Now I don't play cricket to a high standard, so I don't know the psychological aspect of top class batting, but I never understand why batting orders aren't changed to allow logical partnerships that suit th situation and conditions. Both centurians did 'their' jobs well yesterday, but (assuming th forecast is accurate) by slowly accumulating big scores they have made a win very difficult. If Compton/ Trott were going to score runs quick enough to take account of th pitch and weather, then one of them wld hav had to play an unnatural game! Why not move Bell up th batting order to partner Compton?
In test cricket the first objective is to not lose, Compton and Trott achieved that one. If you look at the scorecard, only Cook, Trott, Root, Prior, Broad and Anderson averaged 3 or more an over. Bell was the slowest of the lot.
First objective against New Zealand is to win th series surely? I get what ur saying, you don't go out trying to smash sixes cos every batsman's priority is to stay in and score big. However, our innings was really imbalanced (painfully slow for four sessions then blisteringly fast scoring for one session). Surely a meaningful run rate on th first day, for th loss of up to four wickets wld hav allowed a bigger score at tea on day two. A score of 500-550 wld have made th follow-on much more likely, (and it sounds unlikely there will be time for four innings between the rain).
I think the disastrous first innings in the first test might have made them a bit defensive minded. Around 320 is about what I'd expect for a full days batting so they were 50 runs short but at only 2 wickets down set themselves up nicely to push on on the second day. Seems only Prior really went for it, England's unsung hero on so many occasions.
The number 3 spot is about being able to cope in a number of different circumstances. Openers always one in at 0-0. Trott bores the **** out of me but he is probably your best option at 3. He averages nearly 50. Bell can win you games from 3 but Trott will rarely lose you them. It really is a fascinating dynamic in the game. Test cricket...awesome.
Rebelbhoy, your point is that we have two excellent number 3's who have different attributes. I agree that 75% of th time trott's steadfastness makes him the best option, esp as cook is th opener most likely to stay in and most pitches are 'result pitches'. I still think there are some circumstances, like in this test, where bell wld be the wise choice.
I thought it was more a general thing about shifting around the order according to circumstance. I note your point on the psychology of it and maybe there is too much made of it. You have two players capable of filling the spot. Bell is probably better able to handle being down the order, so that is where they stick him. If number 3 is about adapting to the situation, then I take on board the notion that someone who plays at 3 sometimes should be able to drop down and another nominal 3 should be able to step up. Maybe captains are just too conservative to take such chances.
