Countdown to Test cricket: Who should bat at number 3?
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:06 am
Number three is probably the most important batting position in Test cricket and the good teams have a fixed number three, ie. Australia with Ponting, Sri Lanka with Sangakarra and India with Dravid.
Typically whoever bats at number three is considered the best batsman in the side, which in our case is Taylor. He also fits the other criteria a number three should fulfil (experienced, skilled, large range of strokes, adept against all types of bowling, proven performer, an automatic selection). However, Taylor has proven to be a very good opener - and while that is only in ODIs it does solve a potential problem in Tests as well.
Has Sibanda done enough to make the Test side, let alone bat at three? He has played a few good First Class innings (I'm thinking Intercontinental Cup) which is something in his favour but he is neither a proven performer against top quality opponents nor an automatic selection. Craig Ervine is in a similar boat, except while he's probably a much more likely selection he doesn't have a lot of experience behind him. Williams was an ideal number three about two years ago, but his ODI form has dropped off since then and he has been so unfortunate with injury it's hard to know whether he has the time to break back into the team before the 1st Test. I wasn't going to include Chibhabha in the poll because if he didn't get a look in for the ODI team it's hard to see him making the Test team, but he is a genuine number three batsman...
That leaves Masakadza and Taibu. Unlike Chibhabha, Masakadza not making the ODI team is irrelevant simply because he is one of the few batsmen in the country who has proven to have what it takes at Test level (even if that century was a decade ago, I don't think anyone would dispute that he is of Test quality). I would think that Masakadza will be an automatic selection in the Test team, and he is probably quite well suited to number three. The only question mark is whether he would be better off opening? Would Taylor and Masakadza form the best opening partnership, or is there another batsman who could free up one of those opening positions? Perhaps the opening batsmen debate can have a topic of its own once this thread has come to a conclusion.
Taibu is classy enough that I'm sure he would perform adequately in any position. Probably nobody would bat an eyelid if he got the gig.
I'm still undecided over the top order I'd like to see. I think there is a lot of merit in: Duffin, Masakadza, Taylor, Taibu as it makes the batting run a bit deeper (ie. I think with those 4, it would be more difficult for Zimbabwe to collapse as there is quite a bit of experience there) but Masakadza, Taylor, Taibu, Ervine is the type of lineup that could hold strong for many years to come and could provide a level of stability in both Tests and eventually ODIs. If you look at our ODI top order from the past couple of years, with the exception of Taylor it's been like a revolving door. A stable and in-form top order could be the answer and for that reason I'd probably lean towards Masakadza and Taylor opening with Taibu at three and Ervine at four.
Typically whoever bats at number three is considered the best batsman in the side, which in our case is Taylor. He also fits the other criteria a number three should fulfil (experienced, skilled, large range of strokes, adept against all types of bowling, proven performer, an automatic selection). However, Taylor has proven to be a very good opener - and while that is only in ODIs it does solve a potential problem in Tests as well.
Has Sibanda done enough to make the Test side, let alone bat at three? He has played a few good First Class innings (I'm thinking Intercontinental Cup) which is something in his favour but he is neither a proven performer against top quality opponents nor an automatic selection. Craig Ervine is in a similar boat, except while he's probably a much more likely selection he doesn't have a lot of experience behind him. Williams was an ideal number three about two years ago, but his ODI form has dropped off since then and he has been so unfortunate with injury it's hard to know whether he has the time to break back into the team before the 1st Test. I wasn't going to include Chibhabha in the poll because if he didn't get a look in for the ODI team it's hard to see him making the Test team, but he is a genuine number three batsman...
That leaves Masakadza and Taibu. Unlike Chibhabha, Masakadza not making the ODI team is irrelevant simply because he is one of the few batsmen in the country who has proven to have what it takes at Test level (even if that century was a decade ago, I don't think anyone would dispute that he is of Test quality). I would think that Masakadza will be an automatic selection in the Test team, and he is probably quite well suited to number three. The only question mark is whether he would be better off opening? Would Taylor and Masakadza form the best opening partnership, or is there another batsman who could free up one of those opening positions? Perhaps the opening batsmen debate can have a topic of its own once this thread has come to a conclusion.
Taibu is classy enough that I'm sure he would perform adequately in any position. Probably nobody would bat an eyelid if he got the gig.
I'm still undecided over the top order I'd like to see. I think there is a lot of merit in: Duffin, Masakadza, Taylor, Taibu as it makes the batting run a bit deeper (ie. I think with those 4, it would be more difficult for Zimbabwe to collapse as there is quite a bit of experience there) but Masakadza, Taylor, Taibu, Ervine is the type of lineup that could hold strong for many years to come and could provide a level of stability in both Tests and eventually ODIs. If you look at our ODI top order from the past couple of years, with the exception of Taylor it's been like a revolving door. A stable and in-form top order could be the answer and for that reason I'd probably lean towards Masakadza and Taylor opening with Taibu at three and Ervine at four.