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.
Clavers
Guest
Ian Chappell was good but he wasn't the best batsman in the Australian sides of the 1970s; his brother Greg was. And arguably Doug Walters who batted at 5 was also better than Ian. Certainly both Greg and Dougie finished with higher batting averages than Ian. Ian Chappell's psychology made him well suited to the number 3 position. He was team-minded and aggressively-minded and he wanted his team to get on top of the opposition, the earlier the better. That's the approach he took when he went out to bat.
Clavers
Guest
No, Ian Chappell usually batted at 3 and Greg Chappell at 4. Greg didn't move up to 3 after Ian retired and he always batted at 4 for Queensland.
Clavers
Guest
Khawaja is now averaging 102 at No 3 in this series. He is a more natural No 3 than Smith, whose unorthodox, improvising style prospers better with a bit more protection from the new ball.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
I never had a major ssue with the proposed batting line-up; it's the exact line-up (in the same positions) that I nominated a week before this article. But to be honest, I still think Smith's stated logic for the line-up was illogical.
Chris Love
Guest
Are we ready to reverse a few opinions yet? Are we ready to say that maybe Steve Smith knows what's best for the Australian cricket team better than many of us?
Don Freo
Guest
Hey Moaman...getting ready to quote me?
My2cents
Guest
i' ex had a long held belief that Dave Warner would be a better test no3 then opener.. Nothing will probably ever come of it. Since Lehman tried Warner at first drop when he first took over and Watson was quickly used there. I don't think moving smith and Warner down one position each is respectfully as much change. In this scenario smith and Warner are batting together more often then just at 3/4 instead of 2/3 and that would keep our 2 strongest batsmen togeather. Which to me is less change then splitting them up.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
I didn't say Australia's batting line-up performed, I said Warner and Smith did in their respective positions. The batting crumbled on a number of occasions, but instead of mucking around with the parts that did work, I'd find it more sensible to play around with what didn't. Let's be honest, the issue wasn't where people batted, it was who was batting there. Watson, Clarke, Haddin were all out of form and were selected for one series too many. Voges and Nevill were inexperienced. And Shaun Marsh shouldn't have even been on tour. Replacing most of those players, or getting more experience for a couple of them, would be my remedy for the batting woes, rather than moving Warner from opener; which seems like a change for change sake. I'm all for fixing problems, so I understand your argument, but I think adding Burns and Khawaja, plus moving Smith to 4, is enough change for now.
my2cents
Guest
I would hardly call Australia's batting performances during their last test series "performing" Being bowled out for 60 isn't performing. Warner and Smith both made runs individually but the batting lineup imploded several times. so clearly it needs some tweaking. Again i don't think Australia will go with this stratergy, I just think it would be effective MJ i sort of agree with you on Cowan he seems much improved and would be a great choice to help us transition to a new younger opener if Warner were unfit or batting at 3. However there are so many openers putting their hand up for test selection that Cowan seems to be the odd man out
MJ
Guest
I would have thought the best Shield opening pair would be Warner and Ed Cowan, but of course the line was seemingly ruled through Ed some time ago......
Don Freo
Guest
Of course you can but I suspect you will only do that if it doesn't pan out that way.
moaman
Roar Guru
May we quote you,Don?
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
I think Chapelli was usually a #4 and lower batsman. Viv probably played his most/best at #3. I generally agree though, you could have your best batsman anywhere between 1-4 I reckon.
JGK
Roar Guru
The "best batsman at 3" mantra has always been a myth - perpetuated predominantly by Ian Chappell who of course batted at 3. Historically #4 is the spot for the best batsman - Tendulkar, Kallis, Lara, Compton, Crowe, Javed, Inzi - all clearly the best batsmen in their country - all played predominantly at 4. Even Hammond and Viv batted more at 4 and 5 respectively than at 3. And Sobers batted more at each of 4,5 and 6 than at 3. And that's before you look at openers like Hobbs, Hutton and Hanif, Sunny, Gooch, Boycott etc
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
If Khawaja's ready, then he's ready. He doesn't need to be protected, surely?
The Bush
Roar Guru
That's what I said Rellum, there is no requirement that your best bat bat at 3, but it sure is great. Wherever the best batsman feels comfortable and scores the most runs is best. But geez when your number 3 is also the best bat, it can really ensure you dominate a game. People talk about how amazing Warnie and McGrath were for that dominant Australian side. Do we really think they would have been so dominant for as long if Ricky had not been so fantastic at 3?
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
I think too much is made of Smith's technique, and supposed vulnerability against the swinging ball. I love Khawaja, and he does have a great technique. But the best technique in the world is useless if you keep getting out for low scores. I'll take Smith's production over the last 12 months over a great technique, any day of the week.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Fair enough. I just think Warner's attacking game is best suited to when the ball is hard, and the bowling fast. And with the aggressive way Australia play cricket (for better or worse!), Warner is the perfect opener, even if he drives me crazy with some of his dismissals! I think moving him to 3 and Smith to 4 is too much change, when both are performing exactly where they are.
My2cents
Guest
thats a fiar and logical arguement. My counter would be that opening the batting actually reduces Dave Warner's effectiveness as a test batsman. Opening with Warner gives him free reign to come out aggressively and in many ways alleviates him of the responsibility of batting sensibly and building an innings in exchange for getting Australia off to a good start. This made sense when Warner was just a T20 wonder kid who liked to Tonk. But now he is so much more then that as a batsman. Surely giving your 2nd best batsman a shot at number 3 wouldn't be the worst idea. Over the course of their careers quite a few batsmen have shifted along the order. Just look at what happened to mike hussey's career when he moved down the order. An added benefit of picking Warner at 3 is you could pick the best performed shield opening pair to open the batting for Australia and they would already have an established partnership to build on. So playing test cricket would still feel familiar. I'm not sure I'd go with this strategy as a national selector for a few reasons. Mainly because it would ultimately be Dave Warners choice. And I don't think he'd be on board. You don't want to piss off the vice captain when there are other methods that seem just as likely to work.
Don Freo
Guest
If scaring the opposition is your aim, bat Warner and Smith at 10 and 11. I have a hunch that NZ will know Warner and Smith are still to come. Oz will not be considering, in any way, what will or won't scare, disappoint, surprise or confuse the opposition. It is a 5 day test. A surprise lasts a moment.