-
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.
Batting at 3
- Thread starter TNT
- Start date
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Massively overrated; see Tendulkar, S.R.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
But would he be considered an even better batsman if he batted at 3 and had identical numbers? The answer is probably yes imo.
NotMcKenzie
International Debutant
Would such a change in view be justified? No, not really.
Spark
Global Moderator
It would be such a marginal benefit that it's not worth the risk that he could get notably worse, if it's not his natural position.
TNT
Banned
Nothing to do with Root, you have mistaken me for someone else. Besides even Steve Smith doesn't bat at 3.
Its not about any particular batsman, its about the position. There is no need to discuss any batsman just the position if you are able.
S.Kennedy
International Vice-Captain
Tendulkar, Lara, Compton, G. Chappell, Kohli and Root all play(ed) at 4. Williamson, Sangakarra, Bradman, Ponting play(ed) at 3. Wally Hammond played marginally more innings at 4 than 3 - Smith also. Border played almost everywhere. Most of these could be said to be their respective nations' best batsmen by a distance. Is there any pattern here? No. Just preference - and quality of the remaining team - I suppose.
Both are the two stroke-making slots and on the rare occasions when it hasn't gone ****-up early with your openers you'd bat the same in either but if you lose an early wicket, three becomes a quasi 'opener' so a better new ball batsmen may prefer this while 4 has the extra protection against the strike bowler/new ball and may find himself playing with the middle order.
Both are the two stroke-making slots and on the rare occasions when it hasn't gone ****-up early with your openers you'd bat the same in either but if you lose an early wicket, three becomes a quasi 'opener' so a better new ball batsmen may prefer this while 4 has the extra protection against the strike bowler/new ball and may find himself playing with the middle order.
cnerd123
likes this
There are so many different schools of thought tho. Like anything with cricket, if you're looking for an absolute answer, you're wasting your time.
Some teams carry three openers and arranged them from 1-3, and none of them may be the 'best' batsmen in the team. Some team's best batsmen are masters of playing slower bowling, so are kept deeper in the lineup. Some like pace, so go up at 3. Some batsmen prefer, mentally, going out as early as possible. Some prefer to come out later. Some lineups are fragile and would prefer their best batsmen somewhere in the middle as a result, while some have strong middle orders so send their best in at 3.
There is no real answer here. Not unless you have an agenda in mind.
Some teams carry three openers and arranged them from 1-3, and none of them may be the 'best' batsmen in the team. Some team's best batsmen are masters of playing slower bowling, so are kept deeper in the lineup. Some like pace, so go up at 3. Some batsmen prefer, mentally, going out as early as possible. Some prefer to come out later. Some lineups are fragile and would prefer their best batsmen somewhere in the middle as a result, while some have strong middle orders so send their best in at 3.
There is no real answer here. Not unless you have an agenda in mind.
TNT
Banned
Why are you so paranoid, my agenda is to find out other posters opinions on how they view the number three position.
I did report the post from Spark who jumped into bait me and derail the thread but I have since realised that he is a moderator so that was a waste of my time.
The only time I have ever mentioned Root is when I selected him at five for my team of the 2010's, I have never posted anything about any batsman from any team, search my history to satisfy your paranoia, which is something Spark could have done before deliberately setting out to bait me.
TNT
Banned
There must be a reason for a batsman to prefer batting at 4 or 5 than batting at three. From my experience playing it had a lot to do with confidence but that was only grade cricket.
srbhkshk
International Captain
3 is a fairly important position, 2 down for nothing is a poor - poor situation for the team. I quite like India's method here (Dravid before Sachin , Pujara before Kohli), i.e. have a slightly lesser batsman overall at 3 but one who is more suitable towards dead serious defense if need be. Would I want Tendulkar / Kohli to bat 3 if the other two were not available, honestly can't say.
TNT
Banned
Do you think that by having a slightly lesser batsman at three is giving some ground to the bowlers though.Teams always use their best bowlers first, that goes without saying, is it a mistake to not do it with your batsmen though.
Spark
Global Moderator
I think so long as you're careful about putting your best player at 6, where they're at risk of batting long periods with the tail, which is a skill in itself that many players don't have, it makes no real difference. Clarke moving from 5 to 4 made the team worse, not better. Smith only bats 3 when Khawaja isn't there, Root is clearly comfortable at 4, Kohli ditto. Some players are simply more suited to certain positions than others; you don't weaken your strength to get a purely theoretical covering up of a weakness.