Greg Chappell Vs Rahul Dravid - who was the better test match batsman?

[the big bambino]

ok.

 

[Top_Cat]

There is a discussion to be had on what makes some great batsmen feel more secure and perform better at number 4 rather than 3. Chappell, Pollock, Tendulkar. Could have all batted #3 if they chose to. The transition from 4 to 3 is something Smith has done that is quite admirable. Kohli seems unwilling, although that might be because of the tradition set by Dravid and Pujara coming along *looking like* a natural successor.

SWaugh and Chanderpaul are rare species, the best batsmen who preferred to stay at 5, or 6 even.

It's mental innit. The guys who, if asked who's batting at 3, put their hands up, they're the guys who want there. Anyone else should bat lower. It's a position where you may have to play within yourself for the whole knock whereas at 4, 5 or 6 there's a chance you'll have the release of freeing the arms if you get away. Takes a certain sort to always be willing to shepherd the others lower down.

That's why Ponting was such a noteworthy number 3. Guys who counter-attack with all the mental responsibility of batting 3 are rare. Makes it rough for the fielding skipper when you take an early wicket or two but then a session later, you're on the back foot because Ponting is already 50+ because he didn't need that period of absorbing the pressure, came out swinging from ball 1.

 

[Burgey]

Yep. It’s what makes him such a great number 3

 

[harsh.ag]

Yeah, I think there's a difference between rescuing and shepherding. Guys like Border, Tendulkar, and Waugh wanted to rescue the innings if things went bad up the order.

 

[Burgey]

Border batted three under Chappell to no good effect. Waugh batted three vs WI here in 92/93.

Tendulkar refused to countenance it. Don’t dare mention him in the same sentence as TOTAB or even Waugh. He isn’t worthy.

 

[cnerd123]

We give aggressive batsmen too much credit. Many of them just use #intent as a cop out from dealing with all the pressure they face in the middle. Just swing at the ball and if it comes off, everyone thinks you're awesome, and if you fail, "oh well that's just how he bats". Don't get held accountable for being unable to manage the situation at all, don't show any adaptability or concern for the teams situation, just be inconsiderate and selfish and get praised for it. It's weak.

Not saying this applies to Ponting specifically, but it's a dangerous path to go down when we fetishize aggressive number 3s over defensive ones. Being aggressive isn't inherently better.

 

[jimmy101]

I feel the ideal #3 is an aggressive batsman. This is why players such as Bradman, Viv & Lara fit the bill, they're all about putting the bowlers off their game.

 

[cnerd123]

Aggressive batting is a symptom not a cause. These great aggressive number 3s exist because they had batting lineups that gave them the freedom to play this way with no serious repercussions if they fail. That or they're Bradman. You don't see great aggressive batsmen from weak teams. They're far less useful.

 

[jimmy101]

You don't see great aggressive batsmen from weak teams. They're far less useful.

Headley & Lara spring to mind.

 

[trundler]

A number 3 sets the tone so I'd always take someone who comes in all guns blazing. Attacking number 3s like terrifying fast bowlers are just so good to watch too. They're more memorable and that's what sports are all about after all.

Sidenote: Ponting averaged above 60 when he came in after an early wicket. I'll try to dig the Cricinfo article.

Edit: found it! http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/442971.html

 

[harsh.ag]

Border batted three under Chappell to no good effect. Waugh batted three vs WI here in 92/93.

Tendulkar refused to countenance it. Don’t dare mention him in the same sentence as TOTAB or even Waugh. He isn’t worthy.

Border did very well at number 3, scoring 1500 runs and averaging 47. He wanted to drop down the order. Face it, Burgs.

 

[Borges]

A number sets the tone so I'd always take someone who comes in all guns blazing.

Attacking batsmen up the order set the tone. Attacking opener > attacking #3 > attacking #4 etc. When they can pull it off.

 

[trundler]

Attacking batsmen up the order set the tone. Attacking opener > attacking #3 > attacking #4 etc. When they can pull it off.

True. The higher up you go the rarer good attacking batsmen become.

I have a similar question. What makes a good #5? Someone for collapse proofing or someone attacking. A Barrington or a Sobers? Team dynamics must be very important.

 

[Burgey]

We give aggressive batsmen too much credit. Many of them just use #intent as a cop out from dealing with all the pressure they face in the middle. Just swing at the ball and if it comes off, everyone thinks you're awesome, and if you fail, "oh well that's just how he bats". Don't get held accountable for being unable to manage the situation at all, don't show any adaptability or concern for the teams situation, just be inconsiderate and selfish and get praised for it. It's weak.

Not saying this applies to Ponting specifically, but it's a dangerous path to go down when we fetishize aggressive number 3s over defensive ones. Being aggressive isn't inherently better.

Shut up mate. No one cares what you think.

 

[Burgey]

Border did very well at number 3, scoring 1500 runs and averaging 47. He wanted to drop down the order. Face it, Burgs.

As opposed to the 10,500 runs at 55+ he scored batting elsewhere.

Well done Einstein.

 

[Borges]

What makes a good #5? Someone for collapse proofing or someone attacking. A Barrington or a Sobers?

Someone who can bail the team out if the top order collapses, bat with the tail a la VVS; but also someone who won't drain all the momentum if a good foundation has been built. Sobers.

 

[OverratedSanity]

True. The higher up you go the rarer good attacking batsmen become.

I have a similar question. What makes a good #5? Someone for collapse proofing or someone attacking. A Barrington or a Sobers? Team dynamics must be very important.

Someone who prioritizes getting the team to the biggest possible total, over staying not out himself no matter what.

 

[Borges]

AB at #5 actually; attack or play normally or defend as the situation demands. The Real McCoy; not the lesser AB.

 

[Burgey]

Border mostly batted at four mate, not five

 

[srbhkshk]

Someone who prioritizes getting the team to the biggest possible total, over staying not out himself no matter what.

That seems like it'd be a good philosophy whether you bat 1 or 11, I don't know how specific it is to 5.

To me an ideal 5 would have 2 primary skills -
1. Ability to bat with the tail.
2. Being capable of batting aggressively.