Batting order by numbers

England haven’t been averse to shifting around their lower order of late, with spectacular success at Lord’s, as Stokes embraced the No. 6 position with gusto.

Why not be bolder? Here is my proposal: institute a perma-flexi batting order based on current career runs. After all, players with most career wickets tend to bowl earlier in the innings than those with a mere handful, so why should different rules apply to batsmen? If players aspire to being openers, they’ll have to earn it.

As of 3rd June 2015, this is how England’s line-up would look. Cook is the only player to retain the position he played in during the last Test:

  1. Cook (9000)
  2. Bell (7354)
  3. Broad (2285)
  4. Root (2273)
  5. Ballance (1096)
  6. Anderson (1002)
  7. Stokes (683)
  8. Buttler (474)
  9. Ali (456)
  10. Lyth (150)
  11. Wood (48)

If Plunkett (238) returns to replace Wood, he’ll slot in at 10, thus pushing Lyth down to 11.

I can’t see any problems with this strategy and am frankly amazed the selectors haven’t already implemented it. Does anyone have an email address for Trevor Bayliss?

One thought on “Batting order by numbers

  1. Professional sports people are like children, their every need taken care of, etc. Children are used to being listed alphabetically. Therefore, England should open the batting with Ali and Anderson. Ballance, Bell, Broad and Buttler to follow.

    Obvious really.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *