Who Should Bat at 3 for England?

England squad tomorrow. Looks like England shall recall the only number 3 in the world who can make Ian Bell look good at the minute in Michael Vaughan, whose other-worldly average of 8 (as in Hellish other-worldly) against South Africa has clearly won him a lot of supporters in the England camp.

Clearly, Vaughan shouldn't bat at 3, nor anywhere at all, and anyone who thinks so is an idiot. But for the sake of democracy, a straw-poll for thee. Who should bat at 3 for England? For the sake of having ten options I have picked the obvious choices, a couple of wild-cards (some more reasoned than others) and one one extreme option considering the change in the whole team it would bring about - Alastair Cook. Bear in mind that Cook averages considerably more at 3 than opening though - over 50 in fact, whereas opening he averages less than 40.

Will Smith is a total wildcard because I rate him as a player. Bopara, Bell, Shah, Vaughan and Ramprakash should be there for obvious reasons. Key is an opener but could in theory, though never in actual fact, make a career at 3 with England. Pietersen could in theory be elevated for those who believe that the best batsman in the team should be at 3.

Cook. Because he's class, and looks more no.3 than opener. He should be the back-up opener, but the regular one-down guy.

Colin Cowdrey must be about due for a comeback...

Augustus wrote:

Will Smith is a total wildcard because I rate him as a player.

It's probably a bit soon for wicky wicky Will Smith - he only really came to life last season. Though he did look genuinely decent, probably needs another season to prove it wasn't a freak.

As for Cook's average at 3, it's a bit misleading as he crashed in to international cricket with a bang, averaged over 50 in his first series (opening) and then - when Trescothick was recalled - continuing at that rate when he was briefly moved down to three (for two home series). Then he became an opener again, Australia took his technique to pieces, and he's been a shell of a player ever since.

Dropping him down a place isn't going to send him back in time to the early 2006 model Alastair Cook - he's still going to be the pokey crab that he has become in recent years.

In any case, his problem hasn't been seeing off the new ball. It's been in making substantial scores. Doesn't matter where he bats if he can't push on to a biggie when well set.

I think the top three should be

Vorn
Strauss
Shah

English cricket in crisis.

Again?

On what basis can Vaughan be selected, though? Test average of 35 since around 2002. It's not like his decline has been sudden.

Dropped after averaging 8 against SA, has barely played any cricket since, scoring no runs in the process. His selection is totally unjustifiable.

Both he and chief selector Geoff Miller said he would have to earn his place back.

How has he done that?

Scratch my Cowdrey comment from earlier, it seems Yaughan is the new Cowdrey.

Good article by Andrew McGlashan on the topic here: -

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/wiveng2009/content/current/story/384526.html

From the article BBB linked to:

England can't afford a timid player behind two openers - Andrew Strauss and Alastair Cook - who are unlikely to dominate in the early stages of an innings.

Why not pick openers who are likely to dominate then? That'd be a start.

Shah, obviously.

I said Tink.

Big worry is that England, having beaten Australia 5-0, will then find it hard to succeed against serious opposition on tour to South Africa.

Shah for me.

Why doesn't Eng try 6 batsmen + WK + 4 Bowlers combination for a couple of test matches ?

Strauss
Cook
Bopara
* Peitersen
Collingwood
Shah
Flintoff
+ Prior (or Ambrose or whoever is the best wk)
Broad
Swann / Panesar / Rashid
Harmison

Dello wrote:On what basis can Vaughan be selected, though? Test average of 35 since around 2002. It's not like his decline has been sudden.

It was extremely sudden - a precipitous drop in run production as soon as he became skipper.

surely the Shermanator has a mortgage on the Number 3 spot...am surprised there is debate this

Bell will be dropped ... (but put on stand by in the event of injuries)
Vawn will be recalled.... and will bat at 3 (ex captain's do not tour to carry drinks)
Shah will tour and continue his exemplary work as the official drinks carrier.

It is thus written. You'll see.
Scripted with such intelligence that is normally associated with a clump of discarded pubes -
otherwise known as the England selectors.
Short sighted, dim witted and gelded bast**ds - the lot of them.

so Merls, i take it that you too are one of the gazillion of Bell fans

horace wrote:so Merls, i take it that you too are one of the gazillion of Bell fans

I'd rather support your lot than ever admit to being a "Bell fan" horrie ..

I was never one in the first place, and certainly not after Ashes 2005 when the f**ker got a gong courtesy of
Blair for averaging 11 in 10 innings off your lot (7.5 if you discounted his pressure-less 50-odd in the 4th test.)
He's had a guardian angel (Piles) by his side and inside his jock strap for far too long now.
A modern day Ramprakash ... talented but with a pair of balls the size of shrunken peas.

I assume yours was one of the two votes cast for him !

nup merls...why would I assist the enemy?....you have forgotten about his superb form in Oz during the last ashes series....shermanator's wicket was among the more highly prized byour team.

horace wrote:nup merls...why would I assist the enemy?....you have forgotten about his superb form in Oz during the last ashes series....shermanator's wicket was among the more highly prized byour team.

England knew they were going to get their arses handed to them, so the pressure was orf !
Cue Bell ... the forgotten heroine ....
He has a knack of scoring big at just the right time to belay the selectors impatience ...
199 against the Jaarpies earlier this year is proof ! SFA after that knock...

But mark this - Bell WILL be selected for Ashes '09 ... guaranteed.
He's "young and oozes talent" is what the pundit's say ... as another pink piggy does a victory roll overhead!

ROFL...as you have your shermans and harmis, so we have Bunk Lee and Hayden (who increasingly resembles the shape and age of colin cowdrey when he sent out to Oz to face thommo and DKL))

horace wrote:ROFL...as you have your shermans and harmis, so we have Bunk Lee and Hayden (who increasingly resembles the shape and age of colin cowdrey when he sent out to Oz to face thommo and DKL))

Aye ... looking bleak for your lot right now - Blee's lost it and Hayden's doing a Vawn ... leaning on "past glories" to
bale him out. But they'll both be made very welcome here come June !!

Is Haydoes really as rotund as the great MCC now ?!

bunk never had it......by far the worst bowler to have taken 300 wickets (has cheapened the 300 milestone)...haydos looks overweight (tho not quite to the scale of MCC) and is as nimble (not) as was old Colon