Ballance for Number 3?

rentaghost

Striker
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
The issue of averages and the opposition has already been addressed. He averages 19 in 6 innings against Australia. If we were playing Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka or Glamorgan I would go for Ballance. I would back Vince to compile a score of sorts against a top class Australian attack then Ballance who would be stuck in his crease against a 90mph moving ball and fail every time. Lets face it our batsmen aren't good enough to be scoring massive against their bowlers on our pitches but we need batsmen that can play shots, not get stuck at the crease and make some useful scores. Vince looked capable against them, more so than Ballance did
 


The Rat

Striker
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.
Ballance is better than them like, 4 test 100s

Ballance was harshly treat, he was pushed in at number 3 when he should have batted 5

Even in his last recall he batted a lot more time than a lot of them do

I accept he has technical flaws but I think he is one of the best 6 batsman in England personally

The issue of averages and the opposition has already been addressed. He averages 19 in 6 innings against Australia. If we were playing Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka or Glamorgan I would go for Ballance. I would back Vince to compile a score of sorts against a top class Australian attack then Ballance who would be stuck in his crease against a 90mph moving ball and fail every time. Lets face it our batsmen aren't good enough to be scoring massive against their bowlers on our pitches but we need batsmen that can play shots, not get stuck at the crease and make some useful scores. Vince looked capable against them, more so than Ballance did
Very harsh that, scored runs against India too.

I like Vince and would recall him but Ballance is a better player IMO

His record in test and county cricket proves it

His technique against pace bowling would see him get destroyed again in the Ashes
at 3 yeah, this is the problem though, we keep forcing players out of position, he'd score runs at 5, or he would when he was right in form, maybe not now

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.
Clarke won't score more runs at 3 like, another middle order player

We can't just keep shoving players up there

Pope is next in line, been scoring bucket loads, but another middle order player
 
Last edited:
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.
That’s becuase several batsman have batted too high and been thrown in the deep end unfairly to allow more experienced and better batsman to bat lower down to keep their averages up.

The fact the team is regularly 3 down for next to nought, is not important to some.

Ballance is better than them like, 4 test 100s

Ballance was harshly treat, he was pushed in at number 3 when he should have batted 5

Even in his last recall he batted a lot more time than a lot of them do

I accept he has technical flaws but I think he is one of the best 6 batsman in England personally



Very harsh that, scored runs against India too.

I like Vince and would recall him but Ballance is a better player IMO

His record in test and county cricket proves it



at 3 yeah, this is the problem though, we keep forcing players out of position, he'd score runs at 5, or he would when he was right in form, maybe not now



Clarke won't score more runs at 3 like, another middle order player

We can't just keep shoving players up there

Pope is next in line, been scoring bucket loads, but another middle order player
All very good points but somebody has to bat at 3?
 
Last edited:

rentaghost

Striker
Ballance is better than them like, 4 test 100s

Ballance was harshly treat, he was pushed in at number 3 when he should have batted 5

Even in his last recall he batted a lot more time than a lot of them do

I accept he has technical flaws but I think he is one of the best 6 batsman in England personally



Very harsh that, scored runs against India too.

I like Vince and would recall him but Ballance is a better player IMO

His record in test and county cricket proves it



at 3 yeah, this is the problem though, we keep forcing players out of position, he'd score runs at 5, or he would when he was right in form, maybe not now



Clarke won't score more runs at 3 like, another middle order player

We can't just keep shoving players up there

Pope is next in line, been scoring bucket loads, but another middle order player
Ballance's issue isn't so much 3 or 5 its simply that quality pace bowlers bowling full at him will always get him out whether he is batting 3, 5 or 11. He did get runs against India but it was a poor attack at the time. Ishant couldn't bowl a full length and Shami wasn't the bowler he is now. Kumar and Binny are decent enough but not of the pace that would worry Ballance. If we were facing that attack in the summer I would pick him as well. He is much more likely to score big against a moderate attack than all of the other contenders but also more likely to fail against Cummins, Hazlewood and Starc IMO.
 
D

Deleted member 35923

Guest
He bats behind his stumps against properly quick bowlers. That’s a bit of a problem
 

The Rat

Striker
Some fair points but nobody missed the obvious point that the ball is not as new, hard or likely to swing at 5 than at 3

There’s no 5 spot yo for grabs so irrelevant I guess

But he’s a good player

My top 3 is stoneman, Vince, Roy

Unless they have nightmares this season that’s my 3

But if Buttler broke his finger, Ballance should bat 5
 

rentaghost

Striker
Some fair points but nobody missed the obvious point that the ball is not as new, hard or likely to swing at 5 than at 3

There’s no 5 spot yo for grabs so irrelevant I guess

But he’s a good player

My top 3 is stoneman, Vince, Roy

Unless they have nightmares this season that’s my 3

But if Buttler broke his finger, Ballance should bat 5
Yes - assuming all are in reasonable form I wouldn't argue with that. I think Burns will probably get the nod ahead of Stoneman or Vince though.
 

The Rat

Striker
Yes - assuming all are in reasonable form I wouldn't argue with that. I think Burns will probably get the nod ahead of Stoneman or Vince though.
Yeah he will for sure

I’m not convinced by him, not arsed he’s not pretty just not sure

I’m annoyed (you’ve noticed I’m always annoyed) that that the judgement of success has changed, now people want people to bat time, the media, Rocky did that in oz and NZ, 6 50s, but then it’s oh but he didn’t get 100s

He’s the best opener in England for me but maybe I’m biased.

The media has a big impact on selection though

A good example is Burns v Jennings. KJ scored a quite brilliant 100 in Sri Lanka but then gets dropped as it’s different conditions, fair enough I agree

But Burns is getting praised for his composure in Sri Lanka as a reason to get picked. Hang on, he was massively out performed their by Jennings, if his runs there are irrelevant so are Burns

Rant over

PS I’m not for one minute suggesting Jennings should be picked!

Massive post that, no need
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bri

rentaghost

Striker
Yeah he will for sure

I’m not convinced by him, not arsed he’s not pretty just not sure

I’m annoyed (you’ve noticed I’m always annoyed) that that the judgement of success has changed, now people want people to bat time, the media, Rocky did that in oz and NZ, 6 50s, but then it’s oh but he didn’t get 100s

He’s the best opener in England for me but maybe I’m biased.

The media has a big impact on selection though

A good example is Burns v Jennings. KJ scored a quite brilliant 100 in Sri Lanka but then gets dropped as it’s different conditions, fair enough I agree

But Burns is getting praised for his composure in Sri Lanka as a reason to get picked. Hang on, he was massively out performed their by Jennings, if his runs there are irrelevant so are Burns

Rant over

PS I’m not for one minute suggesting Jennings should be picked!

Massive post that, no need
:lol:

Some good points there. I'm unsure about Burns - I haven't written him off yet and do think he's got something. Having gone for him he probably deserves a start in the summer.
 

The Rat

Striker
:lol:

Some good points there. I'm unsure about Burns - I haven't written him off yet and do think he's got something. Having gone for him he probably deserves a start in the summer.
Yeah not written him off meself either mate

Been to lot of surrey games n seen him score lot of runs. Just think stoneman is better
 

TheRey

Midfield
Ballance is better than them like, 4 test 100s

Ballance was harshly treat, he was pushed in at number 3 when he should have batted 5

Even in his last recall he batted a lot more time than a lot of them do

I accept he has technical flaws but I think he is one of the best 6 batsman in England personally



Very harsh that, scored runs against India too.

I like Vince and would recall him but Ballance is a better player IMO

His record in test and county cricket proves it



at 3 yeah, this is the problem though, we keep forcing players out of position, he'd score runs at 5, or he would when he was right in form, maybe not now



Clarke won't score more runs at 3 like, another middle order player

We can't just keep shoving players up there

Pope is next in line, been scoring bucket loads, but another middle order player
I think the issues with Ballance aren't simply a case of the position he bats, personally.

He's quite clearly a very talented lad, but he has a monumental flaw. And IMO, the way he gets himself into the crease, it wouldn't matter if the ball was 8 overs old or 78 - he'd be bang in trouble. I think even if he was to bat at 5 (which is another debate entirely anyway), he'd still struggle.

Any captain worth their salt would see Ballance walking out, throw the ball to their two quick lads, and get him early.

Yeah not written him off meself either mate

Been to lot of surrey games n seen him score lot of runs. Just think stoneman is better
A nice argument to have, from a Surrey perspective ;)
 
Last edited:

The Rat

Striker
I think the issues with Ballance aren't simply a case of the position he bats, personally.

He's quite clearly a very talented lad, but he has a monumental flaw. And IMO, the way he gets himself into the crease, it wouldn't matter if the ball was 8 overs old or 78 - he'd be bang in trouble. I think even if he was to bat at 5 (which is another debate entirely anyway), he'd still struggle.

Any captain worth their salt would see Ballance walking out, throw the ball to their two quick lads, and get him early.


A nice argument to have, from a Surrey perspective ;)

Here your argument but disagree

Softer ball

No coincidence he played so well in fry conditions again Sri Lanka n India

Down order
 

rentaghost

Striker
Here your argument but disagree

Softer ball

No coincidence he played so well in fry conditions again Sri Lanka n India

Down order
To be fair he got all of his hundreds batting 3. However India's attack was really poor with Sharma unable to pitch it up and the likes of Kumar and Binny 80mph. Its batting down the order where he hasn't done so well. That could lend himself to people suggesting he should bat at 3 but he technique is ill equipped to face their bowling against the new ball IMO
 

The Rat

Striker
To be fair he got all of his hundreds batting 3. However India's attack was really poor with Sharma unable to pitch it up and the likes of Kumar and Binny 80mph. Its batting down the order where he hasn't done so well. That could lend himself to people suggesting he should bat at 3 but he technique is ill equipped to face their bowling against the new ball IMO
The Indian attack wasn’t poor at all

Not sure why you’re trotting this line
 

rentaghost

Striker
The Indian attack wasn’t poor at all

Not sure why you’re trotting this line
Not sure why you keep trotting out the line that Balance is a number 5 when all of his hundreds have come batting at 3 ;)


It was a poor Indian attack. Shami then isnt the bowler he is now. He was on his first tour and was all over the shop averaging 73 for every wicket. Kumar and Binny are way short of international class and Sharma even now has a test average of 34 and bowls a bit too short to be really good in English conditions. It was a poor Indian attack and that's a fact rather than an opinion.
 

The Rat

Striker
Not sure why you keep trotting out the line that Balance is a number 5 when all of his hundreds have come batting at 3 ;)


It was a poor Indian attack. Shami then isnt the bowler he is now. He was on his first tour and was all over the shop averaging 73 for every wicket. Kumar and Binny are way short of international class and Sharma even now has a test average of 34 and bowls a bit too short to be really good in English conditions. It was a poor Indian attack and that's a fact rather than an opinion.
:lol: no its not, its your opinion.
 
Here your argument but disagree

Softer ball

No coincidence he played so well in fry conditions again Sri Lanka n India

Down order
He's not necessarily guaranteed not to be facing the new ball at 5 given England's top order frailties!

He'll still be a sitting duck if/when it reverses at any decent pace.

Plus, we don't really need a number 5 with Bairstow, Buttler, Stokes and Ali in the side already.
 

Bri

Striker
He's not necessarily guaranteed not to be facing the new ball at 5 given England's top order frailties!

He'll still be a sitting duck if/when it reverses at any decent pace.

Plus, we don't really need a number 5 with Bairstow, Buttler, Stokes and Ali in the side already.
I don't think anyone's really suggesting he gets a place - it's just that he's a 'what might have been' player.

Bags of talent but a flaw that he evidently refused to address.
 

rentaghost

Striker
:lol: no its not, its your opinion.
So a bowling average of 73 by Shami in English conditions is good in whos opinion? - name one person
So a quick bowlers career average of 34 in all conditions is good in whos opinion? - name one person
Kumar and Binny are quality test bowlers - name one prson.

Name one person apart from yourself that would day that group of 4 was a good test attack in 2014 and I will accept its not a fact ;) Out of the major test playing nations it would be the worst bar Sri Lanka playing now.

Anyway Ballance - 4 hundreds at 3 none batting further down. Not quite what you expected eh? ;)
 

Top