• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Your best batsman coming in at 3 is such a myth

mr_mister

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
From the rough list of the 10-15 best test bats ever, only Bradman, Headley and Ponting (if you count him) had 3 as their most common batting position in tests

Ignoring openers and just including middle order batsman: Lara, Sachin, Pollock, Viv, Sobers, Chappell, Border, Hammond, Weekes, Walcott, Smith, Waugh, Kallis. all these fellas had their most common batting position in tests be either 4, 5 or 6

It seems it worked for Bradman and therefore it got the reputation as the all star batting position, but it looks like 4 is where most ATGs eventually settle at

I've heard criticism of some of legendary batsmen (Sachin, Root) "hiding" down at 4 when they should have taken their rightful spot at 3 like the other high class batsmen in history... But it seems like nearly every legendary bat was "hiding", to the point that the idea is kinda pointless!

There was umming and ahhing recently if Labuschagne was worthy of the acclaimed #3 spot, but the damn spot is only acclaimed because of a handful of players
 
0

_00_deathscar

International Regular
Root played 3 for a long time and was great, but its also stupid to send in your best bat in the 5th over every innings cos your openers are crap.
Ponting had great openers to protect that position.
 
mr_mister

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
SillyCowCorner1 said:
Your best batsman should be your opener, imho
Click to expand...
Pre Bradman that seemed to be the case

Grace, Trumper, Hobbs. All lead from the front. Like generals leading troops into battle rather than hiding behind the lines from WW1 onwards

Bradman definitely helped changed the theory
 
anil1405

anil1405

International Captain
mr_mister said:
It seems it worked for Bradman and therefore it got the reputation as the all star batting position, but it looks like 4 is where most ATGs eventually settle at

I've heard criticism of some of legendary batsmen (Sachin, Root) "hiding" down at 4 when they should have taken their rightful spot at 3 like the other high class batsmen in history... But it seems like nearly every legendary bat was "hiding", to the point that the idea is kinda pointless!
Click to expand...
All star batting position? Never heard that before. I wonder who coined that term?

No.3's usually do the dirty work and dirty work is never rewarded on paper (or rather stats).
 
mr_mister

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
@anil1405 I'm paraphrasing/made up the term, but surely you've seen countless people romanticise the number 3 spot and talk about it like it's where your premier batsman should go. Maybe it's more of an Australian thing though, Neil Harvey who was meant to be the next big thing slotted right into there after Bradman retired, and for a while took up from where Bradman left off, before being kinda just ATVG instead of ATG for the last 3 quarters of his career

I also remember Ricky Pontings promotion from 6 to 3 being a kind of rites of passage type thing, him finally getting the chance to bat in the fabled 3 spot, and as an Aussie kid born in '91, he seemed like the best batsman in the world to me from 02-06 while doing it at 3
 
mr_mister

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Graeme Hick, regardless of how bad he missed the bar, did kind of earn the hype he had accrued in the 80s with almost unprecedented success before debuting in tests (Grace maybe the only one who can compare for pre test debut accomplishment s) and since he was viewed by many as a nailed on ATG into 3 he went in his first series lol
 
mr_mister

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Adorable Asshole said:
Dravid also batted at 3.
Click to expand...
I'd have him just outside the top 10-15 but acknowledge he's right up there. Was never considered quite as good as Sachin I assume therefore never truly the best batsman in his side, but maybe for the odd series or two he was expected to outperform Sachin before it began, and delivered on that expectation a couple of times. But I feel like even the time periods where he was having more success than Sachin, the hopes of India still rested more on Sachins shoulders

To your other post, my point was yes I know Bradman did it with great success, but hardly anyone else has since, so it's weird the glory of 3 lasted so damn long to the point Labuschagne's worthiness of playing there was such a talking point
 
Last edited:
The Sean

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
I'd add Sangakkara to the original post.

I think it's also a case of *when* they bat at 3. Richards, for example, ended up playing slightly more innings at 5, but his peak years were spent at 3 and that's where he batted when he was the best player in the world. Hammond as well ended up playing more often at 4 than 3, but it was at 3 where he was at his best.
 
mr_mister

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The Sean said:
I'd add Sangakkara to the original post.

I think it's also a case of *when* they bat at 3. Richards, for example, ended up playing slightly more innings at 5, but his peak years were spent at 3 and that's where he batted when he was the best player in the world. Hammond as well ended up playing more often at 4 than 3, but it was at 3 where he was at his best.
Click to expand...
True, Hammonds 900+ run series slightly predates Bradmans success at 3, by a single series but still.

Maybe he's to blame!

And yes Viv in '76 another good counter example. However Pollock, Lara, Chappell and Sachin were essentially mainly number 4 batsmen, though the 375 and 400* from Lara were at 3 funnily enough

And it seems Hammond and Viv slipped down to 4 while still in their prime and considered the best batsmen in their team
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
Yeah I swear we had a discussion on this a while back in thread related to the Fab Four and their positions. Anyway, the best batsman in a team should be batting where they are best and feel most comfortable, to maximize their runs.
 
mr_mister

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
subshakerz said:
Viv was number three during his peak.
Click to expand...
True, but people keep telling me he was still a great batsman through the 80s, and he became a permanent 4-5 as early as 1983 while still only 30 and presumably still the prize windies wicket
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top