But would he be considered an even better batsman if he batted at 3 and had identical numbers? The answer is probably yes imo.No, Joe Root is not a lesser batsman because he doesn't bat 3, to answer the obvious actual intent of this thread.
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.But would he be considered an even better batsman if he batted at 3 and had identical numbers? The answer is probably yes imo.
Nothing to do with Root, you have mistaken me for someone else. Besides even Steve Smith doesn't bat at 3.No, Joe Root is not a lesser batsman because he doesn't bat 3, to answer the obvious actual intent of this thread.
Why are you so paranoid, my agenda is to find out other posters opinions on how they view the number three position..
There is no real answer here. Not unless you have an agenda in mind.
1) Best batsman should bat where he feels most comfortable1) How important is it for your best batsman to bat at 3.
2) How much confidence must a player have to bat at 3.
3) Is making runs batting at 3 more valuable to the team.
4) Do you rate a batsman higher if he is prepared to bat at 3.
who are you again?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.
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.1)
2) Implies batsmen must have more confidence to bat at 3 than lower which is a faulty premise imo
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.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.
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.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.