Joe Root shows strength and style to make his mark on new order

SHORTLY after the Ashes had been retained in 1978-79, John Cleese received a letter from the England captain, Mike Brearley, asking whether he would write a "forward" for Brearley's latest book. Cleese was delighted, not just because of the basic spelling error, but because he could leave the letter lying around to impress his friends.

Cleese liked the game, liked reading Brearley even more, and enjoyed handing out some occasional advice to England's captain, such as on one occasion when he cautioned against Brearley moving to No 3. After repeated failures there, and another by David Gower, Brearley quipped that he might ask the scorecard printer to "enumerate the position between 2 and 4 as '2a'".

No 3 is a curious, not entirely straightforward slot in the order. You might be in second ball (Nasser Hussain used to complain that batting behind me he was an ersatz opener in any case) or not at all; you need to have the technical competence to see off the new ball in the event of an early strike, but also the confidence to counter-attack or continue any dominance that the openers might have enjoyed. It demands a player who is both strong, technically and mentally, and versatile.

Often, identities are interchangeable. In my first year or two in the first-class game I batted at No 3 for Lancashire, while opening for England. David Boon, a fine Australia batsman, seemed content in either position, as did Justin Langer. Mark Butcher likewise for England. Sometimes selectors have been of the opinion that three openers have been among the best six batsmen in the country and on that basis have played all three. This has historically been more often the case in Australia, where seeing off the new ball is harder than anywhere else.

It could be argued the best No 3s, however, have been specialists rather than openers shunted one down in the list and asked to make do. Think of Don Bradman, the greatest of them all, or Viv Richards, the greatest of modern players, or more recently Rahul Dravid, Ricky Ponting and Hashim Amla. Rare it is that a winning team do not have a settled and successful No 3.

It is ironic then, and possibly another clue to the shifting ascendency between these teams, that England are facing up to a problem at first drop just as Australia seem to have solved theirs. After Ponting's retirement, Australia went through nine different players in that position, until finally settling upon Shane Watson, whose hundred at the Oval was akin to the music stopping while in possession of the parcel. For the past four years, England have been blessed with Jonathan Trott, whose apparent equanimity, along with his technical excellence against anything other than extreme pace (of which there has been too little in recent years), made him suited to the position. In 73 innings there, he has averaged a tick over 45 and had been virtually ever present, save for a handful of occasions, when Kevin Pietersen or Ian Bell filled in for one reason or another. If it is hard to argue that England will not be strengthened by Trott's departure - he was in no fit state to play any further part on the tour - it is also clear that he leaves an enormous hole to fill.

A strong case can be made for either Bell or Joe Root, the only viable candidates, to replace Trott. In Bell's favour is his seniority and experience. Typically, it is argued that the older, more senior, more experienced players should bat higher up to allow those finding their feet at the highest level to bed in. It is not an argument that holds water for young openers, but as a principle for finding the right combination for the middle order, it is perfectly sound.

Bell also has plenty of experience at No 3. Indeed, in his last but one innings there against India at the Oval in 2011 he scored 235. In 37 innings in that position he averages 39.91, with two hundreds and ten fifties, a lower return than at No 5 or No 6, where he averages almost 50 and 60 respectively, but good enough to suggest he can flourish there once again. With 20 Test hundreds it goes without saying that he is technically extremely competent and mentally strong, and he indicated on Saturday in Alice Springs that he was more than willing to do the job again.

Another point in Bell's favour is that he is a more free-flowing player than Root, who is an accumulator like Alastair Cook and Michael Carberry, and would therefore threaten to produce a continuation of the type of stodgy start that bedevilled England in the summer. Bell is likely to be less easy to shut down.

In Root's favour is his experience as an opener for Yorkshire. By temperament and inclination he is an opener, although, when asked, he has always emphasised that he is happy to bat anywhere. Although things went indifferently in the summer as Cook's opening partner, England regard him as the long-term solution to that slot, and further experience at No 3 would enable a seamless shift there in time.

Nobody, apart from Cook, coped with Mitchell Johnson as well as Root at the Gabba. In his short second innings, as the lower order crumbled around him and as tempers flared, Root handled himself superbly, grinning at Johnson's verbals so that the left-armer was flummoxed as to how he should respond. He played the short ball brilliantly and was still able to get a big stride forward once the ball was pitched full. Nobody really likes fast bowling, but Root genuinely looked as though he relished the challenge and the situation.

If England move Bell from No 5, where he has scored so heavily against Australia in recent times, they are essentially changing two key positions: No 3 and No 5. By leaving Bell in situ, and moving Root, they are making only one significant change.

Mind you, there are those who argue that England's batting line-up has been misfiring for so long (not since Wellington in March have they scored more than 400) that a shake-up is required.

Punditry often involves simplification; grey areas and uncertainty are unwelcome. In this instance, there is no right or wrong way. My preference, as an opener of similar style and temperament, would be for Root.

The Times