The calls for England to drop Gary Ballance have reached fever pitch. Before the tour to the West Indies, there were murmurs that he no longer merited a place in the Test squad after a disappointing World Cup campaign that saw him dropped from the ODI team. During that West Indies series, though, he scored two fifties and a hundred and averaged 66.2. Only Joe Root scored more runs, and only Joe Root had a higher average. He was also batting at number three to Root’s five, arguably a tougher job. But the nay-sayers are back with a vengeance, louder and more numerous than ever, despite the fact that he averages 41 over his last two Test series.
In five of Ballance’s six innings in the West Indies, he came in before ten overs had passed. The ball was still hard, new and swinging. Of course it is the duty of the number three to adapt to any situation, and be prepared to more or less open the batting at times. The struggles of Jonathan Trott on that tour (and on occasion Alastair Cook) merely add to the impressiveness of Ballance’s achievements. He also became the third-fastest England batsman ever to reach 1,000 Test runs.
Gary Ballance has now played 13 Test matches, and in 12 of those he has batted at number three, a position that England have historically found difficult to fill. Since moving up to number three in the order, he averages 56. Overall, he averages 52. He has four Test centuries and five fifties to his name. Only six current Test batsmen have a better average than he does (he sits one above AB de Villiers on the list). These are handy numbers, anyone would agree.
So why do people want to drop him? He had a very poor series against New Zealand. This started with a one and a duck at Lord’s (he is on the Honours Board twice for centuries against Sri Lanka and India at Lord’s in 2014), and then 29 and six at Headingley. He struggled badly against the pace of Southee and Boult. He received some fine deliveries from two of the best fast bowlers in world cricket – it happens. There is no point in making excuses, because if you want to be a top-class top-order batsman, you have to find ways of dealing with the best pacers in the business.
Many complaints hinge on a technical kink in Ballance’s footwork. As the bowler enters his delivery stride, he takes half a step back. This makes it more difficult to get properly forward, and can leave him vulnerable to full-pitched fast deliveries. In the past, he has usually been able to defend these well enough. Possibly he just needs to rediscover some of that reaction speed and touch to eradicate the weakness; perhaps he needs to make some technical adjustments.
The question becomes, does he deserve the opportunity to do so? His Test record certainly suggests so. He has four Test hundreds and five fifties batting at number three. He reaches a half-century in 39% of his innings – the same as Kumar Sangakkara, and better than Rahul Dravid, Ricky Ponting, Jacques Kallis, Brian Lara, Sachin Tendulkar… you get the picture. That is not to say he is better than any of those greats, merely that he is a promising player in good company.
Ballance’s domestic record is also superb. His first-class average of 53.43 is 0.01 runs better than his opposite number, Australia’s Steve Smith. No current England-qualified player even really comes close. In List A cricket, Ballance has the 13th-best average of all time – only James Taylor is ahead of him in England-player terms. Overall, only three players in history have better averages in both first-class AND List A cricket: Cheteshwar Pujara, Michael Bevan and Graeme Pollock. England cannot select any of them for obvious reasons.
There is another tendency to downplay the significance of Ballance’s Test achievements in 2014 and early 2015 because of the quality of the opposition. Sri Lanka, the West Indies and India may not be the most fearsome Test opponents in the world, but to discount four centuries and five fifties against them is somewhat churlish. After all, England only won one of those series, lost one and drew the other – they can’t be terrible Test sides.
The general trend of the “drop Ballance” campaign appears to be that Adil Rashid should be the man to come in, and Ian Bell, Moeen Ali or Joe Root should move up the order to three. Joe Root is in terrific form, and is enjoying immense success batting at number five – his own footwork against the new ball in the 2013 Ashes was a little suspect, and it would take an incredibly brave selector to ask him to move up the order yet again given how well he is doing where he is.
Watching Moeen Ali bat in county cricket is an absolute delight, and he has shown glimpses of his extraordinary grace and timing in international cricket before, although mainly in ODI cricket. He has just one century to his name, a battling 108* in a losing cause against Sri Lanka at Headingley, and he has been batting at eight against New Zealand – to go up to three would be an enormous shift, and given that he is still making his way as a batsman and a front-line spinner at Test level, the added responsibility of batting at first-drop is something he may want to avoid for the moment.
Which leaves us with Ian Bell. Since Gary Ballance joined the England Test side at Sydney in early 2014, Gary Ballance averages 52.19 in Test cricket, with most of his runs coming from number three, a tough place to bat wherever you are in your career, let alone at the very beginning. Ian Bell has been batting at four – a slightly easier position, facing the same attacks, yet often with a slightly or much older ball – and he averages 29.54. While Ballance has made four centuries in that time, Bell has just two. To Ballance’s five fifties, Bell has three.
According to every fair measure of comparison on their recent records, if a batsman is to make way then it ought to be Ian Bell. He is an experienced player in a team that lacks such wiser heads, but how long can that justify poor form in a batsman of such class? And certainly how can it save him if a player whose average over the last 13 Tests is 21 runs higher than his is dropped? Ian Bell is a batsman of great quality, and at 33 he still has a lot to offer England. But at 25, so does Gary Ballance – in reality, they are both needed. If one had to go, though, Bell’s recent record is simply not good enough to justify giving Ballance the axe.
The phenomenal start to Gary Ballance’s Test career proved that he has the talent to succeed at Test level. His domestic record illustrates that he is a good player who works hard in all formats of the game. All good players must go through tough times before they become truly great, and this is Ballance’s tough time. His success or otherwise in the Ashes will almost certainly define him as an England batsman. Whether or not that is entirely fair is perhaps beside the question, but he certainly does not deserve to be dropped before he is even given the chance to show what he can do.
