Placing our bets on "Test Cricket's Young Fab Four"

[Hurricane]

I thought Lara played a fair bit at 3.

And Tendulkar at 4 - isn't as bad as batting at number 5 and 6.

Positions 1-4 is the top order.

 

[Spark]

Couldn't disagree with this more tbh........some players are just better suited to the middle order. Batting at 4, 5 or 6 does not necessarily mean you are an inferior batsmen to the guy's at 1, 2 and 3. I'd like to see you sell this argument to such notables as Lara, Sachin and Border et al to name just a few.

Moving Root up the order was one of the biggest mistakes (among many) that England have made this last year or so.........and it has nothing to do with the quality of him as a batsmen.

Well, it sort of does tbh. The reason he struggled at the top order is because his front foot technique was/is pretty poor, which was exacerbated by the extra movement top order bats have to place.

 

[Adders]

So hang on, are you both agreeing with...........

If Root was as good as his average suggested he'd still be batting up the order.

??

 

[91Jmay]

I do get why people think Kohli has more potential, just because he looks so ****ing good but that punishes Root because his best attribute is basically how mentally tough he is which doesn't stand out as much. Wouldn't shock me if this ended up Mark Waugh vs. Steve (maybe not as good but similar type of arguments).

 

[Stace]

If Root was as good as his average suggested he'd still be batting up the order. As it is he's been shunted down the batting line up and England are having to play a scrub like Sam Robson. Likewise Steve Smith to a degree. No reason whatsoever why he shouldn't be batting at three for Australia.

So why didn't Clarke bat up the order at 3 or 4 when Ponting and Hussey retire? He averages 32 from 28 Tests, does that mean he's ****? Is his average false too?

 

[GIMH]

So why didn't Clarke bat up the order at 3 or 4 when Ponting and Hussey retire? He averages 32 from 28 Tests, does that mean he's ****? Is his average false too?

Clarke was the player I thought of when I read that post

 

[Teja.]

I think there's a fine distinction. It would be optimal for Australia and slightly better than status quo if Clarke could bat as successfully at number three/four. That being said, realistically, Clarke is more comfortable and backs himself to produce better at number five and that doesn't stop him from being one of the best batsmen in the world.

The general proposition that a batsman in the mould of Clarke batting higher up the order would be superior for the team doesn't contradict the individual situation that Clarke is simply a better batsman at number five.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah but isn't his record turd higher up?

 

[Teja.]

Yeah but isn't his record turd higher up?

which is what I said. Clarke is a great batsman at number five and he should play there but that doesn't escape the fact that'd it be optimal for Australia if he could produce the same results higher up.

 

[91Jmay]

which is what I said. Clarke is a great batsman at number five and he should play there but that doesn't escape the fact that'd it be optimal for Australia if he could produce the same results higher up.

So because he doesn't, does that devalue him as a player? If no, why does it devalue Root?

 

[Stace]

Exactly the point I was trying to make Jmay, seems like double standards to me.

 

[hendrix]

The way I look at it is that runs up the order are indeed more difficult to score. It's harder to get in as an opener and number 3 unless you're facing bowling attacks that are particularly spin dominant. But it's also a skill to a) capitalise on platforms when you're coming in after the ball has stopped moving around, b) put the opposition bowlers under pressure and c) stage recoveries.

All other things being equal, I will rate a number 3 with a good average higher than I'll rate a number 6 with the same average. But there are plenty of situations where it's better to have a decent number 3 and an excellent number 6, depending on how their skills match up with what's required.

I do think guys like Dravid and Kallis could have done good jobs batting at 6 but they also had the skill set to perform at the top order. Trott would probably not have made a good job at 6.

 

[Jono]

Turbo semantics on show here.

 

[Hurricane]

So because he doesn't, does that devalue him as a player? If no, why does it devalue Root?

Fine then, yes it devalues Clarke - people would think higher of him if he was a number 3. Instead of thinking he is amazing and awesome like they do now - there would be more threads comparing him to Ponting.

 

[OverratedSanity]

As I said before, Ballance> Root. Surprised to see so little mention of him in this thread. He's scored as heavily as Root in the last two series, except higher up the order.

 

[Viscount Tom]

TBH were it not for his dicky back I feel that Clarke would have been more than capable of batting at 3.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The point against Clarke that he bats lower down the order is countered by the fact that he had a string of amazing knocks after he took over the captaincy where he'd come out and smash 200 coming in with the score something resembling 25/3. He might as well have been batting at 3, that's how often the Aussie top order kept collapsing.

 

[CarlsbergXpress]

I voted Root.

Partly in hope, but mainly because I think he will score plenty of runs away from home. Both on the road-like pitches in the SC where his playing of spin will be fully tested and the nippier tracks in Aus, NZ and SA that his back foot, late play seems more suited to. Got to admit I haven't seen enough of KW to discount him from this 'potential' vote yet, but from what I have seen of Kohli this summer and TPC over the last couple of years, I'd be more concerned about both of their techniques against the sideways moving ball than Root's.

That said I am a big fan of TPC, purely for the way he seems to get the best out of his ability.

Also, agree with Overrated Sanity that Ballance may outshine Root in the end, which I'm pretty excited about. When's England's next Test match?

 

[Hurricane]

I voted Root.

Partly in hope, but mainly because I think he will score plenty of runs away from home. Both on the road-like pitches in the SC where his playing of spin will be fully tested and the nippier tracks in Aus, NZ and SA that his back foot, late play seems more suited to. Got to admit I haven't seen enough of KW to discount him from this 'potential' vote yet, but from what I have seen of Kohli this summer and TPC over the last couple of years, I'd be more concerned about both of their techniques against the sideways moving ball than Root's.

That said I am a big fan of TPC, purely for the way he seems to get the best out of his ability.

Also, agree with Overrated Sanity that Ballance may outshine Root in the end, which I'm pretty excited about. When's England's next Test match?

In the spirit of uvelocitys thread I will reply to this rather than clicking like. I appreciate the observation about roots late back foot play and I commented on it too. My fear however is that on some bouncy tracks it may get big on him.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

When's England's next Test match?

April.

6 months in pyjamas coming up. YAWN