Test cricket’s vanishing specialists: What went wrong with No. 3 batters

Bengaluru: Opening an innings in Test cricket is often called the toughest job for a batter, but batting at No. 3 is no less demanding. The role comes with its own set of challenges, where skill is essential but temperament is just as important. A No. 3 batter has to think like an opener and a middle-order player at the same time. He might walk out to face the second ball of the innings, or he could spend hours waiting in the dressing room before getting a chance to bat. Staying mentally ready for both scenarios is what makes the position so unique and so difficult.

It is no coincidence that many of the game’s greatest batters made this spot their own. From Don Bradman and Ian Chappell to more modern greats like Rahul Dravid, Ricky Ponting, Kumar Sangakkara, Younis Khan and Hashim Amla, No. 3 has long been home to cricketing royalty. In more recent times, Cheteshwar Pujara carried forward Dravid’s legacy with distinction, while Kane Williamson stands out as the last of that elite group still going strong.

These players did more than just occupy a slot in the batting order. Their performances often made them the best batters in their respective teams. While most of them scored the bulk of their Test runs at No. 3, there was no single template for success. Dravid was known for wearing attacks down with patience and discipline, whereas Ponting and Sangakkara combined flair with control, attacking without crossing the line into recklessness.

Different as their styles were, their mindset rarely wavered. They were calm under pressure and unshaken by early setbacks. Whether it was steadying the ship after a quick wicket or pushing the advantage after a strong start, these batters frequently shaped the direction of a Test match.

In recent years, though, the standard at No. 3 has noticeably dipped. Apart from Williamson, it is hard to point to many batters who held the position with consistency across teams last year. The numbers tell a sobering story. (see the table)

England’s Ollie Pope was eventually dropped for the final two Ashes Tests after a string of low scores. Australia’s Marnus Labuschagne has managed to hold on largely because there are few obvious alternatives. India, meanwhile, are still searching for clarity over who will bat at No. 3. New Zealand remain fortunate to have Williamson, while South Africa have experimented with Wiaan Mulder and Tristan Stubbs with promising results.

Stubbs, who first made his name in T20 cricket, has shown signs that he could grow into a long-term Test option. England’s Jacob Bethell has done something similar, announcing himself with a superb century at No. 3 in the final Ashes Test in Sydney. Both youngsters are in high demand on the franchise circuit, and whether they can sustain their Test ambitions over time remains to be seen. Overall, though, the picture is far from reassuring.

Former India batter WV Raman believes the roots of the problem lie in how players are developed at the age-group level.

“The one major difference between the cricketers of earlier generations and now is that in those days, they prepared you and made you play matches, which means they made you develop your technical skills, have a solid foundation and then go and play matches. These days, you play and then develop as you are playing,” he tells DHoS.

“So it’s like going well-prepared for a theoretical examination to attending without preparations the objective type examinations, where you get multiple choices, you take one hit or miss it. So that’s how this is, a modern day trend.”

T20 cricket is often blamed for the decline, but Raman feels the issue is more complex.

“We talk about it, but the fact of the matter is that you cannot escape a player looking to play aggressively because, let’s face it, that’s what they’re brought up on,” he explains. “In the last decade or so, there have been leagues cropping up all over the place, and it’s also lucrative.

“The other factor is that, at the end of the day, however good you are, only 15 players can represent the national side at a time. That means cricketers have to figure out where they can realistically find a slot and make a living from the game.

“All those considerations come into play. You can’t expect players to chase something they might never catch. Some may realise that playing for the country is unlikely, so they look elsewhere. In leagues around the world, there are more teams and more opportunities. Being one of 120 players in a league squad is very different from fighting for one of 15 national spots. Naturally, players weigh those odds.”

It is a compelling argument, but does that mean the decline is irreversible? Raman believes there is still room for course correction, though responsibility does not rest on players alone.

“It’s a case of how the individual feels about it and how he wants to play the game,” Raman says. “This is absolutely personal. There shouldn’t be compulsion, because once a player finishes his career, he still has to live his life comfortably.

“The prime of his life is spent playing cricket, so he has to feel that the decision to devote his youth to the game was worth it. It’s like any job where you think about long-term security. Sport is risky. One injury and you’re out, and suddenly there’s no safety net.”

For years, Test cricket has been romanticised while the shorter formats were looked at with suspicion. First it was ODIs, now T20Is, often labelled as the enemy. A subtle divide has emerged where red-ball specialists are celebrated and white-ball players are sometimes dismissed as mercenaries.

While it is true that Test cricket demands greater nuance and patience, players cannot and should not be forced into a particular mould. The realities of modern cricket are very different. That said, Raman feels administrators can still play a role in making transitions between formats easier.

“The administrators have to work out how they can facilitate cricketers adapting to different formats,” he says. “Scheduling is really the only tool they have. Can they structure it in a way that makes life easier for players? That’s what they need to think about.

“Even then, many players will still make their own choices. You can’t force anyone to choose the path you want them to.”

Despite the challenges, Raman prefers a pragmatic outlook.

“My inference is simple. Don’t compare different generations. Ask players to do what is possible in the era they play in,” he says. “Every team is struggling with this, not just one. That tells you this is the reality of the current era. We have to accept it and move forward.”