• 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.

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

Gob

International Coach
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

Cricketer Of The Year
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

Cricketer Of The Year
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

International Coach
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

International Regular
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

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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

Cricketer Of The Year
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.
 

Gob

International Coach
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

Hall of Fame Member
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.
 

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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

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

slowfinger

International Debutant
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
 

Top