What does that mean? He is a below average number 6. A few Test centuries do no change that. He has shown neither the technique or mentality to be a good consistent Test batsman. He would be a good 7 and a great 8. Suddenly a potential strength has been turned into a weakness.
Way to go England
In theory, it should be irrelevant whether Fred bats 6,7,8 or even lower. Because, again in theory, the Top 5 should be performing to potential and should (once again, in theory) be getting 350/400 runs before the 4th wicket falls and the #6 is due in.
Nick Knight backed this up to a point on yesterday's Pro40 coverage, he said he had been picked as an 'extra' batsman at #6 and felt more pressure than normal because he felt his role was to 'save' the innings when the Top 5 failed and invariably that isn't his natural game, as he would open for Warwickshire.
Again, how many of the batsmen in the England setup (even those on the fringes, like Shah, Key etc) would ever bat as low as 6 for their counties? It's not natural for them.
Either they come in at 450-4 and are under no real pressure to do more than get 'bonus' runs or else they come it at 100-4 and are then expected to turn the innings around, but are often forced to play an unnatural game, because they are thrust into partnersips with tailenders and often fail by trying to force the issue.
For me, this is partially a reason why the likes of Hick and Ramps never fulfilled their promise.
To me, if we lose a game for not getting enough runs, it won't be because Freddie failed at 6, Ambrose failed at 7. In all likelihood it will be because the Top 5 haven't got the runs.
It's time we quit worrying about the runs we are potentially losing at 6-9 and start to ask ourselves why we are not making enough runs at 1-5.
