• 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.

The Number 3 batsman

What type of batsman should the # 3 ideally be

  • Total voters
    16
roseboy64

roseboy64

Cricket Web Content Updater
Burgey said:
I think the answer is you need to be an adaptable player to bat at 3. If you come in a 1/10, well you need to be able to cope against the new ball, but if you come in at 1/110 you need to be able to press home your side's advantage and keep the momentum going.
I don't think the poll options cover my views on this - the ideal number 3 is a fellow who can do both - graft and play aggressively as the situation demands, coz "1 for" isn't always a big deal, but "2 for" usually is.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Poll deffo wrong.
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
In Test cricket the number 3 batsman needs to be the most versatile batsman. On plenty of occasions he'll come in after the fall of a quick wicket and he needs to be able to see out the new ball. However, he also need to be able to quickly assess the situation and the conditions and figure out the best method for scoring, as a major brunt of that load falls on him. In excessively difficult batting conditions, he may need to find creative means for run scoring if the other batsmen in the team are not up to the task.

Imo, it doesn't need to be the most prolific run scorer on the team at this position, but rather one with the aforementioned versatility, and preferably it should be a veteran due to their experience and feel for the game.
 
haroon510

haroon510

International 12th Man
i think a batsman who can play aggrassive and definsive should play in number three

i consider Ricky Pointing the best number three batsman right now for that reason..
 
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
A #3 should be both. If he is one or the other then he shouldn't really be #3. A number 3 is also better when skilled at both pace and spin. Essentially, but not always, the best batsman in the side.
 
99*

99*

International Debutant
shortpitched713 said:
In Test cricket the number 3 batsman needs to be the most versatile batsman. On plenty of occasions he'll come in after the fall of a quick wicket and he needs to be able to see out the new ball. However, he also need to be able to quickly assess the situation and the conditions and figure out the best method for scoring, as a major brunt of that load falls on him. In excessively difficult batting conditions, he may need to find creative means for run scoring if the other batsmen in the team are not up to the task.

Imo, it doesn't need to be the most prolific run scorer on the team at this position, but rather one with the aforementioned versatility, and preferably it should be a veteran due to their experience and feel for the game.
Click to expand...
Stephen Fleming.
 
Indipper

Indipper

State Regular
Like has been said, it really depends on the side. If you have batting depth like Australia had for most of the 90s then you can easily put an attacker/third opener at 3. Otherwise, it's gotta be someone who glues the order together.
 
bond21

bond21

Banned
i agree with burgey.

Ponting can attack and defend well, so could Bradman, so can Tendulkar, so can Kallis when he wants to attack.

Someone like Dravid is a terrible number 3 because hes only defensive, he cant attack. You want to be able to defend and attack equally well for what the situation requires.
 
E

Engle

State Vice-Captain
Burgey said:
I think the answer is you need to be an adaptable player to bat at 3. If you come in a 1/10, well you need to be able to cope against the new ball, but if you come in at 1/110 you need to be able to press home your side's advantage and keep the momentum going.
I don't think the poll options cover my views on this - the ideal number 3 is a fellow who can do both - graft and play aggressively as the situation demands, coz "1 for" isn't always a big deal, but "2 for" usually is.
Click to expand...
I deliberately left out the ' both ' option, simply to prevent most from selecting the obvious.
 
Precambrian

Precambrian

Banned
Yet the fact remains that the guy has got two 200s in India's rare overseas victories.

Just being aggressive doesnt always win matches. Had Dravid been aggressive like Ponting, I dont think he;d score that 200 at Adelaide or 180 at Kolkota. So just bldingly saying, he's a defensive player, so he's bad is so stupid. Test cricket sometimes demand just that - Ptience and defense.

Precisely why Punter is yet to make it big in India/
 
chaminda_00

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
Pnottath said:
Yet the fact remains that the guy has got two 200s in India's rare overseas victories.

Just being aggressive doesnt always win matches. Had Dravid been aggressive like Ponting, I dont think he;d score that 200 at Adelaide or 180 at Kolkota. So just bldingly saying, he's a defensive player, so he's bad is so stupid. Test cricket sometimes demand just that - Ptience and defense.

Precisely why Punter is yet to make it big in India/
Click to expand...
Didn't Dravid score his 180 batting at No 5 and Laxman at No 3. Personally I think Laxman is better No 3 then Dravid, but it hard to argue against Dravid record there.
 
Perm

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Ideally the #3 batsman should be able to do both, which the best of them can do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top