Who should bat at Seven for South Africa?

[Jimbo the giant]

His best T20 results have come in the top 3 -- where, compared to lower down at least, you have more time to get settled and then go for it. He 'catches up', de Villiers does not.


Let me put it this way to you. Should Michael Bevan have batted at #3 in ODIs for Australia? When Dravid and Tendulkar played Tests together, should Tendulkar have batted at #3 just because he was the better batsman?

Given that various coaching manuals say "you should have your best batsman at #3 because reasons", "you should have your best batsman at #4 because reasons" or "you should have your best batsman at #5 because reasons" and we've seen teams be successful with all three methods (e.g. Viv and Ponting and Bradman at 3, Lara and Tendulkar and Kallis at 4, Waugh and Border and Clarke at 5), I don't think we can ever consider it to be an immutable cricketing law. It varies depending on context, team balance, and the individual batsman.

Batting in the 3 in t20 is the equivalent of coming in at the 35 over mark. A no 4 in an ODI will on average come in before the 20 over mark. The roles are not comparable. Neither is the role of a test match no 3 to an ODI no 3. They are so different.

Bevan was a good finisher but the Aussie no 3 was usually their best bat. Ponting was easily better and Bevans average was inflated by not outs.

No 3 and 4 in ODIs is the same role one just comes in earlier and you comparing Indias team balance is highly flawed. If SA dropped Parnell for a proper batsman then SAs lower order would be atleast as strong with better openers.

 

[anil1405]

Farhaan Behardien (South Africa's preferred no.7 in this tournament) is crap.
Duminy is good but his consistency is an issue.
Miller is relatively new and I doubt how good he can be under pressure. (Yes he was good against Zim but I want to see how he performs against better teams in pressure situations)
And what makes the lower middle order look even bad is the poor batting displays of no.8 and 9.

AB is great in middle and slog overs. Come 35th over who would South Africa prefer to be at the crease AB and Miller or Faf and Miller?

 

[FBU]

1 de Kock
2 Amla
3 du Plessis (c)
4 de Villiers
5 Duminy
6 Miller
7 McLaren
8 Philander
9 Steyn
10 Morkel
11 Tahir

 

[Dan]

No 3 and 4 in ODIs is the same role one just comes in earlier and you comparing Indias team balance is highly flawed. If SA dropped Parnell for a proper batsman then SAs lower order would be atleast as strong with better openers.

I don't agree with this in the slightest, but you're actually fully agreeing with my conclusion! If you have two guys playing the same role (which they're not, but let's assume they are for the sake of your point), then you'd fully expect the one who comes in first to be the one who takes more time to settle in!

As for the team balance thing, you're deluded. India has a quality all-rounder at #7, South Africa do not -- they're limited to a shunt-y bowler-who-can-bat in Parnell or a shunt-y batsman-who-bowls-filth in Berhardien. Completely different batting strengths and batting structures -- the only similarity I can see is that they've both got above-average opening combinations and an ATG upper-middle order batsman (albeit ones who play different roles).

 

[Dan]

Farhaan Behardien (South Africa's preferred no.7 in this tournament) is crap.
Duminy is good but his consistency is an issue.
Miller is relatively new and I doubt how good he can be under pressure. (Yes he was good against Zim but I want to see how he performs against better teams in pressure situations)
And what makes the lower middle order look even bad is the poor batting displays of no.8 and 9.

AB is great in middle and slog overs. Come 35th over who would South Africa prefer to be at the crease AB and Miller or Faf and Miller?

It really isn't even this though -- ABdV at 3 might marginally improve his game, but it'll make Faf less effective in his role. As Cribb says, it is comparative advantage.

de Villers is a better #3 than du Plessis.
de Villiers is a better #4 than du Plessis.
The gap between them is significantly larger in that #4 role (because Faf can't dynamically explode from there as well as de Villiers can if South Africa is 2/300 in 45), therefore de Villiers should specialise as a #4 and du Plessis as a #3.

 

[Jimbo the giant]

It really isn't even this though -- ABdV at 3 might marginally improve his game, but it'll make Faf less effective in his role. As Cribb says, it is comparative advantage.

de Villers is a better #3 than du Plessis.
de Villiers is a better #4 than du Plessis.
The gap between them is significantly larger in that #4 role (because Faf can't dynamically explode from there as well as de Villiers can if South Africa is 2/300 in 45), therefore de Villiers should specialise as a #4 and du Plessis as a #3.

If Sa were 2-300 and AB was batting 3 he must have done bloody awesome and every man and his dog would be telling David Miller to go out and finish the job. The way I see it your doing well to have someone in the top 4 still batting come the 40th over and if that's AB who batted at no 3 then that's perfection.

Id actually have him open but it maybe too risky because the hard white ball swings more and they have players who can take a few risks and take advantage of the power play.

3/4 aren't really finishing roles but if the batsman is good enough to bat deep it can be and AB is that good.