- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
On the weekend I read an article on Fox Sports website, in which the subject matter was so completely and utterly absurd, I honestly had to read it twice to ensure I wasn’t suffering sleep deprivation, thus resulting in me interpreting it incorrectly.
Alas, getting up at 3am to watch the Wallabies lose the Rugby World Cup final to the All Blacks was not the source for my bemusement, but rather, it was the confirmation – upon second reading – of the news that Australian Test captain Steve Smith would be moving down the batting order to No. 4.
Yet it wasn’t Smith’s self-demotion that caused my consternation; it was the revelation that he was vacating the crucial No. 3 spot because he wanted to protect Australia’s “fragile top order”.
More Cricket:
>> Australian squad to play New Zealand
>> Four questions for the Australia-New Zealand Test series
>> Can Starc and Johnson be picked in the same team?
>> Australian cricket fixtures
>> Cricket news, highlights and opinion
Come again?
Australia’s best batsman – a man averaging 71.90 at No. 3 – is moving down the order to ‘protect’ two recalled players, the unproven Joe Burns and Usman Khawaja, who are now slated to open and bat first drop, respectively.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. None.
How exactly do you protect inexperienced Test batsmen by batting behind them?
The logic behind such a decision was alluded to in one of Smith’s quotes within the story:
“… if there’s a run of wickets hopefully I can stop it.”
So Smith is essentially saying, if Burns and Khawaja fall cheaply, he can then walk to the crease to stop the rot.
How the hell is that protecting them? On the contrary, isn’t that throwing them into the deep end? Evidently Smith and I have vastly different definitions of the word ‘protect’.
There is a train of thought that says knowing Smith is behind them to come in and score runs should fill Burns and Khawaja with confidence to do their job. I don’t buy into that whatsoever.
If building confidence in these players is the strategy behind the move, it’s hardly a vote of confidence to publicly state that Smith’s demotion down the order is a precaution in case said players fail.
Coming to the crease after the captain has notched up another ton would be a much better way to fill teammates with confidence.
Obviously Smith is not an opener, so I’m not advocating that he bats there, but it does make sense for him to bat at 3.
First drop is considered the most crucial position in the batting line-up, and many experts believe your best batsman should reside there.
No. 3 had been an issue for the Test team since the retirement of Ricky Ponting, who was widely regarded as Australia’s second best batsmen ever behind Don Bradman. Over 10 players were given a crack at it, only to fail.
Enter Steve Smith, who has been prolific in scoring three hundreds in seven Tests while coming in at one wicket down. Needless to say, he has looked very comfortable in the position.
Which makes any move even more ridiculous, because now not only is he not protecting one of the new inexperienced batsmen, he’s also moving a player – in this case, himself – from a position in which he’s currently having a lot of success.
I just don’t understand it at all.
If the thought process is based upon protecting batsmen – which I completely understand – then the best way to do that is to bring them in down the order at No. 5 or 6, where they won’t be facing a new ball or fresh bowlers.
When they walk to the crease, if there are already plenty of runs on the board, there is less pressure. If everyone above them has failed, there is also less pressure.
It’s win-win from a ‘protection’ point-of-view.
Smith was further quoted as saying, “One of my philosophies is to make sure I am leading from the front.” I’m sorry, but moving yourself down the order is the polar opposite of that statement. It’s completely counterintuitive.
Even if you believe in the notion of picking players in their natural batting positions, when you compare Khawaja’s Test numbers at No.3 to Smith’s, it quickly becomes a fairly futile argument.
Any way you cut it, there is simply no logic in the logic of moving Smith to No.4.