Australia's calculated gamble on Warner

Four years ago, the choice of Australia's vice-captain was an afterthought on the Cricket Australia board phone hook-up that had only settled on Michael Clarke as captain after robust debate. Wearying of the discussion after finally endorsing Clarke, the directors hastily rubber-stamped Shane Watson for the role of deputy before returning to their day jobs.

As subsequent events unfolded, that hurried decision came to be viewed as regrettable, for Clarke and Watson were unable to form the sort of constructive captain/lieutenant relationship that a team in transition required. It took another two years and a disastrous India tour for the selectors and board to revert to Brad Haddin as Clarke's deputy, a decision they might easily have made in 2011 with the benefit of a little more thought.

Haddin was a standout candidate for the role, being a sound tactician, a universally respected team man and also a character who had formed a sturdy working partnership with Clarke over many years in the dressing rooms of NSW and Australia. He was also a man whose leadership ambitions did not extent so far as to covet the captaincy over Clarke, aware that a wicketkeeper is best placed as the deputy. When he finally did get the job, Haddin used it well.

This time around, the selectors and board had even fewer likely types to choose from than 2011. As an experienced team dissolves, the traditional leadership wells have dried up. Haddin, Watson, Clarke and Chris Rogers are all either gone from the side or close to it, while other Australia players groomed for such roles have failed to blossom after the fashion of Steven Smith. There was a time when Tim Paine and Cameron White were spoken of as future leaders. No longer.

That left a choice between David Warner, Nathan Lyon, Mitchell Johnson and, at a pinch, Peter Nevill. Lyon and Johnson are solid citizens, respected within the team and increasingly seen as custodians of its values - something Michael Hussey recognised when he bequeathed the team song to Lyon. But they are bowlers, and official leadership duties have seldom been passed that way. Johnson was briefly vice-captain of the ODI team last year, but before that Shane Warne and Richie Benaud are the only two bowling leaders of note in almost 60 years.

Nevill may have been a handy choice, as a gloveman, a NSW contemporary of Smith's and a sometime captain of the Blues. Certainly he would have taken to the task with an understated but unmistakeable desire to aid Smith and the team in whatever way he can. However to make such a choice would be to presume Nevill is settled as the team's first-choice stumper for the medium term, and with Matthew Wade returning to the ODI team that is a matter far from settled. Wicketkeeping has long been the strongest suit of the Australian domestic scene.

So it was that the selectors and board settled on Warner to be Smith's deputy. It is a choice that has already provoked plenty of discussion and even the odd hot tempered opinion piece decrying the decision as a "blunder" bound to result in problems. By his own hesitance to endorse Warner as a leadership prospect, the CA chief executive James Sutherland certainly gave the impression that he would not have been the most fervent supporter of the selectors' recommendation at Friday's board meeting.

There is certainly truth in many of the objections raised. Warner's combustible temperament has cooled slightly but remains in a state of development, as does his game as he tries to temper it for the long haul. His own leadership ambitions, demonstrated by his eager acceptance of the captaincy of Sunrisers Hyderabad in the IPL and evident repositioning from rascal and lout to senior player and energy conserver, are plain. It is a truism of vice-captaincy that the coupling of incumbent and heir apparent seldom leads to harmony.

Most intriguingly, Warner's standing within the team has oscillated at times. Some were tiring of his antics two years ago - those for which he was suspended after the Walkabout incident - and others did not appreciate his move away from "attack dog" status on the West Indies tour, not least because he did not necessarily make those intentions clear within the team. He has worked hard to mend bridges since then, and in his batting has shown a desire to adapt to English conditions that has been admirable if occasionally ham-fisted.

But whatever criticisms may be directed Warner's way, he has plenty of attributes that should allow his leadership union with Smith to succeed. Foremost among these is the fact that they have a firm relationship, fostered over numerous years in the NSW and then Australia systems together. They know each other well, even to the point of sharing a batting mentor in Trent Woodhill, and there is a directness to their conversations that conveys this.

Warner is also a sharp observer of the game, much more so than his pantomime villain reputation would have it. He has acknowledged that time spent antagonising opponents could perhaps be better used devising ways to actually dismiss batsmen, and in his brief captaincy forays in Twenty20 matches he has shown that Clarke-like knack of being an over or two ahead of the play. The deftness he often shows with the bat will also be evident in the field.

The bottom line, of course, is that Smith and Warner are the two men most assured of their places in a changing Australian side. A fundamental of any Australian leadership combination is that the players concerned merit their place in the team. It is for that reason above all others that Clarke has decided to withdraw from the game, leaving the stage free for his successor and his deputy. Warner's elevation to vice-captain is undoubtedly a gamble, but when lined up against the other options available it was one that Australian cricket needed to take.