Number threes are being hunted

Download Hitwicket Cricket Game 2024 - Be the Owner, Coach and Captain of your own Cricket Team | The Ultimate Strategic Cricket-Manager Experience | Not a fad. No ads.

Number three has been the most important batting position for a very long time. Openers were generally teams' best batters at the start of Test cricket, but by the 1900s, number threes had caught up with them. Those two traded places a few times after that until the 1920s, when Don Bradman, George Headley, and Wally Hammond made number three the undisputed greatest batting position in terms of runs.

After the War, the openers dropped off, and the position with the most runs was number three for a long time. Then in the 1990s, many teams stopped automatically putting their best players at three. Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Charles Lara, and Jacques Kallis all moved down a spot to four. Soon, teams were talking about how the best batter should be at second-drop. 

We now have a situation where teams are more likely to have their best player at second-drop and not first. 

This is a big shift in the history of our game. Number threes have the highest score in Test cricket, and they have faced 9,148 innings. Yet, despite batting almost 200 fewer innings, number fours have an almost identical amount of runs. In more than 2,000 Tests, number fours have managed to score only 753 fewer runs than their up-the-order friends (number threes). If the trend continues, very soon, number fours would have scored the most runs in Tests.

If you look at averages, fours have taken over as the best spot to go in. Openers have been on the decline for a while, and number fives have been fun very recently. But where does this leave the number three position in Test cricket right now? 

England decided to try Jacob Bethell at number three, despite the fact that he had only played 20 first-class matches and had never batted there domestically. They don’t worry about this too much, as Ollie Pope also wasn’t a first-drop before they picked him for that.

Bethell's selection was more adventurous, as he’d batted more at nine than at three. In fact, the little experience he really had was at six and seven. Pope was a middle-order player. Bethell looks more like an all-rounder based on his batting spots.

England look at these things differently. Sometimes, they take a scientific approach and check how a player performs against the types of bowling they will face in Tests. Other times, they roll the 28-sided dice and go for the vibes. 

Ben Jones of CricViz once suggested Chris Woakes as a pinch number three, in part because England didn’t have any other options. This isn’t quite that, but it’s in the same genealogy. When there are no number threes, why not find someone who fits your mantra rather than a player who will likely fail anyway?

But it is true that England have changed their number three position. And if you look at history, it’s not a place they have been great at. Opening has always been their thing, and the first and second-drop positions have relatively underperformed for them. England have often gone for a number three who is more of a backup opener than an automatic best batter. This makes sense because of their conditions. 

The player with the most runs at three is Kumar Sangakkara. You find six Australians, five West Indians, two each from Pakistan and India, then a Kiwi and South African before you get to the first English batter.

Other than the fact that West Indies and Australia have produced a lot of greats, they have gone out of their way to bat them at three. Players like Ian Chappell, Rohan Kanhai, Ricky Ponting, and Viv Richards feel like they were born to bat there. But had they been from other countries, it may not have been like that. Certainly not if they were English.

England have never had a player come in at three more than 78 times; that was Mark Butcher. Even in their great eras after the War, they rarely kept anyone in that spot for more than a few games in a row. You have to go pre-War to find their highest scorer: Wally Hammond. He comes in at 19th, with Jonathan Trott having scored the 21st most runs in this position.

Just for scale, I have included Sangakkara on this list to show how many runs he has made at this position. He has scored more than thrice the runs of the English batter with the most runs at number three; it would take combining Hammond, Trott, Ted Dexter and Butcher to surpass him.

But there is another reason to show you this. Hammond was a 'best batter in your team' kind of number three, but apart from him, Trott, Butcher, Nasser Hussain and Bill Edrich—all of them were really more like backup openers. Bethell is a long way away from that.

Picking a backup opener is no longer easy, as finding one opener who can score runs consistently is hard. With Kookaburras juiced up and everyone perfecting the wobbleball, batting anywhere in the top-order is tough. No one is making runs, and you certainly don’t want your number three to be your best batter either.

Every single top-order position has fallen off a lot in this period. But as you move further down the batting order, the differences aren’t that big. By the time you get to number seven, whatever is happening with the ball isn’t an issue. I don’t think anything here justifies England picking an inexperienced number three, but it explains the risk. 

The Fab Four are coming to a close, but think of their batting positions. They are all number fours except for Kane Williamson. Forty years ago, they would probably bat one spot higher. The backup opener idea doesn’t work, and the best players are saying, "We can make more runs at four." So, what does that leave us with at our number three positions?

This is the list of everyone with over 500 runs at three in the last five years. It is not long. Marnus Labuschagne is number one. He feels like a modern number three in a way that Cheteshwar Pujara was—not your best batter, but a high-class player with a very good defense who can shield the number four from the new ball. Williamson is New Zealand’s best batter. But except him, Marnus, and Root (when he batted at three), no one else on that list could claim that.

Pope was a middle-order player who was promoted to shield Root, and because England had plenty of batting in his spot. Shubman Gill is not really a backup opener, but more of an opener-in-waiting. Shanto is there based on potential, something we never saw before in cricket. Even talented youngsters would start down the order more often. Now, we throw in a player with few runs and hope for the best. Kusal Mendis was probably in the same situation as Shanto. Pakistan have two backup openers on this list. Keegan Petersen averaged less than 30 in 17 innings at three. 

With all due respect to these players doing their best in a very tough era, this is not a list that includes players like Bradman, Sangakkara, and Viv, is it?

Think about Australia’s problem right now. In their top three, they have an older player out of form in Usman Khawaja, Nathan McSweeney has been promoted because he has made runs in the middle-order in domestic cricket, and Marnus, who is clinging on to the position. Yet, conversely, think of their middle-order. Smith and Cameron Green can both bat at four, so could McSweeney or Inglis. At five, they will keep Head, but as a backup, they have Aaron Hardie. At six is Mitch Marsh, but they have Beau Webster as an understudy. 

There is a global shortage of top-order players. No one is making a lot of runs in the top three domestically. The players who’ve added the most runs do it lower down and often end up being promoted when they are selected.

New Zealand’s Will Young is a number four for Central Districts, and he bats in the top three for the Kiwis. Tristan Stubbs has batted number three in eight matches in his first-class career, all but two are in Tests. Batters make runs down the order, or at least look like they can, and they end up in what we used to talk of as the most prestigious and difficult position in the game—in an era when it's harder than ever. 

The first 20 overs of Test matches used to be easy around 2009 and 2010. The game has gone from averaging nearly 40 to many years of not even getting close to 30. This tells you that teams probably moved their best batters away from three at a very decent time, because it has been extremely hard since then.

In an era when no one seems to be able to block the ball that well, you need someone with a good defensive game or a pinch-hitter to cause some chaos. Now, you really want your two strongest batters now at four and five. You’re just hoping to buy them some time or soften the ball a little.

While we still talk about number threes as the players who dictate the match, make an impact, counter-attack, or stonewall, the truth is that for a long time, number threes have been struggling. 

For five decades, number fours have been ahead of number threes, sometimes by a lot. But the real story isn’t from the number fours; it’s the number fives.

Traditionally, number fives were not seen as your greatest players. They were either specialists or players who couldn’t handle the newer ball. They were essentially not good enough to bat higher. So it made sense that their averages were lower, even if the actual position was easier than batting up the order.

Three of the last four decades, number fives have averaged more than the players at first-drop. 

This decade is the biggest difference ever. Right now, batting at three is not an impact position; it’s not a backup opener. If anything, it’s just hope. The players who are really living large are the number fives.

Cricket has changed a lot when these two spots have really swapped roles.

Number three was once the spot of Don Bradman. Things change. It’s unfair on Jacob Bethell to be compared to the number threes of the past. But it’s also unfair that anyone has to bat there right now.