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