Ballance for Number 3?

Temp0101

Midfield
I know everyone seems to hate him, but some interesting stats on his batting from Twitter.

"In first-class cricket, he reaches 50 in 34.9% of his innings. That's better than Cook or Root. " Comparisons below in %

50's
Ballance: 34.9 Root: 34.4 Cook: 33.3 Bell: 31 Burns: 29.9 Bairstow: 29.8 Trott: 29.5 Hildreth: 29 Gubbins: 28.6 Moeen: 27.5 Clarke: 26.7 Pope: 26.3 Malan: 26.1 Denly: 24.9 Bopara: 24.1 Roy: 23.5 Stokes: 23.3 Westley: 23.2 Foakes: 23.1 Vince: 22.7 Buttler: 22.4 Jennings: 18.6

100's
Ballance: 14.6 Cook: 12.4 Clarke: 11.9 Bell: 11 Hildreth: 11 Root: 10.5 Trott: 9.8 Vince: 9.2 Bopara: 8.7 Jennings: 8.6 Bairstow: 8.4 Denly: 8.2 Burns: 7.6 Westley: 7.2 Malan: 7 Roy: 6.8 Gubbins: 6.7 Stokes: 6.5 Moeen: 6.1 Foakes: 6.1 Buttler: 3.3
 
He's a very good county batsman who's been consistent for a number of years and I don't doubt will continue to be so. However he has technical limitations which have repeatedly been exposed by high quality international bowling and I don't believe he's ever tightened up his game to rectify this.

Some players are just short of true international class, over the years we've seen the likes of Ramprakash, Key and Vince for example score boatloads at county level but unable to transfer this to consistently perform at test level, Ballance falls into the same category.
 

Temp0101

Midfield
He's a very good county batsman who's been consistent for a number of years and I don't doubt will continue to be so. However he has technical limitations which have repeatedly been exposed by high quality international bowling and I don't believe he's ever tightened up his game to rectify this.

Some players are just short of true international class, over the years we've seen the likes of Ramprakash, Key and Vince for example score boatloads at county level but unable to transfer this to consistently perform at test level, Ballance falls into the same category.
True, but he averages more at 3 in Tests for England than any other batsmen this millennium, has more runs than Jennings and has 4 centuries and 7 50's. Hard to argue with the facts.
 
True, but he averages more at 3 in Tests for England than any other batsmen this millennium, has more runs than Jennings and has 4 centuries and 7 50's. Hard to argue with the facts.
More than Trott? He had a great start to international cricket but I'd say he averages less than 25 post his first 15 tests roughly.
 

Temp0101

Midfield
Without wanting to sound unfair, those figures will be distorted by a very good start to international cricket at home to India and Sri Lanka - I'm not sure he's even scored a 100 since.
You may well be right, and I'm not trying to get into an argument, just putting something out there for discussion.
 
You may well be right, and I'm not trying to get into an argument, just putting something out there for discussion.
Whole point of the forum mate, it's a good discussion because Ballance is a consistent county performer who has a bit of credit in the international bank, albeit against weaker opposition.
 

Bri

Striker
I liked him but I always thought he batted too high for England.

And as everyone says his habit of stepping right back in the crease catches him out - and he hasn't tried to rectify it as far as I know.

I saw him at CLS a couple if years ago, he's undoubted quality.
 

rentaghost

Striker
Given the failures of our top order the argument for Balance is fair enough. I agree with others though - his technique at 3 against top class bowling is almost certainly going to get exposed and him batting at 5 doesn't really strengthen the team much. Whatever anyone suggests will have question marks against it. I would probably go any 3 from Burns, Stoneman, Roy and Vince in the top 3.I don't think Vinces technique gets exposed against top class bowling he just plays a shot too many when well set. I would rather take that then someone whos technique will fail them time and time again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bri

Temp0101

Midfield
Given the failures of our top order the argument for Balance is fair enough. I agree with others though - his technique at 3 against top class bowling is almost certainly going to get exposed and him batting at 5 doesn't really strengthen the team much. Whatever anyone suggests will have question marks against it. I would probably go any 3 from Burns, Stoneman, Roy and Vince in the top 3.I don't think Vinces technique gets exposed against top class bowling he just plays a shot too many when well set. I would rather take that then someone whos technique will fail them time and time again.
Vince has played 13 Tests and averages under 25 with no Test centuries and three 50s. After 13 Tests, Ballance averaged 52 with four Test centuries and five 50s. He was dropped two Tests later. Not sure what the case is for Vince. Maybe try Pope (who is not a number three by any stretch of the imagination) or Clarke, but wouldn't say they are definitely better bets than Ballance
 
Last edited:

SAFC 83

Midfield
Vince has played 13 Tests and averages under 25 with no Test centuries and three 50s. After 13 Tests, Ballance averaged 52 with four Test centuries and five 50s. He was dropped two Tests later. Not sure what the case is for Vince. Maybe try Pope (who is not a number three by any stretch of the imagination) or Clarke, but wouldn't say they are definitely better bets than Ballance
Mate, we all know how great Ballance's start to his test career was but as happens in international cricket teams worked out his technique and it quickly became obvious he had to be taken out of the firing line. He went away to work on his game and fix his technical weaknesses but when he came back nothing had changed and until it does I don't see how he can be considered for England in test cricket, unfortunately.

If Clarke keeps up his form he will likely be the next one we try.
 

Top