Your best batsman coming in at 3 is such a myth

[Prince EWS]

When he moved to 4 semi-permanently in 1935 he hadn't made a ton in almost two years too - was going through a bit of a lean trot - so maybe he just wanted to try something different.

 

[ataraxia]

I think I read once that he didn't like batting #3, but I haven't been able to track whatever I read it in down.

 

[ankitj]

It was at their peaks. Hammond averaged about 75 there in over 50 innings.

It was during their best years, but throughout their careers they ended up playing more at 4/5

Edit: Dammit @Prince EWS

See how I tricked you guys into answering and saved myself statsguru-ing effort.

 

[mr_mister]

Leyland and Edrich who batted 3 a lot in the second half of Hammond's career were domestic openers. Maybe just team balance in that way.

Had no idea about that re Leyland. Interesting

 

[harsh.ag]

The #3 spot is too important to be left to some rando. You lose an early wicket, you need someone to instill some confidence. Doesn't have to be your best bat, but someone with a solid reputation at least. England trying newbies at 3 was just bad.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah this is basically just an egocentric Chappellism. He batted #3 which means the best batsman in the side should do what he did.

It's a bit like how he spent years telling everyone you can't really just put the hook shot away and that criticism of him for getting caught at fine leg every third innings was off the mark, so then decided he had to hate Steve Waugh for proving him wrong.

Chappell from what I recall was critical of a top batsman like Clarke batting at no.5 and I agree with him. No.4 was still acceptable to him.

 

[Shady Slim]

@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

there's definitely a selectorial australia mindset about this though

like how they seem to think if you aren't in the top four in the shield you're a girly baby man and don't deserve selection

 

[andruid]

I will not stand for this Hill erasure

Is this the hill you are prepared to die on?
??‍

 

[Coronis]

Chappell from what I recall was critical of a top batsman like Clarke batting at no.5 and I agree with him. No.4 was still acceptable to him.

Nah I completely disagree with that. Clarke came into an already established side and slotted in at the available position. After he became the premiere batsman in the side why should he have to change from his most successful position where he’s scored most of his runs and is likely most valuable for the team going ahead?

 

[subshakerz]

Nah I completely disagree with that. Clarke came into an already established side and slotted in at the available position. After he became the premiere batsman in the side why should he have to change from his most successful position where he’s scored most of his runs and is likely most valuable for the team going ahead?

Because the batting lineup wasn't as strong, he is the captain and can do more damage up the order. Same reason Chanders gets criticized.

 

[Coronis]

Because the batting lineup wasn't as strong, he is the captain and can do more damage up the order. Same reason Chanders gets criticized.

Nah thats just an assumption . He was a great 5 and moving him in the batting order doesn’t guarantee anything. Captaincy should also have nothing to do with it.

 

[Burgey]

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

Three is the most important batting position by far in test & FC cricket

 

[Burgey]

there's definitely a selectorial australia mindset about this though

like how they seem to think if you aren't in the top four in the shield you're a girly baby man and don't deserve selection

Which is true tbf

 

[Prince EWS]

Which is true tbf

Yeah it's heaps easier to get pretty stats batting in the lower middle order in Shield cricket. Specialist Test batting aspirants should absolutely be batting 4 at the lowest. NZ selection policy improved heaps when they took this on as well.

As a bonus it also rightfully kept Wade out of the side for a while.

 

[TheJediBrah]

there's definitely a selectorial australia mindset about this though

like how they seem to think if you aren't in the top four in the shield you're a girly baby man and don't deserve selection

That's a bit different. Test-quality specialist batsmen really shouldn't be batting below 4 in the Shield

 

[Shady Slim]

Which is true tbf

That's a bit different. Test-quality specialist batsmen really shouldn't be batting below 4 in the Shield

i'm not saying it's wrong i'm just sayin the same mindset pervades how we are made to view the test quo

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Wade's recall as a specialist bat was one of the worst things to happen to the Australian Test team in years, although admittedly that is an "honour" that has some stiff competition


For all the (completely and unequivocally correct) talk about Head being better (which he is) the guy who really got screwed by Wade being recalled was Kurtis Patterson. He should have been in the 2019 Ashes team instead, but that didn't happen, he got injured pretty much straight away next domestic season, and frankly only just this season has he started to regain the form that got him in Test calculations in the first place. Have to wonder how different things may have been had the selectors not gone the wrong way.

Although that being said, maybe he would have just got injured earlier. Sadly we will never know

 

[morgieb]

Wade's recall as a specialist bat was one of the worst things to happen to the Australian Test team in years, although admittedly that is an "honour" that has some stiff competition


For all the (completely and unequivocally correct) tall about Head being better (which he is) the guy who really got screwed by Wade being recalled was Kurtis Patterson. He should have been in the 2019 Ashes team instead, but that didn't happen, he got injured pretty much straight away next domestic season, and frankly only just this season has he started to regain the form that got him in Test calculations in the first place. Have to wonder how different things may have been had the selectors not gone the wrong way.

Although that being said, maybe he would have just got injured earlier. Sadly we will never know

I don't want to be that guy, but would Wade had gotten the recall if he didn't spend the first half of his career in Victoria?

 

[subshakerz]

Nah thats just an assumption . He was a great 5 and moving him in the batting order doesn’t guarantee anything. Captaincy should also have nothing to do with it.

Disagree. Don't see any harm in putting him no.4. You don't want to put your best bat in pressure in more innings if cheap wickets fall.

 

[Daemon]

The #3 spot is too important to be left to some rando. You lose an early wicket, you need someone to instill some confidence. Doesn't have to be your best bat, but someone with a solid reputation at least. England trying newbies at 3 was just bad.

They were also trying noobs at 1 & 2 which didn't help at all