Your best batsman coming in at 3 is such a myth

[Burgey]

Border spent most of the 80s at 4 (60 odd tests there), coming in at 2 fer SFA, watching the team slump to 6/ 120 odd then trying to carry them past a follow on.

They were grim, grim days in Aus cricket man.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Border play enough at 4? Wasn't he mostly lower?

Weekes seems a bit iffy in that group.

Border batted at 4 more than any other position

 

[mr_mister]

Border batted at 4 more than any other position

True, but he batted 5 and 6 in nearly 50 tests each, which means about 2 thirds of his career was 5 or lower, which is noteworthy I think.

 

[Burgey]

Your best player doesn't have to bat three, but that's not inconsistent with the spot being the most important in the line up. Boonie wasn't as good a player as TOTAB, nor was Gomes better than Richards or Pujara better than Kohli, but their role imo is the most important because they either need to cash in after a good start or re-establish the innings after a bad one.

 

[ashley bach]

Martin Crowe was far in away NZ's best bat for years and batted at 4 his entire career.
Kind of felt 4 was better for him because batting at 3 he would have all too often been in too early.

 

[TheJediBrah]

This is a really good thread. All through my junior cricket, both club and rep, and most senior teams I played for as well had the best batsman bat at 3. It was just the done thing. I guess it makes more sense at those levels where you tend to have a bigger gap between your better bats and your worse bats to give the best players the most time to bat and face the new ball.

 

[Daemon]

I don’t really think it’s a question that can have a standard answer but I think if I had to pick then the openers are incredibly important imo. If you have good openers it makes scoring for the rest of your lineup so much easier.

 

[ashley bach]

Border spent most of the 80s at 4 (60 odd tests there), coming in at 2 fer SFA, watching the team slump to 6/ 120 odd then trying to carry them past a follow on.

They were grim, grim days in Aus cricket man.

Bit like now I guess.

 

[subshakerz]

The answer is your best bat should be at 3 or 4 with certain exceptions like Sobers or Steve Waugh in the 90s who batted in strong lineups.

 

[Burgey]

Bit like now I guess.

Not really. If you're going to have a crap outcome, let it be in this over pretty much anything else. Currently hold the Ashes and had a win and a draw in test series in Asia this year. Probably better than where they've been for quite a while tbh. Anyway, there's another one of these things in two years anyway. They're a dime a dozen.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not really. If you're going to have a crap outcome, let it be in this over pretty much anything else. Currently hold the Ashes and had a win and a draw in test series in Asia this year. Probably better than where they've been for quite a while tbh. Anyway, there's another one of these things in two years anyway. They're a dime a dozen.

As bad as they played, and all the issues with the team culture/management/selection which I think are plentiful, technically they only lost 1 T20 cricket match. And T20s involve so much luck that kind of thing can happen often (as this tournament has shown).

The Test results in the last 12 months have been as good as any time since I've been following with the exception of 2002-2007 where they won in Asia as well as everywhere else. And they literally just beat NZ 3-0 in an ODI series.

 

[Bahnz]

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.

Shiv Chanderpaul agrees with this.

 

[Prince EWS]

Shiv Chanderpaul agrees with this.

Chanderpaul batted where he did to maximise his average rather than his runs.

I'm not sure I've ever seen something so blatantly self serving in Tests.

I still think he's under-rated on CW because he failed to truly find a way for him to benefit himself at the expense of his team - selfish batting is good for a team 90% of the time as long as it's successful - but my word was he an odd duck.

 

[Red]

Thought I'd go thru the ICC all time highest rankings and see where that particular player spent the majority of their career.

1. Bradman (3)
2. Smith (4)
3. Hutton (open)
4. Hobbs (open)
5. Ponting (3)
6. May (4)
7. Sobers (6)
8. Sangakkara (3)
9. V.Richards (5) *
10. Walcott (5) *
11. Kohli (4)
12. Labuschagne (3)
13. Kallis (4)
14. Hayden (open)
15. DeVilliers (5)
16. Mohammed Yousuf (5)
17. Weekes (4)
18. G.Pollock (4)
19. Root (4)
20. Walters (6)

* Viv spent almost as much time at #3 as #5 and his ICC peak was during his #3 period
** Walcott's spent significant time at #3 and his peak happened when he was batting at #3 during 1955

So from this list of 20, if we include Viv and Walcott as #3s seeing as they were batting in this spot at the time and they spent a significant amount of their careers in the position, we have a breakdown of the following

Openers- Hutton, Hobbs, Hayden (3)
Number threes - Bradman, Ponting, Sangakkara, V. Richards, Walcott, Labuschagne (6)
Number fours - Smith, May, Kohli, Kallis, Weekes, Pollock, Root (6)
Number fives - Yousuf, DeVillers (2)
Number sixes - Sobers, Walters (2)

I dont know if this proves anything but it killed 11 minutes while I waited for some pasta to cook.

 

[Bahnz]

Chanderpaul batted where he did to maximise his average rather than his runs.

I'm not sure I've ever seen something so blatantly self serving in Tests.

I still think he's under-rated on CW because he failed to truly find a way for him to benefit himself at the expense of his team - selfish batting is good for a team 90% of the time as long as it's successful - but my word was he an odd duck.

The benefits of knowing that beggars can't be choosers.

 

[Burgey]

Thought I'd go thru the ICC all time highest rankings and see where that particular player spent the majority of their career.

1. Bradman (3)
2. Smith (4)
3. Hutton (open)
4. Hobbs (open)
5. Ponting (3)
6. May (4)
7. Sobers (6)
8. Sangakkara (3)
9. V.Richards (5) *
10. Walcott (5) *
11. Kohli (4)
12. Labuschagne (3)
13. Kallis (4)
14. Hayden (open)
15. DeVilliers (5)
16. Mohammed Yousuf (5)
17. Weekes (4)
18. G.Pollock (4)
19. Root (4)
20. Walters (6)

* Viv spent almost as much time at #3 as #5 and his ICC peak was during his #3 period
** Walcott's spent significant time at #3 and his peak happened when he was batting at #3 during 1955

So from this list of 20, if we include Viv and Walcott as #3s seeing as they were batting in this spot at the time and they spent a significant amount of their careers in the position, we have a breakdown of the following

Openers- Hutton, Hobbs, Hayden (3)
Number threes - Bradman, Ponting, Sangakkara, V. Richards, Walcott, Labuschagne (6)
Number fours - Smith, May, Kohli, Kallis, Weekes, Pollock, Root (6)
Number fives - Yousuf, DeVillers (2)
Number sixes - Sobers, Walters (2)

I dont know if this proves anything but it killed 11 minutes while I waited for some pasta to cook.

Doug Walters was such a top player for Aus. Barely rates a mention in dispatches but you couldn't want a better attacking number six for your team. Think he made a ton in a session twice in his career and generally scored really quickly, especially for his era. Crazy good player.

 

[Red]

Doug Walters was such a top player for Aus. Barely rates a mention in dispatches but you couldn't want a better attacking number six for your team. Think he made a ton in a session twice in his career and generally scored really quickly, especially for his era. Crazy good player.

Rarely mentioned among the most attacking cricketers of all time, but he clearly was.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Can you? Go on.

Lara, Sachin, Smith, Chappell, Barrington. Kohli was better at their peak but Kallis was more consistent.

 

[Burgey]

Rarely mentioned among the most attacking cricketers of all time, but he clearly was.

That ****ing last ball pull shot off Willis at the WACA and the way he just turns around and walks off as though he'd played out the day with a dot instead of a six to bring up a ton in a session. WAFG.