policy updates.
Check November 2026 Premium Bonds results on November 3 with NS&I's official website or app. Find holder numbers, missing prizes, and payment options.
Learn how a cyberattack can disrupt supermarket freezers, what Europe's 2026 incidents confirm, and how retailers protect food safety and shoppers.
Discover what Zelda: Ocarina of Time is, how to start playing, essential beginner tips, and how the 1998 classic compares with the 2026 Switch 2 remake.
Will your area have a white Christmas in 2026? Learn where to check NOAA snow odds, when local forecasts become useful, and how to read snowfall alerts.
Learn what SpaceX does, how Falcon 9, Dragon, Starship and Starlink work, and what is already operational versus still in development.
The 2026 US midterm elections take place November 3. Learn which seats are at stake, how Congress may change, and why the outcome matters to Australia.
