***Official**** Sri Lanka in New Zealand 2014/2015

[Binkley]

Let's see.

Clem Hill.
Don Bradman.
Neil Harvey.
Ian Chappell.
Greg Chappell.
David Boon.
Ricky Ponting.

Since Ricky Ponting retired, no batsman has been able to make #3 their own - yet you don't see Clarke or Smith put their hands up to move there. Australia has pretty much always had their best performing batsman at #3 from since before Bradman all the way through. From Bradman to Harvey, Harvey to Ian Chappell, Ian Chappell to Greg Chappell, Greg Chappell to David Boon, David Boon to Ricky Ponting.... now, "Anyone but Clarke or Smith"

So David Boon was a better batsman than Allan Border? Huh.

 

[Blocky]

So David Boon was a better batsman than Allan Border? Huh.

At #3 he was - Border himself was tried (and arguably failed) at #3 when Australia struggled to fill the position, Boon made it his own.

But I like how you take the entire list and refute one name on it, if Boon wasn't Australia's best, he was easily it's second best during that era - at the moment you've got Warner, Clarke and Smith as Australia's best (and most experienced) - Warner is opening, that rules him out - when Clarke and Smith play, it's 4 and 5. Meanwhile #3 struggles.

Any other Australian side would have had Smith or Clarke at 3.

ps - with Border as captain in 88 matches, Boon scored 6500 runs. Border scored less runs matches where he was captain and Boon played. Border only scored 6600 runs as captain in 93 test matches. Boon is severely underrated in my view, kind of similar to Steve Waugh vs Ricky Ponting.

 

[hendrix]

Where did Steve Waugh bat?

 

[hendrix]

At #3 he was.

There's the answer.

 

[Flem274*]

Why didn't Dravid bat at #4 and Sachin at #3?

 

[Blocky]

Where did Steve Waugh bat?

Waugh wasn't his sides best batsman at any point during his career in terms of pure run output.

Border and Boon had him beat in his earlier years, Boon and Ponting had him beat for the rest of his career.

Waugh, like Border, benefitted from a lot of not outs.

 

[Blocky]

Why didn't Dravid bat at #4 and Sachin at #3?

A: We're talking about Australia's history, not Indias.
B: Some (including I) consider Dravid a better test batsman than Tendulkar.

 

[_Ed_]

Sad I missed yesterday's play. From what I've heard and the very few highlights I've managed to see, it seems like a special innings by Sangakkara. Definitely brought his team back into the game, and may yet win it for them. Sensational performance from a great player, full credit to him.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Why didn't Dravid bat at #4 and Sachin at #3?

Dravid was the better defensively and in tough situations, so he could set up for Sachin for some downhill skiing. There's no one size fits all idea of what a number 3 should be - it's different for every side composition imo. Sometimes it's your best bat, sometimes it's someone else.

 

[Blocky]

Sad I missed yesterday's play. From what I've heard and the very few highlights I've managed to see, it seems like a special innings by Sangakkara. Definitely brought his team back into the game, and may yet win it for them. Sensational performance from a great player, full credit to him.

The best thing about his performance was how he adapted to take away the threat of Boult - stood on off stump, waited for anything into his pads or short enough to play comfortably and took advantage of it by striking boundaries or at least twos, played him comfortably and with ease. Then when it came time to attack, he pelted us to all ends of the park and did that with ease too.

I think Boult and Southee really struggled to back up after their 50 overs on the trot in the last game and I think the NZ bowling unit really missed having Wagner there to spark up, get angry and compete when the ball wasn't doing much. I kind of feel we need a 300-5 type day here today like we've managed recently, no reason we can't - best batting conditions, a seam attack that isn't brilliant and a spin bowler not at his best due to recovering from injury. It'll come down to how hard we make them fight for wickets and how much we put away the bad ball.

 

[Blocky]

Dravid was the better defensively and in tough situations, so he could set up for Sachin for some downhill skiing. There's no one size fits all idea of what a number 3 should be - it's different for every side composition imo. Sometimes it's your best bat, sometimes it's someone else.

Right - I can get behind that point of view, but I will say that Australia for years (and as you hear Chappell still drone on about) has put their best bat at #3 for the reason that they can either capitalise after a good opening partnership and lift the scoring rate, or be there after an early wicket to shepherd the side through.

Dravid didn't have the scoring abilities that Tendulkar had, but I remember much more of his gritty innings than I do Tendulkars when chips were down.

Anyway, with the game now under-way, I think we can park that subject. My view is that Australia need to seriously consider Clarke or Smith at #3 if they want to be consistent in world cricket and look to blood youth in the 4, 5 and 6 spots.

 

[Flem274*]

That was almost a very dire dismissal.

 

[Flem274*]

Dravid was the better defensively and in tough situations, so he could set up for Sachin for some downhill skiing. There's no one size fits all idea of what a number 3 should be - it's different for every side composition imo. Sometimes it's your best bat, sometimes it's someone else.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at

 

[Blocky]

Wow... a false no-ball call that would've had a wicket, It's a wonder to me that the umpire didn't call for a review on the front foot.

 

[Flem274*]

How does Rutherford not chop on more often?

I really hope he does some work with a good coach before England. A pull shot alone would stop bowlers being able to work away at him with back of a length deliveries where he is currently helpless.

 

[Blocky]

How does Rutherford not chop on more often?

I really hope he does some work with a good coach before England. A pull shot alone would stop bowlers being able to work away at him with back of a length deliveries where he is currently helpless.

The best possible coach for him is sitting in the commentary box being snarky about his technique and pointing out pretty true statements such nas "No point practicing the cover driver repeatedly if you only play it three times in an innings"

McMillan was never the best player for feetwork and being uncomplicated with shot options. I'd much rather see us go to someone like Gary Stead, Craig Cumming or Rigor himself (Although I get the feeling Rigor couldn't be ****ed helping others) mentoring our top order.

 

[Blocky]

Just horrible from Rutherford there - thrusting the pad forward, bringing the bat around his shoulder and trying to backfoot (off the frontfoot) drive the ball with the ball in a channel just outside off.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Wow... a false no-ball call that would've had a wicket, It's a wonder to me that the umpire didn't call for a review on the front foot.

Haven't seen the dismissal, but I think the reason you can't overturn a call of no ball from the umpire is that it is supposed that given a strong "no ball" call, the batsman may have opted to play a shot that he would otherwise not have played. At least that is what would be claimed, even though the practical reality might be quite different.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

rudds better be in the nets every day practising leg glances. It's free ****ing runs.

 

[Flem274*]

Sri Lanka have usually bowled too short all tour but this is the perfect line and length to Rutherford. He has no scoring shots to this plan and a poor defense against it. As long as they offer no width apart from bait balls it's just a waiting game.