A worrying thing (for me) is that Joe Root continues to evade what I regard as his true calling and responsibility in the England side. This being the crucial Number 3 spot in the batting order. And it is because he is one of the greats of the game, with his capabilities still in fine working order at age 35 and 6 months, that I am urging him to return to this position – one which he has forsaken quite a long time ago.
In his career so far, Joe Root has tried the Number 3 position – the most demanding of all – a considerable number of times. Of his 165 visits to the crease for England in the team’s first innings, doing so on 31 scattered occasions, starting with T2 to T4 during the Ashes series in December 2013 under Captain Cook. Then a long gap when he batted 14 times at Number 5 and twelve times at Number 5 (and once at 6): his next appearance at Number 3 coming two and a half years later, against Pakistan (at home) in July 2016; and continuing in that position for the following series against Bangladesh (away) and India (away).
Despite doing well during those India matches, he returned to batting at Number 4 for the following home series against South Africa and against the West Indies during the summer of 2017, and after that also for the Ashes series Down Under (November 2017 to January 2018). Then dipping his toe in the Number 3 water in TI – though not in T2 – against New Zealand (away) in early-2018.
Root tried his hand batting in the Number 3 spot again in the following home series against Pakistan and against India in the summer of 2018 – though reverting to Number 4 in the final match of that India series. And so it went on. In the following three-match series in Sri Lanka…you’ve guessed it…he continued at Number 4. Though not long afterwards (after just one more series) he was back at 3 for (most of) the Ashes series of summer 2019, then ducking back to number 4 for the next two series – New Zealand (away) and South Africa (away) – before mixing batting at Numbers 3 and 4 against the West Indies (two matches, at home) and against Pakistan (three matches, at home) during the summer of 2020.
He was back at Number 4 for the next five series until having another go at Number 3 in the three matches against West Indies (away) in March 2022; then yet again reverting to Number 4 until a solitary appearance at first drop in T1 against Pakistan in early-October 2024 – making his highest ever Test score! Ironically, it has signalled adieu to that position rather than au revoir! England have played a further four series since then (plus hosting one match versus Zimbabwe).
A Veritable Yo-Yo
Plotting these appearances of Root at first drop reveals a yo-yo thread, so frequent have been the switches.
From December 2013 through to March 2022, Root occupied the Number 3 spot a total of 30 times in 104 of England’s first innings: 29%. That occurring at various times from his 13th through to his 116th innings.
And during the five and three-quarter years from July 2016 to March 2022, it was more intensive: 27 times at Number 3 during his 74 first team innings – 36.5% – occurring from his 43rd to his 116th innings.
Balance of Performance
Whilst it is the case that Joe Root has performed less effectively at Number 3 than at Number 4, taking all his innings in these two positions into account (72 and 185 innings, respectively), the performance differential isn’t great. Based on his batting averages – 41.25 versus 50.92 – the gap is no more than one-fifth (19%).
During nearly all of the period from December 2013 through to March 2022, his batting average at Number 4 was 50.1, very similar to his overall average in that position, as noted above.
Yet, for whatever reason, Root seems to have developed a strong aversion to returning to the number 3 spot, in effect avoiding it for the past four and a quarter years – ignoring that fleeting appearance there nearly two years ago when Ben Duckett was at number 4 – an enforced disturbance to his usual role as opener.
(The Cricinfo website tells us that Duckett had dislocated his left thumb while taking a catch to end Pakistan’s first innings. Though the team doctor quickly popped it back into place, he was unable to open the innings and came in at number four once the thumb had settled.)
The (presumed) Conventional Wisdom…Overturned
If a poll were to be taken of commentators on Test cricket, the conventional wisdom to emerge would, I presume, be that in general (taking all participating nations) batsmen are thought to perform rather better at Number 4 than at 3. However, of the fifteen England batsmen who are, validly, Joe Root’s comparitors since 1945, only four of them – Denis Compton, Peter May, Keith Fletcher and Allan Lamb – have borne out this belief, as detailed in the Appendix.
Of the other eleven comparitors, as many as nine have performed distinctly better at Number 3 than at 4; with Graveney and Hussain doing better there by a smaller margin: 8%. This is testimony to their versatility, able to hold the fort after an early breakthrough by the opposition whilst also being able to flourish and play like a classical number four when a substantial opening partnership has been forged. On his statistics so far, Joe Root doesn’t belong in this company. Simple as that.
(Also surprising is that four of these comparitors have actually done materially better, on scoring average, at number 3 than at the often coveted number 5 position: Ken Barrington, Tom Graveney, Ted Dexter and Derek Randall – with Gower and Gatting doing similarly well in these two spots.)
The Interlopers
The England team selectors and captains Cook until December 2017, and Stokes from June 2022 – with Root in the job between times – have acceded to Root’s wishes. And during the just curtained New Regime under Brendon McCullum (BMC), they have “thrown lambs to the slaughter” at first drop. There’s been a frequently fidgety and over-impetuous Ollie Pope for the bulk of the time, having a total of 73 innings under BMC, from age 24 and a half through to a couple of weeks before his 28th birthday – nearly always at that position in the order unless Bethell was present.
Pope has averaged 33.3 in this position under BMC (putting aside his two matches against lowly Ireland and Zimbabwe). Perhaps “acceptable” as a summary figure, though inconsistency and his manner of batting, especially early in his innings, are the warranted criticisms.
Pope has been briefly interspersed with, and then superseded by, a young and inexperienced Jacob Bethell – from when recently turned 21 years of age through to his latest stint at age 22 and eight months. Manifestly, a high calibre batsman; but despite strong showings in second digs, in his nine first innings for England – eight of them at Number 3 – Bethell has moved above 16 runs only once (scoring 74 versus New Zealand in T3 of the most recent series).
A regular feature of Bethell’s dismissals when at first drop is being caught either behind or in the slips cordon, often tempted into driving at pace deliveries outside off stump (some of which could have safely been left alone). This is unbecoming of a batsman in this position in the order, especially as he has arrived at the crease in England’s first innings with the score on: 9, 12, 32, 7, 35, 16, 45 and 8. Just three moderately good starts in that series of eight! Virtually opening the innings on the other five occasions. (In only one match has he been tried elsewhere in the order: at Number 6 versus India, for resulting scores of 6 and 5.)
One notable commentator has condoned Bethell’s first innings failures by saying he’s a quick learner, usually making amends in his second innings. Perhaps true, though he has been a premature injection at Number 3, it seems, in view of the trend. And this “making amends” point is certainly untrue of the latest three match series against New Zealand, with Bethell making second innings scores of 14, naught and naught.
Contrast the youth of these younger of these two “lambs” with the feature of top class batsmen tending to reach a peak of capability in their mid to late-twenties, and quite often extending later than that. Below are the peak performance periods for all of the comparitors, plus Kevin Pietersen and Mike Atherton. The implication is all too obvious!
Denis Compton when age 29-31
Tom Graveney hit his straps from age 26
Peter May at his best from age 24-28
Ken Barrington best when in his early to mid-30s
Colin Cowdrey best from age 25 to 33
“““““““““““““`
Ted Dexter maturing at age 24
Keith Fletcher being at his peak from around age 28-30
Derek Randall best from age 26-32
Allan Lamb best from age 28-30 and later on when age 34-37
David Gower hit his straps from the very start, at age 21
““““““““““““`
Mike Gatting best at age 27-30
Alec Stewart at his best from age 28-31 and age 33-36
Nasser Hussain best during age 28-30 with a resurgence when age 33-36
Kevin Pietersen best at age 26-28
Mike Atherton: best early on, at age 21-22, followed by a lengthy resurgence at age 25-30
Michael Vaughan at his best from age 26-30 and, after a break, from age 32-33
Ian Bell best from age 23-29 and then age 31-33
For these batsmen, the grand average performance peak – at its initiation – works out to be age 26.
In Joe Root’s case, blossoming early on, from age 22, and with no discernible real slumps in form of any note thereafter. The comparable age for Aussie and Indian batsmen post-WW2 might be a little lower. I haven’t done the analysis as this isn’t relevant to the point I’m making in an England team – and quintessentially English – context.
In view of the discussion and argument presented so far, I feel that the recent heady laudation of Joe Root is somewhat overdone – perhaps misplaced even. Yet I firmly believe he has the batting talent and the repertoire of shots for the Number 3 spot as shown, in part, early on in his Test career by his ten innings when opening the batting for England in the Ashes series of 2013/14, in which he averaged 37.7 – scoring 30, 68 and 180, accompanied by two other starts (11 and 16) and 13 not out. This done when facing the high calibre deliveries of Mitchell Starc, Ryan Harris, James Pattinson and Peter Siddle.
Also, Root has shown he can handle the Number 3 spot even when England get off to a poor start, losing their first wicket for less than 30 runs: ie when the openers have together faced about 7 to 10 overs. I find there isn’t a strong correlation between a poor England start – as indicated, put at under 30 runs – and Root making a relatively low score (for him) – put at under 40 runs – when coming in at Number 3 (including his 1st and 2nd team innings). When Root has batted at Number 3, on close to half (44%) of England’s poor start occasions he has made at least 40 runs (18 times out of 41). So I think it is eminently reasonable to conclude that he has the game to succeed at Number 3.
Moreover, as the following charts show, he has been on a mild upward trend in the Number 3 spot – suggesting a slightly enhanced expertise in that role through time.
When batting at Number 4, his trend line is mildly downward sloping:
JMB to be Commissioned?
To move to potential action in the near future, as further context I ask you – the reader – to acknowledge that the crucial skill of researchers – contrary to many lay persons’ belief – lies not in delving into, and beavering away at, reams of data. Rather, it is having the intuition and imagination, backed by some informed insight, to formulate potentially rewarding hypotheses that are capable of being tested. As illustrated so well by the work of the greatest scientist of the twentieth century, Albert Einstein. To quote him:
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.
My working hypothesis for testing is that Joe Root’s problem with the Number 3 spot really has little, or nothing at all, to do with his scoring sequences there, nor his ability to master that position. Instead, I expect that it is predominantly – or wholly – a psychological barrier that he has created and is being confronted with. He may well be intimidated by it…viewing first drop as a rather forbidding place. If this is confirmed after clinical probing, his aversion to going in at first drop can surely be overcome…with the right sort of help.
In the team’s interest, Brendon McCullum’s successor should give Root the telephone number for Mike Brearley’s (JMB) and get him to scoot down to London’s NW3 district where JMB still provides psychoanalysis and psychotherapy services. In general, a series of about 12 to 15 weekly sessions is sufficient to see a significant improvement in a patient’s problems, and could perhaps be expected in regard to Root’s aversion.
And to finish with, here is something I am suggesting for JMB to ponder: is it conceivable that Joe Root has, sub-consciously, wanted to do less well at Number 3 than at 4, so that he could plead his case for occupying the Number 4 spot more convincingly?
England batsmen’s Test averages at different positions in the order (post-WW2)
Joe Root – the Focus of Comparisons:
Best at no. 4 and, especially, at no. 5:
Opening: 11 inns, ave 41.7
at No. 3: 60 inns, ave 43.6 (during 2013/14 to 2024)
at No. 4: 186 inns, ave 51.7….plus 19% compared with No.3
at N0. 5: 36 inns, ave 65.6…..plus 50% compared with No.3
Whole career (to 22nd June 2026): 302 inns, ave 50.8.
“““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
England greats as comparitors
Only 15 other batsmen have enough inns at nos. 3, 4 and 5 from 1946 to the present to warrant a comparison with Root:
Denis Compton
Best at nos. 4 & 5 (nearly equally)
-
- at 3: 12 inns, ave 34.8
- at 4: 86 inns, ave 53.6
- at 5: 22 inns, ave 56.9
Whole career: 131 inns at 50.1
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
Bill Edrich
Shone at no. 3
-
- Opening: 15 inns at 23.6
- at 3: 41 inns at 51.2
- only 1 inns at no.4 and 1 inns at no.5
Whole career: 63 inns at 40.0
““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
Ken Barrington
Easily best at no. 3, next at no. 4
-
- at 3: 40 inns at 77.2
- at 4: 44 inns at 59.2
- at 5: 31 inns at 42.0
Whole career: 131 inns at 58.7
“““““““““““““““““““““““““`
Colin Cowdrey
His adaptability led to him filling various roles.
Best at nos. 3 & 5.
- Opening: 38 inns (1,527 runs), ave 42.4
- at number 3: 36 inns (1,565 runs), ave 44.7
- at number 4: 47 inns, ave 38.3 14% down vs performance at no. 3
- at number 5: 54 inns, ave 49.5 11% up vs perf at no. 3
Whole career: 188 inns, ave 44.1.
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
Peter May
Best, by a long way, at no. 4 – even if treating his Not Outs as completed inns.
- at No. 3: 46 inns – 1,891 runs – at 42.0 (I not out)
- at No. 4: 49 inns – 2,383 runs – at 58.1 (8 not outs, inc 285*)
Whole career: 106 inns at 46.8
“““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
Tom Graveney
Exceptionally consistent in his three main positions.
Best at no. 3.
-
- at No. 3: 37 inns at 49.4
- at No. 4: 35 inns at 45.5
- at No. 5: 28 inns at 43.6
Whole career: 123 inns at 44.4
““““““““““““““““““““““““`
Ted Dexter
Far better at nos.3 & 5 than at no. 4
-
- at no. 3: 57 inns at 51.8
- at no. 4: 11 inns at 37.1
- at no. 5: 21 inns at 48.2
Whole career: 102 inns at 47.9
“““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
Keith Fletcher
Better at no. 4 than at no. 3. Best at no. 5.
-
- at 3: 20 inns at 21.4
- at 4: 23 inns at 36.1
- at 5: 44 inns at 46.7
Whole career: 96 inns at 39.9
“““““““““““““““““““““““““““
Derek Randall
Distinctly best at no. 3
-
- at 3: 24 inns at 34.9
- at 4: 14 inns at 21.2
- at 5: 12 inns at 27.9
Whole career: 79 inns at 33.4
““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
Mike Gatting
Best at nos. 3 & 5
-
- at 3: 37 inns at 40.3
- at 4: 29 inns at 34.8
- at 5: 48 inns at 38.8
Whole career: 138 inns at 35.5
““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
David Gower
Best at nos. 3 & 5 (virtually identical)
-
- at 3: 56 inns at 49.1
- at 4: 91 inns at 38.4
- at 5: 49 inns at 49.5
Whole career: 204 inns at 44.2
“““““““““““““““““““““““““““
Allan Lamb
-
- at 3: 13 inns at 27.9
- at 4: 67 inns at 38.4
- at 5: 49 inns at 40.1
Whole career: 139 inns at 36.1
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
Tony Greig – only 4 inns above 5th position
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
Graham Thorpe
- only 3 inns at number 3
- one-third better at no. 5 (ave 56.2) than no. 4 (ave 41.7)
Whole career: 179 inns, ave 44.7
“““““““““““““““““““““““““““
Kevin Pietersen
- only 2 inns at number 3
- the great majority at number 4
““““““““““““““““““““““`
Nasser Hussain
– a bit better at no. 4 than at no. 3
-
- at 3: 65 inns at 40.5
- at 4: 82 inns at 37.4
- at 5: only 11 inns, at 27.5
Whole career: 171 inns at 37.2
““““““““““““““““““““““““`
Michael Vaughan
Best at opening; and better at no. 3 than at no. 4
-
- opening: 72 inns at 45.5
- no. 3: 38 inns at 40.4
- no. 4: 30 inns at 32.7
Whole career: 147 inns at 41.4
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
Ian Bell
Best at no. 5 – good at no. 3 – weakest at no. 4
-
- at no.3: 48 inns at 38.0
- at no.4: 49 inns at 33.1
- at no.5: 60 at 48.2
Whole career: 205 inns at 42.7
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
Alec Stewart
Equally best when opening & at no. 3…..Weakest at no. 4
Opening: 77 inns at 44.6
at 3: 35 inns at 43.6
at 4: 23 inns at 29.4
at 5: 44 inns at 33.3 Whole career: 235 inns at 39.5
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
Andrew Flintoff
- rarely batted above no. 6
“““““““““““““““““““““““““`
Ben Stokes
- only 2 inns at number 3
- 8 inns at number 4
“““““““““““““““““““““““““
Jonny Bairstow – similar performance at nos. 3 & 5
- at 3: 14 inns at 30.8
- at 4: only 2 inns
- at 5: 57 inns at 34.8
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
Ollie Pope
- at 3: 63 inns at 39.6
- at 4: only 6 inns (at 16.8)
- at 5: 11 inns at 30.0
“““““““““““““““““““““““““““
Harry Brook
- only 1 inns above number 5 in the order.
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
Jamie Smith
“““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““