He will continue to frustrate me for as long as he plays, all the talent in the world just never puts it all together often enough, still I think he’s been abit better of late it’s still a new partnership with De Zorzi, loads of room to grow I hope.
Modern Australia out here with the best batter being 6 or 7th, the openers generally fall early, marnus falls early, smith and marsh go for less that 10, then Head and Carey Cary it home
It was similar for a while before Steve Smith came into his own a batsman. Haddin and the bowlers were getting the runs when the top and middle order kept crumbling like pastry crust.
Tbf Bethell opened in U19 cricket for the England side that lost the World Cup final. He just hasn't been allowed to bat higher in senior cricket due to being at Warwickshire.
Williamson has to stay at 3 because NZ has forgotten how to bat. Before Ravindra came in with some shine, their top 5 was: Latham, Conway, Kane, Nicholls, and Mitchell. 4 of them were out of form for at least a year. If Kane shifts one position down, he'll make more runs but it'll be worse for the team because number 3 for NZ is basically an opener these days given Conway's form and chucking Ravindra there is just cruel. Also, cracking video as always Jarrod. I love videos like these on curious topics. It's very fun.
Your timeline is a bit janky there, Nicholls was struggling for a while but Mitchell was in good form pretty much right up until Rachin took over, Latham is criminally underrated, as always
@@Nope-gu3ph Our top 5 "before Ravindra came in" included Ross Taylor so your point is invalid mate, makes no sense. Taylor retired in '22, Ravindra started in '21, not to mention Latham had 2 seasons of above 50 averages, Conway was averaging above 60, as was Mitchell. And Mitchell only started regularly in '22 as replacement for Nicholls. Ravindra coming in has had nothing to do with performance of the top 5, he was brought in specifically as a replacement for Taylor
10:33 The biggest thing that signals this change in attitude for me is that England have been searching for a number three batter - even promoting unproven Bethell - yet no one is suggesting moving Harry Brook (with his outrageous skill and average) from 5 to 3. England want Root and Brook at 4 and 5 no matter what, rather than 3 and 4 with Brook coming in at first drop. Brook’s success is in part because he is sheltered from the new ball like Pietersen was when he came into the team. To me it’s a no brainer that Brook, who is young, talented and proven at test level should be England’s number three long term rather than Bethell who could learn his craft at 5 with a less steep learning curve. But that’s just because I still have that old school mentality.
It would have been good if you had made the video on test cricket history's best no 3 with Bradman sangakara Amla dravid ponting and Williamson as the main players of discussion with all the mention players above in the thumbnail pic would have been fun to watch.
why do people keep saying Mcsweeney has been making runs in the middle order for South Australia? He legit bats at 3 in the shield team, sometimes at 4, When Head plays he bats at 4 for SA, if Head doesn't play and Carey does then Carey bats at 4 (sometimes 5), even when Head and Carey havent been playing they have batted someone like Drew or Kelly at 4 and Mcsweeney has still batted at 3 number 3 is not "the middle order"
Compelling argument. That said, I feel like this makes a case for bowling-allrounders (or worse) to take up the reins of opening (maybe 3 too), thereby giving the better batsmen more of the going when the going’s good. The limiting factor being the 80 over new ball I guess?
Is number 5 the new number 4? Brook, Head, Pant-Most successful batsmen for their countries over the last couple of WTC cycles. Same philosophy though-Get in after the shine is off and play shots freely. Captains haven’t figured out how to counter such batting
One of the things that has impacted batting success is the DRS; LBW's are far more readily obtained than beforehand, when batters could just play forward and usually not be given.
What's interesting is here in NZ we've got openers ripping up the FC circuit yet they do keep out of form Conway and pushed up the order Young without giving any of their new talent a try.
How good would Kanes numbers be if he moved to #4? Worse for the team for sure, but would love to know how he compares to rest of fab 4 in same position
I think the trend will only continue. I wouldn’t be surprised if 3, 4 AND 5 overtake openers as run-getters/the best batters in the side. Openers are increasingly averaging far less. Some are just there to chew up the new ball, others to get a quick fire 40. I can’t think of a single international side where the openers are among the top batsmen now Warner and Sharma are done.
My theory is that it is the one day game that is the cause of the slowly declining average because it has changed both the ability of the batsmen to concentrate as long and it also has caused them to take more risks. The reverse sweep and slog didn’t exist in test cricket, even say 10 years ago and it’s the reverse sweep is definitely the riskiest. I don’t feel sorry for a top bat who gets dismissed from such a silly shot. In fact he should be penalized and be dropped from the next game. Harsh I know but I’m an old school fan.
This actually sounds like a necessity in a context of test batting as a skill just dying. Openers begin to suck so you need to protect the best bat with a third opener. But since openers suck the third opener also sucks. And you've only got the 1-2 top quality batters and they're in at 4-5 and maybe 1.
I just wish we'd picked a genuine opener to come in. I like McSweeney, he's got a future but for this series specifically I just want someone thats more familiar with the position
Something similar to this topic: In women's ODIs since the start of 2023, only 3 hundreds has been scored at no.3 position. But Laura Wolvaardt and Smriti Mandhana have combined to score 9 100s between them this period.
The thinking behind test cricket has modernized. Effectively, ask the question: does it actually matter who gets the runs? Not really is the answer. If pope hanging around for half an hour wafting at things scrambling to a score of 20ish buys Joe root and Harry brook a bit more time then so be it. Head and Smith similarly. In test cricket nowadays you basically need 250 runs from 4,5 and 6 to be in the game. Accruing a further 120-150 from all the other players combined would probably see you win almost always in modern cricket. I think this combines well with the lack of consistent spinners in test cricket - the sort that might not always get wickets but can really keep an end tight. I genuinely believe that only Nathan Lyon can do this regularly for any of the major nations. Thus, 4,5,6 is where the change seamers and spinners are brought on and batters then fill their boots with nearly a boundary per over. One or two spinners are good on their home turf like Ashwin but not consistently across all conditions and pitches.
This is called real analysis
Let ε>0..
@@leadnitrate2194here we go again
How do you even think of these analysis. Just brilliant, Jarrod!
Markram is such an anomaly to this. He's opening in tests (not well, at least currently), and in T20s he is playing down the order as a finisher.
He will continue to frustrate me for as long as he plays, all the talent in the world just never puts it all together often enough, still I think he’s been abit better of late it’s still a new partnership with De Zorzi, loads of room to grow I hope.
Modern Australia out here with the best batter being 6 or 7th, the openers generally fall early, marnus falls early, smith and marsh go for less that 10, then Head and Carey Cary it home
It was similar for a while before Steve Smith came into his own a batsman. Haddin and the bowlers were getting the runs when the top and middle order kept crumbling like pastry crust.
Tbf Bethell opened in U19 cricket for the England side that lost the World Cup final. He just hasn't been allowed to bat higher in senior cricket due to being at Warwickshire.
Williamson has to stay at 3 because NZ has forgotten how to bat. Before Ravindra came in with some shine, their top 5 was: Latham, Conway, Kane, Nicholls, and Mitchell. 4 of them were out of form for at least a year. If Kane shifts one position down, he'll make more runs but it'll be worse for the team because number 3 for NZ is basically an opener these days given Conway's form and chucking Ravindra there is just cruel.
Also, cracking video as always Jarrod. I love videos like these on curious topics. It's very fun.
Your timeline is a bit janky there, Nicholls was struggling for a while but Mitchell was in good form pretty much right up until Rachin took over, Latham is criminally underrated, as always
"Before Ravindra came in" ??
You mean when Ross Taylor was playing? lol
For majority of Kane's career he has more or less been an opener lmao
@@rickrandomites it should be clear I'm talking about Nicholls
@@Nope-gu3ph Our top 5 "before Ravindra came in" included Ross Taylor so your point is invalid mate, makes no sense. Taylor retired in '22, Ravindra started in '21, not to mention Latham had 2 seasons of above 50 averages, Conway was averaging above 60, as was Mitchell. And Mitchell only started regularly in '22 as replacement for Nicholls. Ravindra coming in has had nothing to do with performance of the top 5, he was brought in specifically as a replacement for Taylor
This video makes so much sense given your focus on wobble seam over the past few years!
10:33 The biggest thing that signals this change in attitude for me is that England have been searching for a number three batter - even promoting unproven Bethell - yet no one is suggesting moving Harry Brook (with his outrageous skill and average) from 5 to 3. England want Root and Brook at 4 and 5 no matter what, rather than 3 and 4 with Brook coming in at first drop. Brook’s success is in part because he is sheltered from the new ball like Pietersen was when he came into the team. To me it’s a no brainer that Brook, who is young, talented and proven at test level should be England’s number three long term rather than Bethell who could learn his craft at 5 with a less steep learning curve. But that’s just because I still have that old school mentality.
i think in the modern era #5 has a steeper learning curve. its so specialised
It would have been good if you had made the video on test cricket history's best no 3 with Bradman sangakara Amla dravid ponting and Williamson as the main players of discussion with all the mention players above in the thumbnail pic would have been fun to watch.
Kane stays at three for the kiwis. He couldve dropped down if he wanted
Makes me appreciate him even more.
why do people keep saying Mcsweeney has been making runs in the middle order for South Australia? He legit bats at 3 in the shield team, sometimes at 4, When Head plays he bats at 4 for SA, if Head doesn't play and Carey does then Carey bats at 4 (sometimes 5), even when Head and Carey havent been playing they have batted someone like Drew or Kelly at 4 and Mcsweeney has still batted at 3
number 3 is not "the middle order"
Compelling argument.
That said, I feel like this makes a case for bowling-allrounders (or worse) to take up the reins of opening (maybe 3 too), thereby giving the better batsmen more of the going when the going’s good. The limiting factor being the 80 over new ball I guess?
Is number 5 the new number 4? Brook, Head, Pant-Most successful batsmen for their countries over the last couple of WTC cycles. Same philosophy though-Get in after the shine is off and play shots freely. Captains haven’t figured out how to counter such batting
There are only good reasons to listen to your analysis. Thank you, again!
The background music has a sound that had me thinking there was a mosquito flying around me the whole time
One of the things that has impacted batting success is the DRS; LBW's are far more readily obtained than beforehand, when batters could just play forward and usually not be given.
What's interesting is here in NZ we've got openers ripping up the FC circuit yet they do keep out of form Conway and pushed up the order Young without giving any of their new talent a try.
Yes, they need to put one or two of them forward now.
Given Openers is two positions is the number of runs divided by two to make the graph work? Otherwise openers are not doing well
GP
Yeah I'd imagine it's calculated as the average of both the openers. E.g Opener 1 gets 100 and Opener 2 gets 0, it would count as 50.
How good would Kanes numbers be if he moved to #4? Worse for the team for sure, but would love to know how he compares to rest of fab 4 in same position
Definitely would improve his numbers.
Beautiful insight.
I think the trend will only continue. I wouldn’t be surprised if 3, 4 AND 5 overtake openers as run-getters/the best batters in the side. Openers are increasingly averaging far less. Some are just there to chew up the new ball, others to get a quick fire 40. I can’t think of a single international side where the openers are among the top batsmen now Warner and Sharma are done.
Look up Rhys Mariu who opens for canterbury
fantastic stuff.
This channel needs more subscribers
Excellent video overall but you've forced Azhar Ali out even though he was genuinely a No. 3
My theory is that it is the one day game that is the cause of the slowly declining average because it has changed both the ability of the batsmen to concentrate as long and it also has caused them to take more risks. The reverse sweep and slog didn’t exist in test cricket, even say 10 years ago and it’s the reverse sweep is definitely the riskiest. I don’t feel sorry for a top bat who gets dismissed from such a silly shot. In fact he should be penalized and be dropped from the next game. Harsh I know but I’m an old school fan.
im sorry saying the slog didnt exist in test cricket ten years ago is just wrong. victor trumper was famous for it in the 1800s
does considering no 3 and no 4 do you include night watchmen stats
It makes you wonder what Williamsons stats would be like at 4 !
Much better; I have thought he should be at 4 for years now...he struggles against the swinging ball.
What about lorcan tucker for Ireland
Colouring Pietersen as south african, cheeky
This actually sounds like a necessity in a context of test batting as a skill just dying. Openers begin to suck so you need to protect the best bat with a third opener. But since openers suck the third opener also sucks. And you've only got the 1-2 top quality batters and they're in at 4-5 and maybe 1.
Vaughan and Trott are the only no.3s who made that spot their own for England in the past 25 years
I just wish we'd picked a genuine opener to come in. I like McSweeney, he's got a future but for this series specifically I just want someone thats more familiar with the position
The high average 00s was purely Amla, Pointing, Sangakarra and Dravid. These guys who averaged 50 plus inflated that spot.
Something similar to this topic:
In women's ODIs since the start of 2023, only 3 hundreds has been scored at no.3 position.
But Laura Wolvaardt and Smriti Mandhana have combined to score 9 100s between them this period.
I just tape my pin on the inside of my phone case.
I feel Ollie Pope has to be the worst number 3 ever to have played for England in the last 145 years history of cricket.
He is poor at 3, but then he is a poor test batsman overall.
The thinking behind test cricket has modernized. Effectively, ask the question: does it actually matter who gets the runs? Not really is the answer. If pope hanging around for half an hour wafting at things scrambling to a score of 20ish buys Joe root and Harry brook a bit more time then so be it. Head and Smith similarly. In test cricket nowadays you basically need 250 runs from 4,5 and 6 to be in the game. Accruing a further 120-150 from all the other players combined would probably see you win almost always in modern cricket. I think this combines well with the lack of consistent spinners in test cricket - the sort that might not always get wickets but can really keep an end tight. I genuinely believe that only Nathan Lyon can do this regularly for any of the major nations. Thus, 4,5,6 is where the change seamers and spinners are brought on and batters then fill their boots with nearly a boundary per over. One or two spinners are good on their home turf like Ashwin but not consistently across all conditions and pitches.
I love you analysis! But when you talk of number 3s and dont mention Dravid it’s unfair!
I'm the first one here probably