The Dawn of Cricket’s ‘False Three’
Will the real False number Three please stand up?
Do you ever get that nagging, uneasy feeling that Test cricket has suddenly gotten a little…topsy-turvy? That somewhere along the line, perhaps in a foggy, post-COVID haze, we stumbled into the Uncanny Valley, a cricketing Twilight Zone where down is up, black is white, and number three batters are collectively faring worse than they have in over a century. Wait, what was that last one?
That’s right, so far in the 2020s, number three Test batters are collectively averaging 34.78 runs per dismissal. That’s nearly 10 runs down from the 2000s (43.41), and the lowest collective average for Test number threes across a decade since the 1910s. Back then, number threes collectively averaged 33.8, though most were probably more concerned about Franz Ferdinand’s health and safety. Did I miss the memo that we were reversing batting orders again?
Allow me to give you an example. Let’s say you’re the selector for a major international team. Hypothetically, two of your senior-most batters have just retired (oh, let’s call them, Blirat and Blohit) and you’re weighing up their replacements for an upcoming overseas tour. When the dust has settled on the rest of the batting order, you have two remaining top-order spots available: number three and number six.
Now, let’s introduce the contenders. Player A (for the sake of argument, S. Sudharsan—no, that’s too obvious: Sai S) is 23. They have played only 29 first-class games for a promising but modest average of 38.96. If selected, they would be a Test debutant. On the other hand, Player B is 33. They’ve been around the block. They’ve played Test cricket before and have even scored a Test triple hundred. They’ve played 116 first-class games, average the best part of 50, and have kicked the selection doors down via a sheer weight of runs. Who do you bat at number three, and who do you bat at number six?
A generation ago, this would have been a no-brainer; the sort of decision selectors dreamed of so they could take a half-day and spend the afternoon on the golf course. You’d stick the promising young work experience kid at six and allow them to ease their way into Test cricket (think Ricky Ponting, who played 33 Tests at six early in his career, or Kane Williamson, who debuted at six for New Zealand) and put the senior, in-form batter in the prestigious number three position.
To drop the pretence, this is not what India did in the opening Test against England. Instead, they sent the debutant, Sai Sudarshan, in at three and allowed Karun Nair to bat at six. While this might have been puzzling to some, that decision was indicative of a broader, growing trend in Test cricket: the dawn of the False Three.
What’s that, you might ask? Let me put it this way: if Sudharsan looks at his recent contemporaries at first drop, he won’t feel out of place. Rather, he’ll see the likes of Cameron Green, Jacob Bethell, Keacey Carty, and Wiaan Mulder. It’s a far cry from a generation ago, when the prestigious number three spot was reserved for the elite of the elite: Ponting, Sangakkara, Dravid et al.
So, why this redefinition of the number three role? What’s going on with global batting broadly, and the number three position more specifically? Let’s trace the dawn of the False Three.
Test Batting Is Dead, Long Live Test Batting
What if I told you that, in 2024, Test batting was statistically the most difficult it has been since the 1950s? 1956, to be precise—69 years ago (nice).
Well, based on prior experience, you’d probably respond by telling me to get a life, but after that, your ears might prick up. In 2024, the global average Test runs scored by teams’ top six batters (devised by adding together the global Test batting averages for openers [multiplied by two], and number three, four, five, and six batters) was 194.31. So far in 2025, that has bounced back slightly to 204.56. Barring a brief plummet to 189.13 runs in 2018 (when this trend began to take shape), 2024 was the lowest-averaging year since way back in 1956, when the equivalent was 162.46 runs. In the interim, this peaked at 269.57 runs in 1989 and more recently at 259 runs in 2009. Put simply, in the modern era, top orders are scoring ~55-65 fewer runs collectively than they were 15 years ago, and the fewest they’ve scored in 69 years.
*1989 was the highest global top six Test batting average since 1949.
**Accurate as of June 26th, 2025.
Colour code:
Red highlighting indicates that the global top six batting average exceeded that position’s batting average for that decade.
Green highlighting indicates that the position’s batting average exceeded the global top six batting average that decade.
Blue highlighting indicates that this was the highest-averaging top-six position that decade.
Source: Cricinfo Statsguru.
(Apologies for the quality on those tables. For whatever reason, Substack doesn’t support tables, so I had to make do.)
In fact, you can take this a step further. 1956 was also the last time number three batters averaged as little as they do currently. As of June 26th, 2025, the global Test batting average at number three is just 27.03—almost exactly half the 55.69 that number threes averaged in 2003 (the peak, post-2000). This is the lowest average for Test number three batters in 69 years, since they collectively averaged 26.96 in 1956. If that average dips below 26.96—which we’re currently flirting with—this would be the worst year for number three Test batters since 1925, a century ago.
For now, though, 1956 is the only year in the history of Test cricket where at least 10 matches have been played and number three batters averaged less than they do so far in 2025. Overall, there have only been 19 calendar years in the 147-year (12.9%) history of Test cricket in which number threes have averaged less than they do in 2025, and fourteen of those were pre-WWI, when pitches were still covered in cow shit. If we only include completed calendar years, number threes recently averaged just 31.42 in 2021, which was the lowest figure since 1995, when they averaged 29.42.
You can pinpoint the beginning of this dropoff to 2018, the start of the Pace Playing Pandemic, as cricket journalist Jarrod Kimber has dubbed it. From 2001 to 2017, the global top-six test batting average hovered metronomically between 37 and 42. Then, in 2018, it plummeted to just 31.48, the lowest since (you guessed it) 1956, coinciding with global number three averages dipping below 35 (32.86) for the first time since the turn of the century. If you were a batter, 2018 was a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad year.
Of course, over a sufficiently long timeframe, this was only ever a matter of time. Cricket operates in cycles. From the first Test in the 1870s through to the 1930s, global number three batting averages increased in every decade but one (stagnating slightly between the 1890s and 1900s) to rise from 17.25 to 51.25 (the 1930s is one of only two decades, the other being number four batters in the 1940s, in which a batting position has collectively averaged above 50). Then came the fall. Between the 1930s and 1990s, global number three batting averages declined in every decade but one (rebounding slightly between the ‘50s and ‘60s), from 51.25 back to 35.99.
Then, at the turn of the century, an explosion: between 2001 and 2015, the global Test batting average at number three only dips below 40 three times, and even then, barely: number threes averaged 39.4 in 2005, 39.8 in 2013, and 37.87 in 2008. Overall in the 2010s, numbers threes averaged 43.41, their second-best decade ever, behind only the war-impacted 1930s, when fewer than half as many Tests were played (152 vs 72).
Yet, all good things must come to an end, and from 2016, the state of play began to change once more. There are a variety of factors underpinning this, from the Wobble Ball to the reinforced Kookabarra seam, to spicier, more bowler-friendly pitches worldwide. From 2016 to present, number three Test batters have collectively averaged above 37.87 in Test cricket—the lowest mark across the previous 15 years—only once, in 2020. Instead, since 2020, we have seen six of the 30 lowest-averaging years for global number three batters post-WWII. All this after 2009 saw the highest global top six batting average (42.77) since 1989 (44.5) and, before that, 1949 (44.55).
To summarise and allow you to collect your breath:
So far this decade, number three Test batters are collectively averaging the least they have across a decade since the 1910s.
In 2025 so far, number three Test batters are collectively averaging the least they have since 1956.
In 2024, top sixes collectively averaged the fewest runs since 1956 (except for 2018).
In the 2020s, the global top six batting average (34.87) is the lowest it has been across a decade since the 1950s (33.91).
In 2018, the global top six batting average dropped to 31.48, the lowest since (you guessed it) 1956 when top six batters collectively averaged 27.21.
In 2024, the global top six batting average was 32.6. There have only been seven calendar years in Test history in which at least 10 Tests were played and the global top six batting average was lower.
However you slice the figures, it’s an utterly terrible era to bat anywhere, but especially at first drop—no wonder batters are migrating down the order in their droves. We’re in a barren batting era, and it is these (and similar) numbers that have dictated the dawn of the False Three.
The Rise of the False Three
So, with Test batting going all topsy-turvy, selectors have been faced with a difficult conundrum: when no one is scoring any runs, who do you select at number three? The answer has involved some outside-the-box thinking.
The first reference to the False Three (an allusion to the False Nine concept in football) I can find is in this 2023 article from Will Macpherson in The Telegraph, referring to Moeen Ali’s promotion to number three for England during the 2023 Ashes. Recently, with Wiaan Mulder and Cameron Green batting at number three during the World Test Championship Final, I’ve heard respected cricket journalists like Jarrod Kimber and Matt Roller reference the concept too. I lay no claim to having coined the term False Three; I’m just one of many to cotton on to this growing trend.
If you’re unfamiliar with a False Nine in Football, FourFourTwo defines it, stating: “If a no.9 is something of a ‘true’ centre forward, a false nine is the opposite. Rather than occupy the opposition backline in the manner of a traditional striker, the false nine will move towards the ball in deeper positions from a higher starting position. They don’t look to run in behind the defence as much, instead wanting to drop so deep almost to become an additional midfielder.” They go on to add that the primary benefit of this tactic is “creating uncertainty in the opposition defence…If a team has multiple attackers who possess intelligent movement, the false nine can wreak havoc.” I’m not overly familiar with football tactics, so I’m sure someone will let me know if I’ve gotten that badly wrong, but hopefully it conveys the gist.
Similarly, as detailed in Macpherson’s article, Moeen Ali had this to say on his elevation to number three for those 2023 Ashes Tests:
“If I can even just play 10 overs and we get through that hardness of the ball it’s probably easier for the other guys to come in, especially in a chase like that. If I come off once in four knocks, if I do play the next one, and chip in the other ones it’ll be a decent job done. I know you want your best players up the order and three is a big number in Test cricket. But actually for this side at the moment, with Popey out of the side, it’s short term. And I don’t think it changes too much because everybody else stays where they are.”
Listen to Moeen, and he sounds more like a glorified nightwatchman, an equivalent to Sunil Narine, the T20 pinch-opener, than a traditional Test match number three. And therein lies the birth of the False Three. His rhetoric is all about seeing off the new ball, making it easier for the middle order, coming off once in a while, and allowing everyone else to bat in their natural positions—defining characteristics of the False Three. This last point is especially salient, as, with the global Test batting average in seemingly terminal decline, fewer and fewer batters have volunteered to bat at number three. Instead, numbers four and five are the more desirable and productive positions. Just look at Root, Smith, and Kohli, who have all been reluctant to move to three throughout their careers, despite calls to do so for the betterment of their teams. But someone still has to bat at number three: so, enter, the False Three.
As I see it, the key defining characteristic of a False Three is that they are a non-traditional number three batter (i.e. they’ve spent the majority of their first-class or Test career batting in the middle or lower order) who has volunteered and/or been promoted to bat at three to minimise disruption in the batting order and allow everyone else to bat in their preferred positions. The thinking, essentially, is: well, if we can’t find a traditional number three, then what’s less disruptive: bumping everyone else up one spot and batting everyone out of position, or promoting one player and batting them out of position, albeit at number three? The answer, overwhelmingly, has been the latter.
In that sense, the False Three is all about minimising disruption and extending your batting order. Like an old-school, stodgy opener (Dom Sibley’s ears just pricked up), if they can see off the new ball, tire out the opening bowlers, and come off once in a blue moon, job done. Think of a False Three almost as the proverbial canaries in the coal mine, testing whether it’s safe for the middle order to enter. Therefore, a successfully executed False Three strategy can be measured less by the runs scored at number three, and more by the average entry points of the middle order behind them. Can you survive long enough to allow Steve Smith to come in after 20 overs and dominate? Can you dig in just enough for the ball to get soft and Rishabh Pant to flay the old ball everywhere? Congratulations, you’re a False Three!
Basically, the job of a False Three is more like a spare opener or a suped-up nightwatchman than the ‘run machine’ position we’ve been conditioned to expect over the past few decades. And increasingly, this strategy is dominating the global game.
Back to the Future and the Global State of Play
The basic concept underpinning the False Three strategy—shielding your best players from the most threatening batting conditions, and allowing them to come to the crease when it is most strategically beneficial—isn’t exactly a new idea in cricket. Instead, it shares a lineage with the Reversed Batting Order applied throughout cricket’s formative years, most famously by Don Bradman during the 1936/37 Ashes, scoring 270 from number 7. In many ways, the False Three is the modernisation of the Reversed Batting Order; the next link in the chain. Back then, the idea was to protect your best batters from vicious, unpredictable sticky wickets by sending in your tail-enders first as sacrificial lambs to chew up as many balls as possible, and hoping the pitch had calmed down by the time your best batters came to the crease. These days, it’s about keeping your premier players away from the Bumrahs, Cummins, Rabadas, and Henrys of the world for as long as possible, and, most of all, avoiding The Wobble Ball, the greatest gift to bowlers since overarm.
As such, look at the state of global cricket, and you’ll see more and more teams adopting this False Three strategy—less because it’s the most optimal batting configuration, and more out of sheer desperation and necessity. “Well, someone still has to bat there!”
Take Australia, for example. Since the start of 2023, no one in world cricket has batted at number three more frequently than Marnus Labu-shane, who has done so 46 times for an average of 32.32, scoring one hundred. Marnus was dropped for the first Test against the West Indies and, likely, for the entire tour, with a long path back to Test cricket ahead of him. The guy who has done the job more often than anyone lately is barely averaging 30 and just got dropped. Not a promising sign.
Australia also tried Cameron Green at first drop in the WTC final, fresh off a 460-day absence from Test cricket and with only one prior first-class innings at number three under his belt, where his team was chasing fewer than 100, and Marnus dismissed him. To prepare for this responsibility, Green spent time batting at number five for Gloucestershire in the County Championship Second Division. He will continue in the role in the West Indies, with Pat Cummins signalling that Australia sees Green as their long-term number three. So far, he has scored 4 (3), 0 (2), and 3 (21).
How about England? They’ve given seven (!) different batters an opportunity at number three since the start of 2023 (albeit a couple in nightwatchmen situations): Ollie Pope, Jacob Bethell, Rehan Ahmed, Ollie Robinson, Joe Root, Harry Brook, and Moeen Ali. Only Ali, Bethell, and Pope have had multiple cracks. Ali answered Ben Stokes’ SOS during the 2023 Ashes to bat at three, a position he only occupied 9 times from 118 Test innings overall (7.6% of the time), while Bethell and Pope have recently been battling to bat at first drop. Pope, who averages 43.87 at number three since 2023 and has scored the second most hundreds in the position in that period (six, behind Williamson’s eight), got the first crack during the India series and delivered with a timely first-up hundred. However, as has been widely publicised, Pope’s raw numbers can flatter to deceive—he also has a false-shot percentage of 18.4, the highest of any regular Test number three in the past six years. If Pope does ultimately falter, his replacement, Bethell, is a 21-year-old with no hundreds to his name in professional cricket and a first-class batting average of 29.
India has scarcely been more assured, also using seven number three batters in this period: Gill, Pujara, Kohli, Paddikal, Ashwin, KL Rahul, and Sudharsan, although only Gill and Pujara have batted there in multiple Tests. Gill’s raw numbers at three were beginning to look handy—he averages 37.38 there since 2023, accumulating the fourth most runs and third most hundreds—but clearly saw the writing on the wall and decided to migrate down to the relative safety of number four, where he began with a sparkling hundred against England, and will be impossible to dislodge going forward. Instead, Sai Sudarshan, a 23-year-old debutant with a first-class average of 39, got the nod. Now, with Sai reportedly injured ahead of the second test against England, the carousel will continue.
South Africa is arguably the worst offender of them all, using six different number threes since the beginning of 2023: Stubbs, de Zorzi, Rickleton, Mulder, van Tonder, and Klaasen. Apart from Klaasen, they’ve all played multiple Tests in the position, but none have played more than five, signalling constant rotation. Only Stubbs (44.71) and Rickleton (33.25) average above 20 at number three—the other four are averaging in the teens. Wiaan Mulder, the man to whom they gave the responsibility in the World Test Championship final, has batted at number six or lower 87% of the time in Test cricket (27 times from 31 innings), with a similar pattern holding in first-class cricket. The first time Mulder batted at three in Test cricket was in the second innings of a match. In the first innings, he batted at seven: he wasn’t even their designated number three heading into that match.
The West Indies are also guilty of cycling through number threes, using five since the start of 2023: Reifer, McKenzie, Carty, Jangoo, and Mayers. Reifer, McKenzie, and Carty have all played either five or six Tests at number three during this period. It says everything that the most successful of these players (Reifer) averages 26.16. The other four all average 20 or less. Carty, who averages 17.9 in Test cricket and 27.42 in first-class cricket, has gotten the nod against Australia.
By contrast, Pakistan have found relative stability, if not success, using only four number threes since 2023: Shan Masood, Babar Azam, Khurram Shazad, and Kamran Ghulam. The latter two only got one and two opportunities respectively, leaving Babar, who has averaged 16.5 at three in this period, and Shan Masood, who’s batted at number three 11 times for a respectable (by current standards) average of 33.33. Overall in Test cricket, Masood has spent more of his time opening (54 innings) than batting at three (24 innings).
Ireland has only used Andy Balbirnie and Curtis Campher at number three in this period, but they average 21.25 and 17, respectively. Somehow, despite only playing 9 Tests in this time, Zimbabwe has managed to use five different number three batters, only one of whom has averaged above 30 (Dion Myers, from a one-Test sample size). In their last five Tests alone, Zimbabwe have used three different number threes. Most recently against England, their captain, 39-year-old Craig Ervine, batted at three. Throughout his career, Ervine has been shuffled around the order, batting everywhere from 1-7. He has never really settled on a spot, spending more than 10 but fewer than 16 innings batting everywhere from 3-6. He has found by far the most success at number six, where he averages 50.12. At number three, he averages 30.
Bangladesh has a relative glut of decent number threes by modern standards. They have used six different batters in the position in this period: Najmul Shanto, Monimul Haque, Taijul Islam, Zakir Hasan, Hasan Mahmud, and Shahadat Hossain. However, only Shanto (9 Tests) and Monimul (8 Tests) have done so multiple times, averaging 42.06 and 33.4, respectively. Monimul has twice batted as low as number eight for Bangladesh, while Shanto has batted everywhere from 1-6. In their most recent Test against Sri Lanka, Monimul got the nod. Monimul has spent approximately the same amount of time batting at number three as at number four (66 vs 63 innings), but has been far more successful at four, averaging 41.52 compared to 34.22 at number three.
This leaves just New Zealand, Sri Lanka, and Afghanistan as teams that are still using their number three relatively traditionally. Afghanistan have only used Rahmat Shah at number three in this period, who averages an imposing 65 with two hundreds. Similarly, Sri Lanka has only used Kusal Mendis (11 times, averaging 41.42) and Dinesh Chandimal (nine times, including their most recent Test against Bangladesh, averaging 47.07). New Zealand have also only used two options: Will Young (three times, for an average of 48.8) and that brings us to Kane Williamson, the last Batting Giant still standing at number three.
Kane Williamson: Last Man Standing
So far, I’ve bombarded you with cricketing facts, averages, and numbers (you’re welcome), showing that batting at number three in Test cricket is currently as difficult as it has ever been. However, the modern evolution of the number three batting position is best traced through the more human lens of Kane Williamson’s career. So, let’s finish there.
When Williamson debuted in Test cricket in November 2010, the coveted first drop position was the Land of the Batting Giants. Ponting. Sangakkara. Dravid. Amla. Trott. Sarwan. Fleming. By the time Kane first ascended to bat at number three, three months later against Pakistan, it meant that the seven greatest run accumulators of all time at number three in Test cricket were all playing simultaneously (in order: Sangakkara, Dravid, Ponting, Williamson*, Amla, Pujara, and Azhar Ali). The others have all since retired or fallen out of favour. Kane still stands. During the mid-2000s, the going had never been better at number three, or at least, not since the 1930s. Players would trip over each other for an opportunity to bat at number three and write their stories in the cricketing stars.
This number three-mania peaked between 2003 and 2006, directly correlating with purple patches from Dravid and especially Ponting, when number three batters collectively averaged 48.64 in Test cricket. These days, it’s more than 20 runs less—27.03. Then, wherever you turned, legends occupied that storied number three batting position, previously made famous by The Don, Viv, and so many other icons. Now? Not so much.
Fast forward fifteen years, and oh, how the mighty have fallen. From those dizzying highs, there was only ever one way to go: down. As discussed, these days, teams are treating the number three position less as a prestigious prize, a cherished reward reserved for the best of the best batters, and more as an afterthought, plonking someone, anyone there out of sheer desperation and necessity. I wouldn’t be surprised if teams have resorted to drawing names from a hat to decide who has to bat at three.
Amid this rise of the False Three, Kane has witnessed the game evolve around him, standing alone as the only man to average more than 50 batting at number three (min. 10 innings) since the start of 2023. In the two years before Williamson’s debut, there were five such players (Amla, Sangakkara, Dravid, Trott, and Sarwan).
Since the start of 2023, the number three position has been a case of Kane, and all the rest. In this period, Williamson has scored 268 more runs than the next most successful number three, despite batting in one fewer innings than Ollie Pope (31) in second and in 15 fewer than Marnus (46) in third. He has also scored the most hundreds (eight, two clear of Pope in second) and has the second-best average (58.89) of anyone to play multiple innings, behind only Ramhat Shah.
The next time you’re watching a top order collapse or a False Three falter, spare a thought for Kane Williamson. The traditional tenors of Test cricket he once knew and cherished are slowly evaporating before his very eyes. The game is reshaping itself around him. When he debuted in Test cricket, if he looked left, he saw Ricky Ponting, if he looked right, he saw Rahul Dravid, and if he looked up, he saw Kumar Sangakkara. Now, he counts among his peers at number three Wiaan Mulder, a number eight who has failed upwards, and whichever random West Indian number three gets to Make a Wish that week.
Amid the rise of the False Three, Kane Williamson stands alone. Will the Real Test Number Three please stand up (please stand up, please stand up)?
Thanks for reading! This is the first article in a planned two-part series. Please come back next week, when I’ll follow up by asking where all the number threes have gone (number five, mostly), tracing the dovetailing fortunes of number three and five batters in recent years.
Also, as an aside, if any cricket historians have read this far and can fill me in about what exactly happened to Test batting in 1956, I’m all ears. Based on the stats, I assume there was a sudden spate of 9-foot bowlers? Leave your comments below.
Absolutely terrific insight. Rare to see this amount of effort go into modern journalism - well done to the author.
I love it how you sneak a Kiwi into your examples ("Henry"... "Fleming")