Ballance - beyond the average

beamer wrote:I prefer 3 as a "backup opener" and 4 as your best player. Openers are increasingly becoming sacrificial lambs or glorified nightwatchmen, there's few good ones worldwide and a lot of good new ball bowlers. Most times, teams are one down for not too many, and you need a third new ball-facing specialist. At least one of them should be a counter-attacker and not a block merchant though.

Lindsay no.2 wrote:

beamer wrote:I prefer 3 as a "backup opener" and 4 as your best player. Openers are increasingly becoming sacrificial lambs or glorified nightwatchmen, there's few good ones worldwide and a lot of good new ball bowlers. Most times, teams are one down for not too many, and you need a third new ball-facing specialist. At least one of them should be a counter-attacker and not a block merchant though.

Fair point.

But throughout history there's been good new ball bowlers - yet Aus have always (OK, I can't categorically state always but you know what I mean) put their best at first drop. I'm pretty certain Ponting didn't go 'I'll bat at 3 versus Bangladesh but I don't fancy that Wasim and Waqar pairing so I'll take 5 for this series'.

Bell has done 3 on numberous occasions for Eng. Was he a specialist 3 at Warks?

Root used to open for Yorks, right? So presumably he could fill the role. Using your logic he's highly likely to be in there early as one of the two openers is unlikely to last long.

So, who is 3 for you? And 4?

embee wrote:

Lindsay no.2 wrote:

beamer wrote:I prefer 3 as a "backup opener" and 4 as your best player. Openers are increasingly becoming sacrificial lambs or glorified nightwatchmen, there's few good ones worldwide and a lot of good new ball bowlers. Most times, teams are one down for not too many, and you need a third new ball-facing specialist. At least one of them should be a counter-attacker and not a block merchant though.

Fair point.

But throughout history there's been good new ball bowlers - yet Aus have always (OK, I can't categorically state always but you know what I mean) put their best at first drop. I'm pretty certain Ponting didn't go 'I'll bat at 3 versus Bangladesh but I don't fancy that Wasim and Waqar pairing so I'll take 5 for this series'.

Bell has done 3 on numberous occasions for Eng. Was he a specialist 3 at Warks?

Root used to open for Yorks, right? So presumably he could fill the role. Using your logic he's highly likely to be in there early as one of the two openers is unlikely to last long.

So, who is 3 for you? And 4?

Punter batted behind NLWL and MtFTB for most of his career

I'm not sure he would have liked batting at 3 quite as much if Adam Lyth was one of the openers

Copying other teams only works if you have the players to do it

How many years have England spent looking for "the next Botham" ...and apart from Flintoff in part of his career and maybe Stokes ...they really havent come close but have given some caps to a lot of cunis all rounders  

lardbucket wrote:Maybe filter on games where the first FOW was 20 or less? Can you do that?

Merlin wrote:Ballance's technique is sh*t. Period.

Until and unless he sorts that across and back in crease routine out, he's going to be nailed every time.

Smiff (the squinty eyed Aus specimen) does the same movement, but watch the class difference ... his head is over the ball at the point of impact on the bat ... the difference is Smiff KNOWS what he's doing - Ballance is clueless and stuck in the same gear - reverse and left.

Dump him for the rest of the series - send him back to Yorkshire (where, by the way, he is also struggling for runs this season!) and iron out his kink.

I think LN2 scoped his centuries well in his post above - not saying they were all flukey ... but yes, they were scored against poorer oppos; when others were also piling on the runs and when the pressure was off.

The only sign of hope was his first dig in Cardiff, where, fair dues to him, he grafted (in an ugly manner, it has to be said) for his innings/match saving 60 and kept Root flowing at the other end.

That's now history.

He is a walking wicket.

GET.RID.OF.

lardbucket wrote:The old 'stick another opener in at 3' option has never worked all that well, has it?

I guess it was a success in the turgid 70-71 series, where Edrich followed Boycott and Luckhurst, barring the final two matches of the series where first Luckhurst and then Boycott were out injured. It is far easier to think of failed examples of this experiment than lasting successes, though.

The great number 3s - IVA Richards and Richie Richardson, Laxman, Zaheer Abbas, Majid Khan, et al may well have opened on the odd occasion, but their natural position was 3 or 4, and they often chose to bat at 3. There were some useful South Africans in that position too as I am sure taipan will happily point out.

Who should be batting at 3? Pietersen, really, but if not Pietersen, then Bell (who should have been there before). Root should be at 4. The 'new boys' should be coming in at 5 or 6.

lardbucket wrote:The old 'stick another opener in at 3' option has never worked all that well, has it?

.

lardbucket wrote:The old 'stick another opener in at 3' option has never worked all that well, has it?
....

PeterCS wrote:

lardbucket wrote:The old 'stick another opener in at 3' option has never worked all that well, has it?
....

Didn't Cook start out at 3, and get the promotion to open when Tres bowed out? Or am I imagining this?

Not sure how well it worked while he WAS at 3, but his opener Test career started well. Until the record started to stick (until he was "worked out", if you prefer - personally, I think it's more that he didn't evolve, especially neglected the drive and front-foot play generally, and hoped he could pretty much cut, pull and glance his way to big scores on all surfaces, against all bowlers.)