- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
In a recent interview querying Australia’s possibilities for their troublesome three position, Australian captain Michael Clarke declared “Steve Smith is a rising star, but he’s not a Test No. 3 just yet.”
One can laud Clarke tempering expectation on the young tyro, and the need for patience, but the other side of this are the needs of the team.
The Ashes is on the horizon and though we would go in as favourites, even away from home, the fragile batting threatens to put that at risk. The focus has been on the No. 3 position since Ricky Ponting’s retirement in late 2012 with it characterised by its instability, and the inability of the batsmen employed.
Ten players have occupied the role with a combined average of 30.23 in the 22 Tests since Punta retired.
The upcoming Test series against India offers a perfect opportunity for stability. By a show of faith in a player who might have a speculative nature at present, like Smith, the side could overcome some early teething problems for a player who would grow into the role.
Fans response to this, might point to Shane Watson, and question, why not stick by him at 3? Or, fans might buy into Clarke’s call for patience on Smith, and insert a player on the periphery like Phil Hughes or Usman Khawaja at 3?
Firstly, on Watson, the need in the batting is stability. He is the antithesis of this due to frequently breaking down.
Plus, his career figures show an average of 36.25 with just four centuries from his 52 Tests.
These are figures which raise the query of whether he is worthy of a place in the team as a batsman alone, let alone in the pivotal position of three. His appeal at three is his ability to dominate, but, with Australia already having the game’s most dominating force in Dave Warner opening, is adding to this what the team needs?
Wouldn’t it offer a better balance to the top three and compliment the batting as a whole by adding a steadier player?
In answering this, it puts an end to the notion of Watson as a number three. He is a one-dimensional player. A disproportionate 57.27 per cent of his career runs have come in boundaries. If one was relate his batting to gears, it is either overdrive or stall, and little in between.
In discounting Watson, it raises the possibility of Hughes or Khawaja for the role. Hughes is a batsman that polarises opinion like few others, but, my take is he is the Australian version of England’s Mark Ramprakash.
He is a player that dominates in the level below Tests, but is found out in the highest level of the game. Usman Khawaja’s has more appeal, with him looking to have the skills to succeed, but lacking the self-belief currently for the role.
Leaving Smith, and the reasons why he is the man for No. 3 slot.
Most will assume it is in reaction to his 2014, where he has an average of 56.5 in his six Tests with two centuries, and three 50s. These are figures made more impressive by five of the six Tests being staged away from home in different conditions. But the skills he showed in scoring the runs was more the basis for belief.
He exuded an ability to marry the traditional style of batsmanship and all its subtleties with the revolutionary new age styles with their advent on aggression.
The compelling aspect of this was his judgement of situations, and his controlled responses, whether it dictated him to dig in, proceed with caution or branch out and devastate. These were made more captivating by the resourcefulness he often displayed
He compelled us to believe that he is the answer to Australia’s greatest batting ill, and the fact is that his time needs to be now.
Build your own fantasy cricket team and put it to the test with Draftstars daily fantasy competitions. Pick your match, pick your team and watch the points roll in to take out cash prizes on each match. What are you really gambling with? Set a deposit limit.