• 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.

Who has the outstanding 3,4 & 5 ?

Woodster

International Captain
Despite talk of batting standards dropping, there are still some powerful top/middle orders around, so which three players would you prefer in your line-up from around the world ?

England - Currently possess the most in-form three in Trott, Pietersen and Bell. A good mix imo, the solidity of Trott, the more aggressive KP and the technically gifted Bell made an impressive trio.

India - On paper and judging on performances of years gone by, this three take come beating. Dravid, Tendulkar, and Laxman are not getting any younger and are they on current form as good as anyone else ?

Australia - While Marsh is still unproven at Test level, he's backed up by Ponting and Clarke, not to be sniffed at.

Sri Lanka - Two legends of SL cricket in Sangakkara and Jayawardene, backed up by the experienced Samaraweera. Obviously a stronger trio on home soil, but showing in the SA series they can fire abroad too.

South Africa - I love watching these three bat. Amla has developed into a very fine number three, Kallis is pure class and De Villiers is another that is working towards being one of the very best batsmen in the world.

New Zealand - Personally the best order for NZ right now is Ryder, Taylor then Williamson but place those in whatever order you prefer. The potential is there for these to really pose problems for the opposition.

West Indies - Probably haven't got a settled 3,4, and 5 so would put them down the pecking order. On recent form you'd probably look at Edwards, Bravo and Chanderpaul. Bravo and Edwards have both been impressive in their short careers to date, while Chanders provides the consistency,

Pakistan - Have done well with their consistency in the last 12 months, all three contributing to a resurgent Pakistan side. Younis the outstanding Pakistan batsmen has been in good company with Azhar Ali and Misbah, who has been consistency-personified since taking over the Test team.


There really are some good options in that list, and you could make a very reasonable case for a number of the sides. There is of course many things to consider, such as the balance of the three players, are there players there to take the game away from a side, are there enough players capable of scoring big, does it depend on the conditions as to the best three ?

For me, I'm marginally biased in opting for the England three, but I do think they'd be effective in most conditions, have proved they can score big, maybe a left-hander in there would make it perfect, but it does look a very strong three. SA would probably be my second choice, with India in third place. Thoughts anyone ?
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Anyone who doesn't answer England is using criteria other than what the players have done in the last year or so to come to their conclusion.
 

Xuhaib

International Coach
on current form England followed by Pakistan

In terms of class through their career its India followed by Sa
 

flibbertyjibber

Request Your Custom Title Now!
England at present by a long long way. We are the only side racking up massive scores game after game and it is down to our 3, 4 and 5 as well as Cook. India's guys have arguably been as good as any middle order ever but aren't what they were and we should appreciate them for the great things they have done in the past in the time they have left.

As for the rest, SA probably have the next best just edging Australia but there isn't much in it of late as both seem prone to collapse.

Sri Lanka need watching again, have they been inept due to not being paid or are they on a downward spiral? be interesting to see in the coming months/years.
 
Last edited:

Woodster

International Captain
As you say maybe on recent form England are the clear leaders, but what of the next 12 months ? Do we see any change or will some of the other nations pose a greater threat ?
 

Teja.

Global Moderator
For a test tomorrow, I'd back SA's 3, 4 and 5.

However, As an entire batting lineup, I'd back England.
 

flibbertyjibber

Request Your Custom Title Now!
As you say maybe on recent form England are the clear leaders, but what of the next 12 months ? Do we see any change or will some of the other nations pose a greater threat ?
SL are as strong as anyone on paper. If it was almost a player strike that caused the mediocrity this year then we could all be in for a pleasant surprise next watching them score heavily and stylishly.
 

theegyptian

International Vice-Captain
I'd say there is no definitive best at the moment even if the england 3,4,5 have been the most consistent in the last year.

India are ageing and failed in england and currently in australia whilst generally dominating at home.

Australia are pretty bad. Marsh is unproven, Ponting past it and Clarke has never been anywhere near world class.

Sri Lanka again are excellent at home but away are less strong. It is quite hard to judge the strength of their 3,4,5 because there is so much pressure on them because the rest of the team is average.

South Africa - Kallis is ageing, de villiers hasn't quite become a truly world class bat and amla has had 2 good years. Out of any of the teams though the 3,4 and 5 have probably had more success in different conditions than any of the other teams- all 3 have double hundreds in india and done well in other overseas conditions. You'd think though if they had the best 3,4,5 then that they would be dominant given their resources in other areas(morkel, steyn, smith, etc)

pakistan - still someway of eng, ind, sl or Sa. A couple of good series in docile conditions against poor teams does not make a quality 3,4 and 5.

Eng - they still need to really prove themselves in asia but have proven themselves everywhere else.

so in conclusion not really sure. Probably South Africa. India in the past but they're batsmen are on the wrong side of their career now and are getting worse. Sri Lanka run SA close but they're batsmen are too reliant on home conditions. England unproven in Asia.
 
Last edited:

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Call me knee-jerk but I'm losing some faith in the India trio after that performance. I see little other option other than England here. They've only been this good for a little while but the upshot of that is that I don't think anyone has come close to figuring out how to bowl to them yet. I wonder how much of an advantage facing their own attack in training is.
 

miscer

U19 Cricketer
England has to take it i feel. I want to say india but form is what counts when you are comparing players like this so it has to be england. India looking completely out of sorts lately and IDK why. Seriously. Tendulkar was great not more than a year ago in SAF and scored 100+ total in this test but hasn't got even 1 hundred in a year (longest ever in terms of innings i think?). Laxman won a test in saf in the 3rd innings and generally loves playing in aus. Dravid has been a god all year. idk wtf just happened seriously.

I think i'll be able to judge better after this series is over. But for now England>> India>SAF>rest
 

Eds

International Debutant
On current and recent form - England, by a long way.

If I were building an XI - South Africa.
 

Agent Nationaux

International Coach
England > RSA > India > Pakistan > Australia > Sri Lanka

Obviously no questions about England and RSA (although Kallis is not performing as well and De Villiers can't keep batting with the rubbish tail). India have two greats in Dravid and Tendulkar but the third great is past it. I think Pak edges Australia on recent form (Younis, Misbah > Ponting, Clarke) and Azhar has been making good scores including a 90 in England against Anderson and Broad. Sri Lanka is the worst in the top 6.
 

amanuensis

U19 12th Man
On current and recent form - England, by a long way.

If I were building an XI - South Africa.
How are you defining "current" & "recent"? Since Boxing Day 2009:

Amla - 1680 runs @ 62.22
Kallis - 1635 runs @ 68.13
de Villers - 1425 runs @ 61.96

Trott - 1708 runs @ 56.93
Pietersen - 1593 runs @ 51.39
Bell - 1876 runs @ 89.33
 

Eds

International Debutant
How are you defining "current" & "recent"? Since Boxing Day 2009:

Amla - 1680 runs @ 62.22
Kallis - 1635 runs @ 68.13
de Villers - 1425 runs @ 61.96

Trott - 1708 runs @ 56.93
Pietersen - 1593 runs @ 51.39
Bell - 1876 runs @ 89.33
Since Boxing Day 2010:

Amla - 472 runs @ 42.90
Kallis - 386 runs @ 42.88
de Villiers - 410 runs @ 41.00

Trott - 533 runs @ 59.22
Pietersen - 782 runs @ 71.09
Bell - 951 runs @ 105.66
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
How are you defining "current" & "recent"? Since Boxing Day 2009:

Amla - 1680 runs @ 62.22
Kallis - 1635 runs @ 68.13
de Villers - 1425 runs @ 61.96

Trott - 1708 runs @ 56.93
Pietersen - 1593 runs @ 51.39
Bell - 1876 runs @ 89.33
With all due respect, this proves nothing more than that if you carefully select a cut-off date which appears to best suit your theory but which is otherwise entirely arbitrary you have identified a period over which the England and South African batsmen have had almost identical records (England's scoring a lot more runs at a fractionally lower average).
 

amanuensis

U19 12th Man
With all due respect, this proves nothing more than that if you carefully select a cut-off date which appears to best suit your theory but which is otherwise entirely arbitrary you have identified a period over which the England and South African batsmen have had almost identical records (England's scoring a lot more runs at a fractionally lower average).
I haven't "carefully selected" anything - I'm simply going back an extra year to create a sample size which is more statistically robust. Amla, Kallis & de Villiers have poorer "current" form, but have been better over a longer "recent" stretch.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Point taken, although so far as I can see you haven't gone back "an extra year" further than anyone who posted before you. My view, FWIW (which isn't much), is that how someone may have batted 2 years ago is of little weight when considering "current form".

Edit: apologies mate, I didn't mean to bite your head off.
 
Last edited:

Top