View Full Version : Should KP bat at 3 for England's Test Side?
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
12 Apr 2009, 20:15
Right now there is a big fuss in England about the number 3 position.
The media outlets i have been reading really show an ashes saturation already, relatively speakings it's pretty quite in our media outlets regarding the ashes. People in England like Gunnar Longshanks could confirm?
Already Strauss has had this to offer, bare in mind England have a 2 test match series against West Indies who won the previous series 1-0.
"They won't have had as much experience of English conditions and that's an advantage we have and we need to make sure we use that. We need to make sure we put those guys who are less experienced under a lot of pressure early on in the series.
"I'll have a look at Phil Hughes' play to gain a few tips on how to get him out. I might ask Shaun Udal [Middlesex's captain] to keep a diary of things he notices.
"I don't like the word target so much but you get that feeling on a cricket pitch when someone is less experienced that it is a crucial moment. We need to be good in those crucial moments when they are on the rack and under pressure.
"We need to make sure we are clinical in finishing the job." Flintoff's bowling has never let anyone off the rack.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/5141784/Rain-forces-Michael-Vaughan-to-wait.html
Personally, i find these quotes astonishing. Especially the one about being clinical, it sounds like they already are playing the first test. These guys have a 2 test series coming up against the West Indies and they just think they have to turn up.
There are up to 5 possible candidates for the number 3 position.
Vaughan
Rob Key
Bell
Shah
Bopara
There is a massive push for Vaughan based mainly on some humbo jumbo stuff about him having a "mental edge" over the Aussies. Bear in mind he averaged 32 last Ashes series, a figure that should have been considerably less if he didn't benefit from being dropped by Gilchrist and then bowled next ball off a no ball before going on to get a hundred.
Personally, i feel KP is the best option to bat at 3. The question is whether he wants to, or whether management have the guts to say that he is batting at 3 and that he has no say in the matter.
I feel KP batting at 3 would be a bold attacking move on Englands part. Play Bopara lower in the order to give the following lineup.
Cook
Strauss
KP
Collingwood
Bopara
Flintoff
Prior
Number 3 is the hardest position to bat, KP is good enough to do it but will he do the team thing?
Thoughts?
pluga_4
12 Apr 2009, 20:26
Right now there is a big fuss in England about the number 3 position.
The media outlets i have been reading really show an ashes saturation already, relatively speakings it's pretty quite in our media outlets regarding the ashes. People in England like Gunnar Longshanks could confirm?
Cook
Strauss
KP
Collingwood
Bopara
Flintoff
Prior
Number 3 is the hardest position to bat, KP is good enough to do it but will he do the team thing?
Thoughts?
hangon, the 06/07 ashes series in australia collingwood batted at 4 and kp at 5 and there was a commotion about collingwood being england's number 4?
the media cried out for kp to bat at 4 and eventually he did.
do england want kp at 3 & 4 ?
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
12 Apr 2009, 20:38
Ian Bell was at 3 then.
I feel that the bold move would be to move KP to number 3.
Is bringing back Michael Vaughan really an alternative? Less then a year ago he scored 40 runs in 8 innings and then resigned from the captainicy?
The question is whether
a) KP is willing to move to 3
or
b) whether Strauss and the England management have the guts to say that his batting at 3 and that's it.
KP at 3 would provide a great counter-attacking option. This would path the way for lesser quality players after him.
Texas Smith
12 Apr 2009, 21:21
KP is England's best batsman, but putting him at 3 might put all the eggs in one basket.
RooBuoy
13 Apr 2009, 01:50
KP is England's best batsman, but putting him at 3 might put all the eggs in one basket.
Yup pretty much.
Batting at 4 gives the impression that the England selectors don't think the batting lineup is strong enough so they need KP in lower in the order so if the top order does have a collapse KP will be able to pick up the pieces.
Bond,ShaneBond
13 Apr 2009, 02:32
KP should definitely not bat at 3. He is their best player and they have to manage him and keep him happy. For England to win the Ashes they will need a switched on KP. If he is most comfortable at 4, bat him there. Shah or Bopara at 3 for me.
The other thing re the amount of hype for the Ashes. It seems to me that the Ashes is the pinnacle for English cricket, and they do other countries a disrespect by the amount of focus that they put on it. After 05 they lost to Pakistan, but there were comments along the lines of "Ashes hangover." It seems like they don't treat all Test series as being as important as each other.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
13 Apr 2009, 14:01
Yup pretty much.
Batting at 4 gives the impression that the England selectors don't think the batting lineup is strong enough so they need KP in lower in the order so if the top order does have a collapse KP will be able to pick up the pieces.
I am one of those who suscribes to the theory that the best batsmen in the side bats at 3.
Then you pick the order around the best batsmen.
The problem is at the moment England don't have a number 3, or at least the selectors aren't happy with the number 3 position. Consquently, many are arguing for the return of Michael Vaughan, despite no real form line and mainly based on the fact that he was captain of the 2005 Ashes series.
It reminds me of our search for an allrounder, our allrounder is Johnson, England's best number 3 would be KP.
Having KP at 3 would mean that England are less likely to have those top-order collapses that leave the team at 2 or 3 for not many.
If KP came in at say 1/20 and took the score to 2/100 and then was dismissed he would have paved the way for those less-skillked in the batting like Bell/Collingwood. At the minute lesser batsmen are coming in ahead of KP to try and counter the bowlers and protect KP. The best batsmen to counter the bowlers at that stage would be KP.
Bond,ShaneBond
13 Apr 2009, 14:11
I am one of those who suscribes to the theory that the best batsmen in the side bats at 3.
So should Smith be batting at 3 for South Africa? It is a ridiculous theory.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
13 Apr 2009, 14:43
No, because his a specialist opner.
In a batting order ideally you have 2 specialist opening batsmen and then your best batsmen at number 3.
The rest of the positions (4,5,6) can be filled by the remaining 3 batsmen in no particular order.
japaljarri
13 Apr 2009, 15:31
Its a tough one. Its not ideal as l don;t think he is a natural 3 at all, much more a middle order 4 - more like a strokemaking Martyn but better (and l loved Marto). But England are very short of options there at the minute and Collingwood could definitely bat 4 and then you ease Bopara etc in. Thats why they are so desperate for Vaughan to make it to 3. More confusion the better from my perspective.
Agree on other comments that they would do well to concentrate on the WIndies tour first. They just lost to them ffs. Also perfect chance for them to prepare well for Aus by playing good cricket against the WI and seeing if blokes make it or not. Seem overly focused on the Ashes - love to see the Windies roll them. Then we would see some tension/confusion etc!
DoubleO7
13 Apr 2009, 17:02
Are you referring to ODI's, Tests or both?
In ODI's his best position in the batting order would be number 5 (his statistics speak for themselves). Since coming out at number 4, his batting has yawned for the worst (slightly). Pietersen hasn't performed to standard when batting at number 3 in ODI's and therefore should play where he is most comfortable which is down the batting order.
You could certainly make a case for Tests though. With England's inability to find a stable yet consistent number 3 should entice the selectors to opt for the untried Pietersen there (never batted at 3). One of his strengths is playing well against pace bowling which should help somewhat. The extra responsibility might be a good thing for him since he scored at a better rate than his career average when he was el capitan of England (both ODI's and Tests).
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
13 Apr 2009, 17:13
Its a tough one. Its not ideal as l don;t think he is a natural 3 at all, much more a middle order 4 - more like a strokemaking Martyn but better (and l loved Marto). But England are very short of options there at the minute and Collingwood could definitely bat 4 and then you ease Bopara etc in. Thats why they are so desperate for Vaughan to make it to 3. More confusion the better from my perspective.
Agree on other comments that they would do well to concentrate on the WIndies tour first. They just lost to them ffs. Also perfect chance for them to prepare well for Aus by playing good cricket against the WI and seeing if blokes make it or not. Seem overly focused on the Ashes - love to see the Windies roll them. Then we would see some tension/confusion etc!
Yeah i agree, i just don't really see the value in recalling Vaughan. At the moment he hasn't had much cricket, i think he scored a ton on a one day game a week or 2 ago but his latest effort he scored 12.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/5145660/Michael-Vaughan-unable-to-make-impression-at-Lords.html
A good omen is that Vaughan and Bell, who are both pushing for Ashes selection, were dismissed by 2 Australians in Mitchell Claydon and Callum Thorp.
I just think at the moment, England stuffing around looking for a number 3 amongst players that are not in form is pointless. There has been this big push for Vaughan based on some humbo jumbo about the Australians fearing him. At the moment his in no form.
However, there comes a time when someone has to reign KP in. As far as im concerned players will bat where there captain tells them to. KP going to 3 would provide the team balance that would allow players like Bopara to slot in lower down the order. He shouldn't have a say in the matter, for too long KP has thing he runs the show, much like Akermanis did in the Lions, as far as im concerned English management and the selectors should elevate KP to 3.
The positives outweigh the negatives.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
13 Apr 2009, 17:21
Are you referring to ODI's, Tests or both?
In ODI's his best position in the batting order would be number 5 (his statistics speak for themselves). Since coming out at number 4, his batting has yawned for the worst (slightly). Pietersen hasn't performed to standard when batting at number 3 in ODI's and therefore should play where he is most comfortable which is down the batting order.
You could certainly make a case for Tests though. With England's inability to find a stable yet consistent number 3 should entice the selectors to opt for the untried Pietersen there (never batted at 3). One of his strengths is playing well against pace bowling which should help somewhat. The extra responsibility might be a good thing for him since he scored at a better rate than his career average when he was el capitan of England (both ODI's and Tests).
In ODI's his batted at 3 a total of thirteen times at an average of 37.7 with 2 hundreds. That is good statistics in the ODI format.
KP should bat in a position which is going to benefit the team most, not where HIS most comfortable.
DoubleO7
13 Apr 2009, 17:29
In ODI's his batted at 3 a total of thirteen times at an average of 37.7 with 2 hundreds. That is good statistics in the ODI format.
His statistics at 4 and 5 are superb for ODI cricket. By the way, KP has failed 9 out of the 13 innings to pass 20 when batting at number 3.
KP should bat in a position which is going to benefit the team most, not where HIS most comfortable.
The position he bats in just happens to benefit the team most. He performs better at number 4 and 5 than he does at number 3 which just happens to be more comfortable for him batting there.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
13 Apr 2009, 17:31
We have both put our views across, lets agree to disagree.
DoubleO7
13 Apr 2009, 17:32
We have both put our views across, lets agree to disagree.
Agreed.:thumbsu:
King Elvis
13 Apr 2009, 19:02
KP doesn't have the balls, and is too selfish, to bat at 3.
KP doesn't have the balls, and is too selfish, to bat at 3.
Same with Chanderpaul, he's not a prat so people don't care.
courtjester
14 Apr 2009, 07:02
You don't just bat your "best batsman" at #3. Where'd this fallacy come from? You bat the player most suited to #3 within the team structure. Sometimes this batsman is not the "best" batsman, but he's the best #3.
If Pieterson is suited best to batting 4-5, he should bat there.
Ponting bats at 3. He is Australia's best batsman, but also the batsman most suited to batting at #3.
David Boon wasn't always the best batsman in sides that contained Border and Jones and Steve Waugh, but he was most suited to #3.
Sachin Tendulkar has been India's best batsman for 2 decades, but he doesn't bat at #3 because Rahul Dravid is most suited to #3.
Viv Richards was the WIs best batsman, but batted down the order when Richie Richardson was in the side because RR was better suited to #3.
Greg Chappell was a better batsman than Ian Chappell, but Greg batted down the order because Ian was better suited to #3.
I agree #3 is a tough spot to bat. The middle order can be as well (they face spinners from the start of their innings in the middle order often). But saying you just bat your best batsman at #3 is wrong. Years ago Australia tried S. Waugh and Dean Jones at #3, and it just didn't work.
You bat batsman where they will bat best in the team structure. Not just say blindly "bat your best batsman at 3 always".
The No# 3 position requires someone who can play with the tempo of the game. The critical feature of the No. 3 position is to be able to defend a bad position, or have enough shots to accelerate your side run wise when things are stagnant. Because of that a number 3 should have a cool head nearly almost all the time (Eg. David Boon, Clive Lloyd, Rahul Dravid).
IMO it is an ideal position for Robert Key. Alastair Cook would also be good in that position, but then you need to find another opener.
Cook
Strauss
Key
Shah / Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood / Bopara
Flintoff
<Best WICKET KEEPER FITS HERE>
Is a good batting lineup.
Ricketts
19 Apr 2009, 20:50
If KP bats at #3, he'll struggle to average double figures
Grimwood
22 Apr 2009, 20:13
Who would we bat at 4?
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
23 Apr 2009, 00:05
Collingwood/Bell/Bopara.
Number 4 isn't a hard spot to bat or as hard as number 3.
The question i ask to you, as an English fan, is would Vaughan come back if it wasn't the Ashes?
macca_1990
26 Apr 2009, 21:37
Bat KP at 3 for sure, cos your best batsman needs the chance to play a long innings and be the glue.
Because if you bat him at 4 or 5, they could be 2/3 for bugger-all and he can't play his natural game. Plus you risk having him bat with the tail a lot at 5 (eg: Steve Waugh in his prime). So 3 is definetly the go for KP I reckon.
wotdoiput
28 Apr 2009, 22:35
I think in both tests and ODI's that KP should bat at three. No if's buts or maybes. He is Englands best batsman by a long way and I really think he should step up and bat at 3.
Vaughan shouldnt get anyhwere near the team again ditto Key and Bell and Bopaara looks the goods but needs to bat 5 or 6. So to me its between Bopara and Shah and Id pick Bopara and bat KP at 3.
Either way, England don't have a chance in hell of winning back the Ashes.
DoubleO7
1 May 2009, 00:12
Ravi Bopara will bat at three as England put a clear emphasis on the future (http://content.cricinfo.com/engvwi2009/content/current/story/402050.html).
It had been expected that the No. 3 slot would go to either Vaughan or Bell, but instead the selectors have opted for youth over experience. Bopara, who cracked his maiden Test century in Barbados before being dropped for the next Test, has long been considered a long-term option as No.3, and now he has his chance to cement it for good.
Well, that elucidates a few things.
Nugget1985
1 May 2009, 11:59
The No# 3 position requires someone who can play with the tempo of the game. The critical feature of the No. 3 position is to be able to defend a bad position, or have enough shots to accelerate your side run wise when things are stagnant. Because of that a number 3 should have a cool head nearly almost all the time (Eg. David Boon, Clive Lloyd, Rahul Dravid).
IMO it is an ideal position for Robert Key. Alastair Cook would also be good in that position, but then you need to find another opener.
Cook
Strauss
Key
Shah / Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood / Bopara
Flintoff
<Best WICKET KEEPER FITS HERE>
Is a good batting lineup.
No offence but if these are the best cricketers england can round up, good luck.
If Mitch Johnson bowls like he did in south africa we could see the england players tipping there bails off!!
No offence but if these are the best cricketers england can round up, good luck.
If Mitch Johnson bowls like he did in south africa we could see the england players tipping there bails off!!
I've got to agree.
That batting lineup is not the greatest lineup I've seen.
The one thing they do have on their side is good lower order batsman. Swann and Broad are probably two of the better bowlers with the bat.
No offence but if these are the best cricketers england can round up, good luck.
If Mitch Johnson bowls like he did in south africa we could see the england players tipping there bails off!!
In my defence, it is a better one than has been put together by the selectors for their games against the West Indies :p. The craziness of playing Michael Prior at six and the insistence on an alrounder....
No12 would be my preferred postion for him
Bopara goes alright at 3 apparently. 118 NO overnight.
King Elvis
7 May 2009, 19:56
What a massive wanker this bloke is.
Linda, you're off the KP Bandwagon?
What a massive wanker this bloke is.
Linda, you're off the KP Bandwagon?
Being a Notts fan there is history .Wherever he has been there as been trouble .The sooner he just plays IPL the better