Who should be the number 3 batsman?

[Hooper]

...For any particular ODI team?

Your best batsman in One Day Cricket should get as much time possible without having having to face the new ball bowlers. Having him at 3 protects the batsman from swing early on and shields them from the fast bowlers at their fittest and most dangerous. The number 3 should be able to come in early and hit boundaries and build a good start for the middle order to set attack from.

Australia have done well, Ponting at 3 is the best spot for him. Hes our best batsman and having him at 3 gives him the best chance to score a hundred. England with Bell at 3 isn't a totally good idea. He is a good ODI batsman, but isn't going to come in at first drop and go after the fast bowlers and dominate the game. He would be more suited at 4 or 5 where he can come in during the middle orders while the field is spread and do what he does best and just knock the ball around for singles and 2's. Sangakarra for SL is a very good number 3 for an ODI team. He is attacking, the best batsman by far and should get as much time as possible to score a hundred.

 

[bushy]

Bradley John Hodge

 

[SciD]

I will have Sehwag in ODIs and Dravid in Test for India. After Dravid retires doesnt matter anyone at 3 will be gone in 5 seconds.

 

[King Pietersen]

The best player should be in at 3; but only if the balance in the team is correct. Bell's been our best Odi batsman in the past year, but Pietersen would be far better suited at 3. If you have a young, inexperienced, aggressive opener with Cook, the last thing you need is for 2 relatively slow paced batsman in Cook and Bell batting together. Pietersen would be a far, far better option at 3 for England in both Odi's and T20's, and then eventually tests once Vaughan hangs up his box .

 

[Leicester Fox]

For England, when Mustard gets out early Wright and when Cook gets out early Bell.

 

[King Pietersen]

But Mustard shouldn't even be in the team. No-one with FC and List A averages under 30 should be an opening batsman at international level. Wright should open with Cook with KP at 3, Colly 4, Bell 5, Shah 6. KP's our best One Day player, he's aggressive and immensely talented and should be at 3.

 

[Leicester Fox]

KP's technique can't handle the new ball, he should be at 5. Mustards in the team because he was the highest averaging batsmen in list a cricket last year so he's in because he's performed well. He's our only keeper for ages to actually make a good score, well the only one since Stewart.

 

[King Pietersen]

1 good score doesn't mean he's the best candidate for the job. Luke Wright's been one of the only shining lights in the NZ Odi series and didn't make his best innings on a flat, batsman's paradise like Mustard. Mustard should be close to the team, but he shouldn't be in the team and opening the batting, he's not good enough. Also, Mustard should never be mentioned in the same sentence as Stewart; Stewart was a world class batsman, not a mindless slogger like Mustard.

Mustard may have a better overall List A average to Wright, but that doesn't make him a better player than Wright. Wright has all the shots, he plays the sitation, and he's aggressive in an intelligent manner, and doesn't just go after every ball. Mustard isn't anywhere near consistent enough to warrant a place opening the batting for England.

KP's technique can't handle the new ball, LOL. In his first game for England A he opened the batting and made 131 off 80odd balls. He also came in at 3 in the T20 tournament and averaged 36 and was by far England's best player throughout the tournament. KP thrives on pressure, and is technically one of the best batsmen in the world; he's more than capable of handling the pressures of batting at 3.

 

[Leicester Fox]

Funny how you say LOL wen it's pretty much accepted by the entire commentary on sky and by a fair few members on here as one of the main reasons he doesn't bat at 3. ODI crickets a lot different to A cricket. I'd much rather have him at number 5 where he's one of the best batsmen in the world instead of at 3 or 4 where he's a good batsmen. The last thing he needs is more responsibilty given his poor form.

Wright should not open, If you're going to talk about averages then you can hardly be calling for him to open, he's repeatedly failed opening for us and look at his averages for sussex. Mustards job is to go out there and take the pressure off us by getting quick runs, not big runs just quick runs so consistency is never going to be a part of his game. Mustard has averaged 30 runs at 90 in the past series, you can't argue with that in only his second series in international cricket.

 

[sohum]

Gambhir looks a decent number three although it's probably all in his head since he comes in after the openers fail, anyway. I don't think the number three batsman matters as much in ODI's as in tests, anyway, since the new ball is the best time to score runs in ODI cricket (since the ball is hard and new). It swings a bit, but it doesn't do as much for as long as in Test cricket. A Test number three needs to be able to come in at 0/1 and at 150/1 and play two different types of innings.

 

[vaibhav mehta]

Kallis...No doubt..Either ODI or TEST i like to have Kallis always coming on number 3..

 

[King Pietersen]

Funny how you say LOL wen it's pretty much accepted by the entire commentary on sky and by a fair few members on here as one of the main reasons he doesn't bat at 3. ODI crickets a lot different to A cricket. I'd much rather have him at number 5 where he's one of the best batsmen in the world instead of at 3 or 4 where he's a good batsmen. The last thing he needs is more responsibilty given his poor form.

Do the sky commentary team believe that ? I've never heard it mentioned tbh. One majorly regarded cricket broadcaster Jonathan Agnew believes that KP should be at 3. Here's the section on the matter in his article:

This brought Ian Bell and Alastair Cook together, and regular readers of this blog will know that I have a problem with these two in the top three. Both are fine batsmen, don?t get me wrong, but they are one-dimensional and incapable of innovation in one-day cricket ? it just isn?t the way they bat.

Bell?s innings said a lot about the way he plays in one-day cricket. He hit four fours in making 24 from 34 balls but managed one two and six singles from the other 30 deliveries he faced i.e. seven scoring shots. Cook, meanwhile, faced 70 deliveries for his 41.

There is room for one of them in the same one-day team, but not both, and I think Kevin Pietersen should be batting at number three.

This article backs up my point about Bell and Cook not batting well together, and Aggers also agress that KP should be at 3. There's no way either of us can be proven wrong at the moment, it's just down to opinion at this time. It won't be until Pietersen is tried at 3 when we can finally settle the argument.

Wright should not open, If you're going to talk about averages then you can hardly be calling for him to open, he's repeatedly failed opening for us and look at his averages for sussex. Mustards job is to go out there and take the pressure off us by getting quick runs, not big runs just quick runs so consistency is never going to be a part of his game. Mustard has averaged 30 runs at 90 in the past series, you can't argue with that in only his second series in international cricket.

There's a difference between getting the innings off to a good start and slogging. You don't see players like Smith, Gilchrist, Hayden, Trescothick, Tendulkar and others slogging. Mustard is a slogger, nothing more, nothing less. If the pitch is a batting paradise he'll get runs, but there aren't many tracks in world cricket like this anymore, which means that Mustard is going to struggle on my tracks. He doesn't bat with any intelligence, just goes after anything. It looks great when it goes well, but makes him look a fool when it goes wrong. If England are going to improve and advance in One Day cricket we need a skillful but aggressive opener, and from the current bunch of players Luke Wright is the best option. Wright wouldn't be my number 1 choice though; players like Denly, Key, Carberry, Loye, Trescothick would be far more effective, but from the current crop Wright's the best option.

Having Mustard opening is about as sensible as having Dimi Mascheranas opening the batting.

 

[Leicester Fox]

Look at any videos of Kp batting, a lot of shots he will walk across his stumps and in most innings he plays where he comes in early you'll see him get himself introuble doing it especially if the balls swinging in to him.

Mustard is not a mindless slogger. To say he doesn't bat with any intelligence is wrong, he didn't even have that higher strike rate. The stats he put up in the last series were exactly what we want from him on a solid average performance imo so we can't drop him and we won't be anyway.

 

[King Pietersen]

Look at any videos of Kp batting, a lot of shots he will walk across his stumps and in most innings he plays where he comes in early you'll see him get himself introuble doing it especially if the balls swinging in to him.

He must have some major technical faults averaging 50 in Tests and 48 in Odi's. He may fall away when playing shots early in his innings, but so does Ponting, and Ponting bats at 3. Marcus Trescothick often plays strokes well away from his body but he opens in tests and odi's, because of his amazing hand-eye co-ordination. KP's moving across his stumps is his trigger movement, something that he has developed and worked on throughout his career, and it may not look pretty but it works, you cannot have a massive technical fault and still average close to 50 in all forms of the game. if Pietersen had this massive trouble it'd be targetted by every team in world cricket, and he'd have been found out in the 05 Ashes, and the 06 Ashes against the best side in the world; yet in both those series he was England's top scoring batsman.

Pietersen may be in abit of a form slump, but even in a form slump he can still show his talent, and look every bit the player he is at his best. He looked in really good knick i thought in the ODi series, and was unlucky not to go on and make a big total. Pietersen offers something in ODi cricket that England have lacked at the top of the order since Tres left, hitting down the ground. He is by far England's best ODi player down the ground, he hit some stunning straight drives and on-drives in the NZ Odi series.

I'll admit, he does tend to try and play around his pad a little at the start of the innings, but it's only because he's not getting his feet moving enough early, and when he gets it right he's one of the most destructive players in the world on the leg-side. The pundits and commentators around the world all say that the sides best player should be at 3, and Pietersen is our best player in ODi cricket. Bell's a great player, but the balance of the team is affected and all Mustards aggressive work is undone with Bell coming in at 3. Also, if Mustard gets out slogging early then we end up in Old-England style Odi cricket trundling along at 4 an over and by the time KP comes in we're struggling to keep a high run rate and he tries too hard to get it going. Having him at 3 allows us to continue the aggressive play from the opener be it Mustard, Wright, Denly, Key, whoever.

Pietersen's the best option as far i'm concerned.

 

[Leicester Fox]

Well he's only averaging 50 because he bats further down the order where he's facing more inswing from a newer ball, Ponting does it a lot less too. Notice the decline in his average as he gets higher up the order.