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.
ak
Roar Guru
Warner and Smith. They can be the new age Hayden and Ponting.
xavialonso
Guest
I am an AB Deviliers fan. I love the guy so much. And in my opinion, Steve Smith is a special player like ABD. I hope for Australias sake he lives up to his potential.
Tom from Perth
Roar Rookie
:D
Disco
Guest
In the team's interests, yes. If he's as good as everyone seems to agree he is, why should 3 be such an issue for him?
Disco
Guest
It's a holding role, though. Not as if Watson actually gets many wickets. So he should be judged on his batting... which falls short.
Geoff from Bruce Stadium
Guest
Agree with you're thinking on Hughes. Horrible technique against good seam bowling which just can't cut it at test level. Hopeless against spin as well. I couldn't bear to have to watch his inadequacies again. Bit like watching Watto - you know its only a matter of time before they pitch it in the right area and he gets out. The opposition must rub their hands together when they see Watson or Hughes picked - unless they are playing on a road.
Geoff from Bruce Stadium
Guest
Watson for Finch - you're kidding!
Geoff from Bruce Stadium
Guest
I was a big supporter of Khawaja a couple of years ago because of his technique and couldn't understand why the selectors wouldn't give him a go. Unfortunately when given the chance he continually failed to live up to expectations. A bit like Doolan in that he looks to have a good solid technique but just doesn't get the scoreboard ticking over. And when he gets a good one he gets out for not many. Some players have the technique but just can't seem to build an innings at test level. Which makes the ones who can so special such as Steve Smith. I think the selectors may have been right in not selecting Khawaja even though I couldn't see it at the time. I guess I was just hoping he could fill the number 3 spot which has been such a problem for years. But the selectors haven't been right in continuing to select Watson. How many chances can you get? Time to give Fergsuon a crack at 5 and shift Smith to 3, I also hope they don't play safe and give Siddle another go or Haddin. Its time to invest in the future by giving Hazlewood or Cummins a go and possibly Tim Paine.
Don Freo
Guest
Greg Chappell...BTB (Better than Bradman). Maxi will get there...it might take 2 years but he'll find his balance. His bowling is going to be impressive. The flight and turn...combined with attacking flair is still an irritation in the oyster...but it will become a pearl.
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
The more I see of Maxwell, the more I think he is just not up to tests. He is talented, but too irresponsible in his play, and his technique is as loose as a weight watchers girdle. As for m Marsh, I have always liked him, and when I first saw him, it reminded watching a young G Chappell- though that is a huge call, and if he is half as great as that legend, we all would be happy.
Don Freo
Guest
That's a good read, Tim. Nice that Heals sees that in Whiteman. He only suggests, 'perhaps', however, so I don't think it is a universal expectation. Rather than put pressure on Whiteman, those comments probably just brought him into the foreground of the public's awareness of his ability. WA players need that kind of PR for others to notice. It's just me, Tom of Perth...and Heals...who are aware of how good WA is!
Don Freo
Guest
The thing is that, with the current crop of medium fast all rounders...and Maxi...we only need to bat to 5, maybe only 4. Keepers like..well, all of them...and bowlers like Mitch Marsh (who will be a genuine batsman), Faulkner, Henriques, and the actual quicks who can bat (Johnson, NCN, Starc, Cummins, Sidds,), you have regular 20s, 30s and 40s with an occasional big score. Total that up between 3 and 4 all rounders/bowlers and you have the same as a good/moderate # 5 and #6 will give.
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
You talk my language Geoff, for me, Watson has to go. I would even be inclined to leave him out even if Clarke was unfit, but, I think that would be unwise for it would leave the team too inexperienced. But, when Clarke is fit, and if M Marsh proves the UAE efforts were not a Henriques like flash in the pan, Watto's test career needs to end As for Finch, he was viewed as a phenom in his junior career , but he seems to have changed his game with the lure of t20 riches in mind Faulkner........he is an interesting one, such a combative player, but is he good enough to bat at 6, and be test standard with his bowling. I would love the rule to be run over him, but, at present that possible position is in M Marsh's hands to seal
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
I like Khawaja Ross, and a few years back he made a very accomplished century on a very tough Hobart pitch against a high class Tassie attack. He should have been inserted then, but, instead they put in Hughes. if khawaja scores runs before the first test in the shield, i would have him in the top 6 for Brissy- maybe this line up Rogers, Warner, Smith, Khawaja, Burns, M Marsh, Haddin An inexperienced line up, but, I think they need to look for the future
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
Gav, i can see the reasoning for Hughes, but I just cannot buy into him. It is not just his known weaknesses, but, his lack of basic batting skills. Like as a top order batsman, you need to be astute at accumulating runs, and rotating the strike. But in this regard he is just clueless. Regardless of who they insert they need to address it now, for if they go into the ashes with it still in flux, or Watson in the role, or Maxwell, they will not retain the Ashes...............:(
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
Wise counsell Dylan, but I just see Hughes as too fundamentally flawed, and already under the title- 'the tried, and the known'. As for Burns, i would not play him at 3, but at 5
Tim Holt
Roar Guru
Don, here is the article http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/story/759677.html
Don Freo
Guest
Tim, I don't think anyone anywhere is touting Whiteman as the next Gilly. Got a quote or a link? He's just an outstanding keeper and a very good batsman who has regularly sacrificed his wicket this season in a chase for bonus points when his innings has no impact on the game. Whiteman is best with back to the wall batting....an element missing from the Oz side.
Don Freo
Guest
No, Tim, he hasn't improved...your initial observation is correct. He is the worst of all state keepers.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Tim, have you looked at Mitch Marsh' first class strike rate? He wasn't following anyone's lead. He's a stonewaller like his brother in long formats.