*Official* Fourth Test (Old Trafford, Manchester) 19-23 July

[SteveNZ]

Rob Quiney 9

Yeah but Quiney batted 3 for Victoria. Moeen Ali hasn't batted 3 since Sri Lanka 2018.

 

[ripper868]

Yeah but Quiney batted 3 for Victoria. Moeen Ali hasn't batted 3 since Sri Lanka 2018.

So i guess it's not unprecedented then (yes you said almost, but this was low fruit)

 

[Gob]

Nah it makes sense

Brooks is a walking wicket there and can't see Bairstow, with his current form doing much either. Moeen at 3 may result in less number 3 runs than say Root at 3 but England are likely to score more runs overall and that's what really matters. Same thing happened with Clarke and number 4 for Australia

 

[SteveNZ]

So i guess it's not unprecedented then (yes you said almost, but this was low fruit)

Yeah on reflection honest might've been right given Quiney batted 3 ahead of the past-it Ponting at 4. But still, Quiney was a domestic No.3 they picked to do that job, thinking he would score runs. Moeen isn't even particularly a good Test No.8, yet he's being picked to bat 3 in the Ashes. It's amazing. I love it. It's insane, but at the same time it might be their best move for balance.

 

[SteveNZ]

Nah it makes sense

Brooks is a walking wicket there and can't see Bairstow, with his current form doing much either. Moeen at 3 may result in less number 3 runs than say Root at 3 but England are likely to score more runs overall and that's what really matters. Same thing happened with Clarke and number 4 for Australia

Yeah, as I say I'm not against it at all. Ali might get 10-15 at No.3 (he ain't scoring runs there) and 30 at No.8, and if you think Root will score more runs at 4 than 3- and we know Brook is better at 5 - it's a good call.

 

[ripper868]

It could also horribly (and hopefully) backfire if Starc gets those swinging yorkers happening again, Root and brook in by the 4th over sounds a dream.

 

[mackembhoy]

Moeen at 3 is almost unprecented in world cricket, I reckon. Unless someone reminds me of another time? No matter what England tells you, this is a permanent night *insert term here* to shield Root/Brook from batting 3. I can't remember of anyone in Test history being picked at 3 (two Tests in a row, if you don't mind) to shield people, rather than anything to do with batting merit. It's absolutely wild.

He's batted in the top 3 more than anyone else in the side in FC and test cricket.

Albeit been a long time since he's done it regularly and he's gone backwards as a batsman.

But yes the reason is for shielding two better players to bat in there actual positions.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, as I say I'm not against it at all. Ali might get 10-15 at No.3 (he ain't scoring runs there) and 30 at No.8, and if you think Root will score more runs at 4 than 3- and we know Brook is better at 5 - it's a good call.

What about the somewhat novel idea of picking a player in the position who’s likely to score runs there?

 

[trundler]

I don't know where he batted domestically or why this was done but Trevor Bailey played as a permanent pinch blocker. Averaged 21 as opener but apparently stuck around for a while to blunt the new ball.

 

[SteveNZ]

What about the somewhat novel idea of picking a player in the position who’s likely to score runs there?

Yeah, that's one option

I dunno, it's comparative advantage in action. England know Joe Root is their best batsman and would score the most runs at 3, but obviously they think their overall output is best the way they're going into OT. As someone said, Clarke used to insist on No.4 too, difference being Australia usually had a decent 3. England, Root apart, don't.

 

[GIMH]

Wasn’t it 5 Clarke was better at?

 

[Gob]

Wasn’t it 5 Clarke was better at?

Yep. His out put was significantly hampered when he moved himself to 4 which is weird cos he was churning out doubles for fun while walking to bat at 40 for 3 or **** like that batting 5, probably the same time a regular number 3 would come out to bat in a team with a solid opening pair

 

[wpdavid]

I don't know where he batted domestically or why this was done but Trevor Bailey played as a permanent pinch blocker. Averaged 21 as opener but apparently stuck around for a while to blunt the new ball.

I think it was because, after Hutton retired, we didn't have test class openers to play ahead of our world class middle order of Cowdrey, May and Barrington/Graveney/Dexter, so Bailey operating as a pinch blocker made a lot of sense. And as you say, having Barnacle take his time averaging 21 wasn't the worst thing in that side. I doubt that he opened for Essex, but I'm not 100% certain. Also, of course, it provided an additional bowler in the side.

 

[Vincent]

The previous 2? I watched them already.
Certainly will be watching the next 2 also, wish time would hurry the **** up

There's nothing but loss for pommies in the next two.

 

[trundler]

I think it was because, after Hutton retired, we didn't have test class openers to play ahead of our world class middle order of Cowdrey, May and Barrington/Graveney/Dexter, so Bailey operating as a pinch blocker made a lot of sense. And as you say, having Barnacle take his time averaging 21 wasn't the worst thing in that side. I doubt that he opened for Essex, but I'm not 100% certain. Also, of course, it provided an additional bowler in the side.

I found a Wisden article which claimed he was a good 5th or 6th batsman than it also mentioned him opening the batting occasionally. Also, he was supposedly a naturally aggressive batsman but found it difficult to modulate himself between attack and defence so just stuck to dead-batting everything when he opened. Strangely, he actually started opening alongside Hutton. You don't really see defensive all rounders whose job it is to slow proceedings down like him or Illingworth anymore.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, that's one option

I dunno, it's comparative advantage in action. England know Joe Root is their best batsman and would score the most runs at 3, but obviously they think their overall output is best the way they're going into OT. As someone said, Clarke used to insist on No.4 too, difference being Australia usually had a decent 3. England, Root apart, don't.

Sure but I just meant pick a bloke who’s making runs in the top order in County cricket.

 

[SteveNZ]

Sure but I just meant pick a bloke who’s making runs in the top order in County cricket.

I wouldn't know who the next guy is. Dan Lawrence is in the squad, and he's not a 3.

 

[Starfighter]

I did say a few weeks ago that this current lot of selectors are incredibly stubborn about sticking to their preferred pecking order but no one seemed to believe me

A reasonable person would have thought that scoring a century and bowling significantly better than the other guy would have been enough.

 

[GIMH]

If Green is in for marsh, does that mean Harris in for Warner (if true that the latter is dropped)?

 

[slowfinger]

as far as I see it - Moeen was always a number 3 batsman. He (used to) bat like a #3, (had) the technique of a #3, is talented enough, so he should do it, simple as

he should never have been promoted as a number 7/8 bowling all-rounder in the first place in my opinion, he was always a batsman #1, bowler #2. as far as I see it he's returning (albeit too late) to what he always should have done