Is three the magic number?
Oh yes it is … according to numerical experts De La Soul. But what about cricket experts – you know, the ones on TV? Regular Sky viewers will know that the likes of Botham and Allott talk ad nauseam about three being the key position in the batting order – and that England’s failure to find a decent one is integral to our problems. On one level, it’s hard to disagree with them. But what I find bemusing is their answer to the solution: ‘Pietersen is the best batsman in the side, so he should bat three’. Err … what was that fellas? ‘The best batsman should always bat three’. Should he? What makes them think that? Is it because Ricky Ponting bats there for Australia? Or maybe there’s some unwritten law that all high class batsmen are automatically suited to the number three slot? Whatever their thinking, I doubt they’ve actually stopped to analyse the cliché.
If you take a look around international cricket, the best player in the side rarely bats three. Does Sachin Tendulkar bat three for India? No. Does Mohammad Yousuf bat three for Pakistan? No. Then there’s the West Indies: do Chris Gayle or Shiv Chanderpaul bat three? No again. Now let’s look at the recently retired greats. Brian Lara and Steve Waugh were probably the best batsmen of the 1990s, yet they batted four and five exclusively. Ditto Inzamam-Ul-Haq. So where does this leave the pundits’ theory? It’s got more holes in it than Botham and Allott have had hot dinners (which I suggest is rather a lot).
When it comes to limited overs cricket, especially T20, I would be prepared to moderate my view. After all, if the innings is scheduled to last for just 120 balls, you want your best batsman to face as many of these deliveries as possible. However, test cricket is totally different. Bowlers rarely get away with persistent short pitched bowling, and a ring of three slips and two gullies (the kind of field that examine your technique) are about as common as, err, centuries from England number three batsmen. The simple truth is this: batsmen should bat in the position that best suits their technique and temperament. Would Adam Gilchrist have been as successful if he had batted at three? I doubt it.
So what should England do to rectify the problematic number three spot? It’s an extremely difficult question – but Pietersen is not the answer. In my opinion his technique simply isn’t up to it. He plays exclusively off the front foot (he even pulls Brett Lee off it!) and his shot selection and temperament is often suspect. I am not suggesting that KP is a bottler by any means, just that a number three should be expected to play the situation as well as the ball. Pietersen is too obsessed with getting on top of the bowlers and winning moral victories. He is an enforcer and an aggressor; the kind of batsmen you want to either press home an advantage or counter attack when you’re on the ropes. He is therefore not ideally suited to coming in for the second ball of the match – which is what a number three sometimes needs to do … just ask Jonathan Trott!
Talking of Trott, I do not believe he is the answer either. He has batted at four (below Bell) for the majority of his Warwickshire career, and his only substantial score for England came at the Oval last year when he batted at five. He looked rather shell shocked at times in South Africa, and teams have already worked out how to keep him quiet (he was embarrassingly slow in the recent T20 against Pakistan). In my opinion, Trott should be our reserve middle-order batsman. He did well at five, so why move him? England’s selectors have tinkered with the batting order far too much in recent years.
England would do well to follow the Australian model. To illustrate my point, I’d like to briefly compare the one-day careers of Michael Bevan and Owais Shah. Bevan was a brilliant number six in limited overs cricket – he averaged over 50 – yet Australia constantly resisted the temptation to move him up the order. After all, they realised they’d found what remains an extremely valuable commodity in the shorter form of the game: an expert finisher. Now let’s look at Shah. The Middlesex man was our leading run scorer in 50 over cricket in the twelve months before last year’s Champions Trophy. During this period, Shah might have made a few costly errors in the field, but he also played a number of delightful cameos batting at six. With his unusual technique and unique ability to hit the ball in unusual areas, Owais was a nightmare for opposing captains in the final overs of an innings. But instead of appreciating what they had, England’s management rewarded Shah’s fine form by moving him from six to (you guessed it!) number three – a position in which his technique (with his tight top hand and tendency to hit the ball through gully) was cruelly exposed. When we look at the history books, Bevan will be remembered as one of the greatest ever one day players, whereas Shah was discarded ruthlessly after failing at number three and seems unlikely to play for England again.
However, it is all very well for observers like me to snipe from the sidelines without offering a solution. Therefore, I will hesitantly suggest who I believe should bat three for England next summer. After considerable thought, I would opt to do one of two things. Initially I would look to select a specialist number three, or at the very least choose somebody who has had success at number three in the past. The obvious candidates are Rob Key or Ian Bell. The latter is not an ideal solution, but we should remember that Bell averages in the mid thirties batting at first drop, which isn’t a bad effort considering the recent travails of Trott and Ravi Bopara. Bell also averaged nearly forty batting at three in the last Ashes series down under, when the likes of Warne and McGrath made mincemeat of Alistair Cook. Moving Bell to three would also allow the selectors to accommodate the highly rated Kieswetter at number six (something they seem keen to do) without exposing the rookie to undue pressure. A top order of Strauss, Cook, Bell, KP, Colly and Kieswetter looks appetising on paper – and it would enable all the batsmen to play in positions in which they feel comfortable.
Alternatively, the other solution I’d advocate would be the selection of three openers (a strategy we used with some success in the 1980s). Therefore, it would not be such a big deal if lost an early wicket. Once again, Rob Key would be an option, but I have an inkling that Joe Denly could be a good bet. Admittedly he has looked poor in the recent T20s, but he always gets out to rash attacking shots (rather than poor technique). It would be good to see what he can do batting at his natural pace. I saw him make a composed sixty for the Lions against Australia last summer, and he certainly wasn’t found wanting against a fired up Brett Lee. However, the one thing I would not do is promote KP and risk unsettling the entire batting order. Our batting line up isn’t broken, so it doesn’t need fixing. We just need to find that elusive number three … if only the selectors had a magic wand.
James Morgan
Given the recent selection policies of blooding people from your ‘southern’ academy, I suspect you will be seeing Stephen Moore in England whites soon enough, fulfilling your three openers request.
That said, if you want to move poeple out of position to full holes, why not shift Colly to three and leave KP, Trott and Bell to fill out the middle order
Interesting idea Paul. Being a Worcestershire fan, I’ve seen a lot of Moore. However, I don’t think he’s talented enough to play for England. Of course, my opinion had absolutely nothing to do with Moore leaving my beloved Worcs to join Lancs next year …. or has it? Bloody turncoat.
Harsh to drop Prior and Trott from your top six. Trott played the best England innings of the Ashes and i still think he has a future. I would play him at 3 in the tests and ODIs. Also, over the last 18 months, what has Prior done wrong? His keeping has improved significantly and I believe he is still the best option. I am shocked at the number people stating that Kieswetter should be selected in all England teams – have people actually seen him keep? Certainly a stopper rather than a keeper and I am not sure if his batting is better than Prior or Davies.
Goose – who is suggesting to drop Prior? I would play him at 7, but that requires a strong quartet of bowlers which is a debate for another day
I agree. I don’t think Prior is strong enough at 6. It was different when he was being followed by Flintoff at 7, but now it means the batting effectively ends at 5.
Goose old friend, I wasn’t actually suggesting that we drop Prior. I am actually quite a big Prior fan – although he has developed a slight weakness against balls moving into him.
As you know, I would like to play 5 bowlers – but in my article I assumed that England would persist with the 6 batsman (with Prior at 7)that they used in South Africa. Sorry I didn’t make that clear.
To be honest, I haven’t seen a great deal of Kieswetter yet (apart from a few impressive t20 knocks). I will reserve judgement as to whether he is capable of playing Test Cricket … it’s just that the selectors seem rather keen on him atm.
Interestingly, England could soon field a team with 3 or 4 keepers in the XI (none of the Lions batsmen have impressed me too much – and I think that Davies, alongside Denly, is the most naturally talented of our crop of youn guns). England could potentially select a top 7 of Kieswetter, Davies, KP, Colly, Morgan, Wright and Prior in the T20 world cup!
As for Trott, I agree that his ton against the Aussies was a superb effort … but I don’t know if he would have done it batting at 3. Of course, he could always bat 6 (instead of Kieswetter) in the test XI.
ok, I appreciate where you are coming if you still have Prior at 7. England need to pick an opening pair for ODIs and a seperate pair to open in Twenty 20s and stick with them. Having Cook captain and open in the ODIs will complicate matters if he does well and then Strauss returns as captain, requiring another change.
Dear TFL,
The above piece is as factually innacurate as a Daily Express artical.
You write:
“Brian Lara and Steve Waugh were probably the best batsmen of the 1990s, yet they batted four and five exclusively. Ditto Inzamam-Ul-Haq. So where does this leave the pundits’ theory? It’s got more holes in it than Botham and Allott have had hot dinners (which I suggest is rather a lot).”
Points of fact:
Between 1992 and 2006 Brian Lara batted at 3 in 43 Test Matches, scoring 3749 runs at an average of 60.46. He averages “only” 51.25 at 4, and 41.23 in his 13 tests at number 5.
Steve Waugh also played 65 tests at 6 (and 5 at 3) so he is far from exclusively a 4/5 either.
Ditto Inzi, who also batted at 3 various times.
Please check your impressions before citing them as fact in future.
Dear No3 (is that you Mr Nicol?) Steve Waugh had most of his success at 5. He was suited to the middle order (which proves my point). If he had got stacks of runs at 3, he would have stayed there, right?! He batted 6 at the start of his career, but moved up to 5 (which is where he stayed for the majority of his career … and it’s where he batted when captain.) Lara did bat 3 for a period, but settled at 4.
When batsmen come into team as a young player they often cannot pick and choose where they bat – but it cannot be denied that when Lara and Waugh were the best players in the side, they chose to bat 4/5. This proves the overall point of the article i.e. that the best batsman in the side does not always bat 3.
I should perhaps be more careful in my use of the word ‘exclusively’ in future … after all, there is always somebody out there ready to delve into the history books and tell you that Inzamam once batted 3 in the world cup (before he got fat) and therefore the overall thrust of your argument must be flawed … much like the Daily Express. Obviously left wing papers are always correct though (plus anything written by comrades Castro and Guevara)
As the word ‘article’ is misspelt, Tarka seems a more likely suspect.
Tarka doesn’t have a penchant for statistics and taking digs at the daily express …. tempting though it is! If Tarka is the culprit, I thank him for his contribution (and I will kick him in the appropriate area when I next see him!)
Oh no, the style is entirely Paul’s. I just felt like making fun of Tarka’s spelling.
Be my guest Tristan!
Not I, much like the Village forum I only ever post in my own name
No, we meant Paul Nicol, KP, not you.
I got a notification that Crazy Horse himself replied to this thread, but it doesn’t appear here, strangely.
Ah, a missing Crazy Horse post. That would explain a certain ‘warning’ someone we know sent to someone else we know.
Censorship at its worst if you ask me.
Hmm, I think the ‘someone else’ we know is being a bit of a **** now, to be honest.