Batting at 3

[harsh.ag]

This is a lot to do with modern cricket. Many batsmen in the previous eras batted in different positions at different times, sometimes because the situation* called for it. Sobers is a classic example. Also, different permutations of upside down batting orders are under utilized and underrated.

Edit: *match situation

 

[Spark]

Right, this idea that the best batsman has to bat at 3 is purely a Chappellism combined with sample size lol that has only come up in cricket discussion circles lately as a C9 commentary excuse to bash Root, as if him batting 3 would inevitably ighten up his shot selection, improve his conversion or make the rest of his batting lineup less mediocre.

He should bat where he likes and the rest of his team should do some of the lifting for a change.

 

[vcs]

I batted at 3 earlier this season. My first time ever batting above 9. I slogged 23 off 21 balls as we chased down 244 to win in 34 overs. Hit my first ever league-cricket six.

It's the best position in the world IMO.

You batted slower than the required run-rate. Your team won in spite of you.

 

[cnerd123]

You batted slower than the required run-rate. Your team won in spite of you.

Well yea, but you forgot to factor in extras

 

[Daemon]

In most cases, the higher up you bat, the tougher it is in Tests.

Which player gets to face the tougher task is dependent on your team balance and the respective batsmen's strengths/weaknesses. It's too situational to have a blanket rule.

 

[Spark]

Playing your best player at 3 makes sense when, say, he's very good at facing quick bowling and movement, and the players below him are dangerous but iffy against the new rock, then of course you put him in at 3. But if it's the other way around, it would be suicidal to do so, or if you have a player who is much much better against quick bowling than spin (Khawaja, Usman). It really depends.

 

[SeamUp]

As long as your two best batsman bat 3/4 it doesn't really matter in what order for determining who your best player is , more what your team needs.

 

[Daemon]

Playing your best player at 3 makes sense when, say, he's very good at facing quick bowling and movement, and the players below him are dangerous but iffy against the new rock, then of course you put him in at 3. But if it's the other way around, it would be suicidal to do so, or if you have a player who is much much better against quick bowling than spin (Khawaja, Usman). It really depends.

Exactly. For example in a world where Pujara didn't exist (one which I wouldn't want to live in), you would still not want to send Kohli at 3 because of his weakness against lateral movement. You'd find other ways to plug that gap.

It's too situational most of the time to have any sort of rule.

 

[Furball]

No, Joe Root is not a lesser batsman because he doesn't bat 3, to answer the obvious actual intent of this thread.

Root in his current guise is far too loose defensively to bat at 3 anyway.

He may well be England's best batsman but 4 is the best spot for him.

I think 4 is where you generally want your best batsman anyway as it's slap bang in the middle of your batting order.

 

[randycricfreak]

I personally think no.3 is the best position is where your best bat should bat. He will be out there taking the guard for the second ball of a test inning. So he should be brilliant player of pace. He needs to have a bit of aggressiveness also.But that is optional.More importantly he should set, anchor the innings through.No.3 for me, whatever said and done is the most important batting position.It glues your top order bat with the middle order.Sangakkara, Punter are very good examples of really good test no.3s even Kallis also.What about Lara?

However, there's another counterargument for this, commonly practiced by India, is to slot their best bat at 4. Kohli, SRT. Mostly preceded by a bat who's strong in defense (Pujara,Dravid).Since you don't want to expose your bat just to the second ball of a test match.

 

[marc71178]

No, Joe Root is not a lesser batsman because he doesn't bat 3, to answer the obvious actual intent of this thread.

Are you suggesting that TNT is trolling?

 

[bagapath]

No.3 and No.4 have different roles...

In an ideal situation, the batsman better equipped to grind down or hit out the fast bowlers comes in at one drop and the better player of spin bowling comes in at 4.

Dravid and Tendulkar immediately come to my mind as the ideal combo.

Can think of Richards and Miandad from the 80s in equally effective casting but with a slightly different effect.

As the great CMJ rightly put in his series on a Dream XI, No.3 is the most difficult position to bat because you walk in when the bowlers have tasted first blood.

My best batsman can be my opener (Gavaskar) or no.4 (Tendulkar) or no.6 (Border/ Sobers). But there is no denying that no.3 is a specialist position. Ponting/Sanga/Dravid/ Amla could've excelled anywhere. But them walking in at 3 meant something special to their teams.

Think of Lara as no.3 where he averaged the highest, or as no.4 where he batted the most. You'll see the difference. He was the best batsman in his team (in the world, probably) but his skills were needed to nullify the spinners and he had to be protected from the dangers of the no.3 position for the sake of his team.

 

[Burgey]

I think, as has been noted, the primacy of three is a traditional Australian thing and has been since Bradman.

 

[Red]

Ian Chappell banged on about Root going to 3 all thru the Adel test.

Khawaja and Smith are perfect examples of why you can't be rigid in saying "your best batsman should bat at #3".

Khawaja (Australian Khawaja) is one of our best batsmen, but he has known for weaknesses against spin, so he bats 1/2/3. Which means Smith (clearly our best batsman) goes to 4 in Aust. In the SC, Khawaja doesnt play and Smith takes 3.

Border and SWaugh were both guys who went to three for times early in their career but dropped back down the order later even though they were the best batsmen in the team (mostly because Boon ended up being a very reliable 3 for years).

You just put the guys you've got in the spots where you think they'll be most productive.

 

[Victor Ian]

Is it worth having a flexible line up down the order... say, a batsman comfortable against a new ball that comes in whenever a wicket falls near the new ball. Perhaps there are too many variables to make this viable.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

Probably because when I was a kid Martin Crowe was in the NZ side, but I’ve always seen four as the spot where the best batsman goes. You don’t really want your best out there second ball if an opener has a shocker, but you want to give him maximum time at the crease ... so four is the spot. That’s not always how it works (see NZ now with Williamson at 3), but it’s my deeply ingrained view!

As for myself, I always felt most comfortable, and scored the most at 3. Opening I would get too worried about seeing off the new ball, become defensive and then find it difficult to change gears. If I was 4, I’d get nervous waiting to bat. 3 was best for me because it could be a short wait ... or at least you knew you were next in ... and somehow the mindset of not opening allowed me to play my natural game.

 

[Coronis]

I personally think no.3 is the best position is where your best bat should bat. He will be out there taking the guard for the second ball of a test inning. So he should be brilliant player of pace. He needs to have a bit of aggressiveness also.But that is optional.More importantly he should set, anchor the innings through.No.3 for me, whatever said and done is the most important batting position.It glues your top order bat with the middle order.Sangakkara, Punter are very good examples of really good test no.3s even Kallis also.What about Lara?

However, there's another counterargument for this, commonly practiced by India, is to slot their best bat at 4. Kohli, SRT. Mostly preceded by a bat who's strong in defense (Pujara,Dravid).Since you don't want to expose your bat just to the second ball of a test match.

The majority of Kallis' innings were at 4 actually. At 3 over 49 matches he averaged 49, at 4 over 111 matches he averaged 61. Perfect example of the preferred batting position discussed in this thread. Of course, like Dravid/Tendulkar, for the latter part of his career he was coming in right after Amla.

 

[Howsie]

You’re best batsman should bat at three. Williamson gets extra points because he bats there as opposed to the rest of the Fab Four who hide below debutants or average test batsman

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Hide below people, eh?
Best batsman should face the first ball then; after all, that's the hardest time, and we wouldn't want him hiding behind somebody else, would we?

 

[Zinzan]

But would he be considered an even better batsman if he batted at 3 and had identical numbers? The answer is probably yes imo.

Yes overall, especially in England, Aust, NZ & South African conditions. Not so sure about the sub-continent, I guess on some deteriorating spinning decks, there could be an argument that 3 is slightly more conducive to scoring runs than 4.