Why Five Is The New Three in Test Cricket
On cricket's mass migration down the order.
Traditionally, when evaluating the greatest Test batters of all time, you might place a slight asterisk next to the best number fives; the S. Waughs, Clarkes, Misbahs, Lloyds, and Chanderpauls of the world. This is not to say these aren’t all utterly elite batters, merely that you have to split hairs when evaluating the very best of the best and:
a) Batting at number five has typically been seen as less prestigious than batting at numbers three or four, and;
b) Batting at number five is objectively easier than batting in the top order, especially the top three, as you are facing an older ball and slightly more tired bowlers, who are potentially first or second change options.
However, more recently, you may have noticed a shift in the number five role in Test cricket; a mass migration down the order, so to speak. As I joked at Australia’s expense in my WTC Final Recap, “their selections said it all, packing the batting order with a 38-year-old, four number fives, and Steve Smith.” And the Australians are hardly alone in their pursuit of the mythical ‘Oops! All Fives’ batting order.
So, with the dawn of cricket’s False Three and this subsequent mass migration down the order, the question becomes: is five the new three in Test cricket? And, if so, why? Let’s investigate.
This is the second article in a two-part series. Before you read any further, if you haven’t already, I’d highly recommend reading part one: ‘The Dawn of Cricket’s ‘False Three’’, which provides a lot of context for what I’m about to discuss.
Dovetailing Threes and Fives
In my previous article, I talked about how almost no Test teams (hi, Kane) can find ‘traditional’ number three batters anymore, resorting instead to over-promoting middle-order players as part of a new ‘false three’ strategy that’s sweeping Test cricket. This begs the question, where have all the number threes gone? Are top-order batters really just worse these days? Have their techniques collectively deteriorated, as so many T20 critics and talking heads would have you believe, or is something else going on entirely? The (deceptively simple) answer? They’ve gone to numbers four and five, primarily.
Let’s get the number fours out of the way first, mainly because there isn’t a whole lot to say. Since the 1940s, number four batters have gone about their work relatively unaffected: this has been the highest-averaging batting position in seven out of nine decades post-WWII (the ‘70s, when number threes reigned, and the 2010s, when number fives reigned, are the two exceptions, and in both cases, number fours are in second place by less than 0.5 of a run).
Since 1980, number fours have averaged below the global top six average only twice (in 2008 and 2009), and have been the highest-averaging top-six position batting position in 21 calendar years, well clear of number five in second position, which has been the highest-averaging batting position 13 times in this period. As the home of Sachin, Lara, Kallis, Smith, Taylor, Root, Kohli, and countless other icons, this should come as little shock. Even their strike rates have barely moved: in the 2000s, number fours collectively struck at 50.57. Currently? 52.61. In 2025, thanks primarily to Shubman Gill’s recent mass influx of runs, number fours are collectively averaging 40.37 in Tests, making them the only top-six batting position to collectively average 40+ since the start of 2023. The number four position almost seems to exist in its own little bubble of batting savants, unburdened by the machinations of the rest of the order. Every other batting position is underwater, with only number fours still able to occasionally poke their heads above the parapet for air.
Accordingly, the more interesting comparison is between the number three and number five batting positions, which have dovetailed in recent years. First, a brief history lesson: between the 1890s and 1980s, number three batters averaged more than number five batters in every decade, sometimes considerably so, as in the 30s, when number threes averaged 51.25 (thanks, Bradman) and number fives averaged 35.92. After a slight reversal in the 1990s, when number fives briefly poked their noses ahead (averaging 38.12 for the decade vs 35.99 for number threes), the 2000s fell back into this familiar pattern, with number threes averaging 43.14 for the decade compared to 40.95 for number fives (at the time, this was the highest mark for number fives across a decade, and the second-highest for number threes).
However, this pattern has been flipped on its head in the 2010s and so far in the 2020s. In the 2010s, number fives averaged 41.46, compared to 39.81 for number threes, marking only the second time they had outscored number threes across a decade. So far in the 2020s, this gap has only widened, as number fives are averaging 38.03 compared to 34.76 for number threes.
A fascinating pattern emerges if we zoom in on this even more granularly. In the 80s and 90s, there was an even year-by-year battle between number threes and fives: number threes averaged more in 10 calendar years, and number fives averaged more in 10 calendar years. In the 2000s, number threes narrowly edged the battle, averaging higher than number fives in six of 10 years. However, since 2010, number fives have run away with the contest, out-averaging number threes 12 times to four. More recently, since 2018, number five has been the highest-averaging batting position in four out of seven completed years, and is currently the second-highest-averaging position in 2025.
These facts are no coincidence. Instead, they represent a deliberate reflection of how teams are choosing to allocate their resources. When you think about it, the traditional orthodoxy of selecting your best batter at number three doesn’t actually make a lot of sense: you’re exposing them to fresher bowlers, a newer ball, and a higher likelihood of being dismissed early, particularly if you have an unreliable opening pair, as most Test teams currently do. The counterargument, of course, is that by batting further down the order and promoting inferior players less equipped to handle the new ball, you risk being 30/3 when your best player reaches the crease rather than 10/1, thereby heaping extra pressure on them.
But if you merely look at the raw, logical numbers, batting your best player at number five makes a lot of sense. In Test cricket in 2025, the global top six Test batting average is 33.81, and the average global bowling strike rate is exactly 50, which means:
If you bat at number three, your average entry point is 34/1 after 8.2 overs.
If you bat at number four, your average entry point is 68/2 after 16.4 overs.
If you bat at number five, your average entry point is 102/3 after 25 overs.
The difference between coming to the crease at 34/1 after 8.2 overs and 102/3 after 25 overs is night and day. It’s the difference between facing Bumrah or Henry in their first spell, or catching them at the end of their second or even the beginning of their third. Therefore, where 20 years ago you would have expected teams to (generally) list their two best batters at numbers three and four, these days, it’s more like numbers four and five.
You only need to take a tour of global cricket to see this playing out firsthand. Since the start of 2023, five of the 12 highest-averaging batters in Test cricket (min 10 innings; Bavuma, Brook, Mendis, Shakeel, and Pant) have spent the majority of their time batting at number five. Two others (Sean Williams and Mohammad Rizwan) have spent some of their time batting at five.
Going through it team by team, despite flirting with both players opening the batting, Australia have got their two best batters, Steve Smith and Travis Head, at numbers four and five.
For India, Jaiswal has been their most successful batter since 2023, both by runs scored and batting average, but, after him, it’s Gill and Pant, who bat at numbers four and five.
England’s four and five, Root and Brook, are their only two batters to average over 50 since 2023. Enough said.
It’s hard to pinpoint South Africa’s best Test batters at the moment, but Temba Bavuma, who’s split his time between 4 and 5 since 2023, and averages 72 at number five in that time, is definitely one of them. You can make a case that Ryan Rickleton, who has been shuffled around the order but has spent the most time batting at five, is their second-best batter.
Pakistan’s number five, Saud Shakeel, has also been their leading man. He is the only Pakistani batter to score over 1,000 runs since 2023. Mohammad Rizwan, who has spent most of this period batting at six, is the only other Pakistani batter to average 40+.
Kamindu Mendis has been Sri Lanka’s highest-averaging batter in this period, averaging 52.53 from his seven tests batting at number five. Pathum Nissanka, who has primarily been opening, is the other Sri Lankan batter with an average of 50+.
Likewise, Musfiqur Rahim has been Bangladesh’s highest-averaging batter during this period, returning a mark of 43.78, primarily at number five.
The West Indies’ top three run scorers since 2023 all average 25 or less, which tells you everything you need to know. However, Hodge and Athanaze have found as much success as any West Indian batter in this period, and, when entering at number five, they average 28 and 29, respectively, which is at least a slight improvement.
Shaun Williams and Craig Ervine have been Zimbabwe’s most successful batters in this period, and both have spent time at number five, despite being shuffled around the order.
Similarly, Lorcan Tucker has the best average for Ireland, batting mainly at number six, with a couple of innings at five, too.
That leaves only New Zealand and Afghanistan clinging obstinately to the Old World Order of playing your best batters at three and four. Afghanistan has Shah and Shahidi, their only two batters to average 50+ in this period, at three and four. Likewise, New Zealand has our two best batters, Williamson and Ravindra, coming in at numbers three and four. Even then, Daryl Mitchell is hardly a nobody at number five and has been our second-highest run-scorer in this period (if not our second-highest averaging batter).
I can hear the cries already: “What’s the big deal? We’ve had great number fives before in Test cricket.” While, yes, this isn’t a new development in the sense that we’ve had individually incredible number five batters in the past—think S Waugh, Clarke, Lloyd, Chanderpaul, etc.—it is the first time in recent memory that the majority of Test teams are deliberately selecting superior batters at five and inferior batters at number three for tactical reasons (inferior, of course, being a relative term, remembering how outstanding you have to be to reach Test cricket in the first place).
So yes, five really is the new three. Not in maths—don’t tell people I told you 3 + 3 = 10 all of a sudden—but in Test cricket? Certainly. Next time you’re feeling confused and disoriented watching yet another batting collapse, remember: in Test cricket, five is the new three.
Strike Force Five
It’s not just that number fives are scoring more runs—they’re also scoring them significantly faster. So far, in the 2020s, number five batters are collectively striking at 57.38 runs per hundred balls. Not only is this the highest recorded strike rate across a decade for number five batters, it is the highest recorded strike rate across a decade by any batting position in Test history.
*Strike rate data before the 2000s is incomplete.
**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.
Additionally, from 2023 onwards, the collective strike rate for global number five batters passed 60 (so far, in 2025, it’s 62.89). This was the first time since we have complete strike rate data that a batting position collectively struck at 60+ across a calendar year in Test cricket. And it’s not just a blip—they’re now on track to do it three years in a row. Forget BazBall, the number five position has been transformed into a veritable Strike Force Five. After paving the way, in 2024, number sixes also started collectively striking at 60+, and now, so far in 2025, openers have joined the party, too, just after David Warner finally retired (I knew he was holding them back).
So, not only are number fives shouldering the load of scoring bulk runs, they’re also taking on the duty of scoring bulk, counterattacking runs. That tracks, with the likes of Travis Head, Harry Brook, and Rishabh Pant currently making it their personal missions to get that average number five strike rate up above 100 before too long. This is not some random coincidence, but a clear and concerted trend: since 2019, number five has been the batting position with the highest strike rate every year but one (2021, when number sixes struck slightly higher). We talk about bowling ‘enforcers’, especially in the middle overs of white ball games, well, now, number five has become home to a new breed of Batting Enforcers.
Not only is this a deliberate trend, but it’s actually a complete reversal of what number fives had been doing across the previous decade. Between 2000 and 2013, number five batters only struck above the global average top six strike rate once, in 2002. From 2014 onwards, they have only struck below the global average top six strike rate twice, in 2017 and ‘18.
The message couldn’t be clearer: if you want to score runs in Test cricket right now, do everything you can to bribe your captain/coach to let you bat at number five. If you can whack a few choice sixes in the nets to get their attention, all the better. If you’re a captain/coach, don’t accept lowball offers for that number five spot. Hold firm and know your worth.
Where once the number three batting position was home to a team’s premier batter, whereas you stuck the work experience kids at five and six, these days, thanks to the wobble ball, spicier pitches worldwide, and the rise of the False Three, the once revered number three spot has turned into collection of rejects, oddities, and offshoots. Instead, if you want to score bulk runs and do it in style, look no further than batting at number five.
We haven’t quite reversed the batting order again, but some days, it sure might feel like it. So, the next time someone tries to tell you that no one knows how to bat in Test cricket anymore or insists that techniques are all just rubbish, unlike the Good Old Days™, firstly, consider cutting that person out of your life—they’re contributing nothing of value to you or to society at large. But before that, here’s your readymade response:
“What do you think is more likely: every single Test-quality top-order player in the world got together and collectively forgot how to score runs, or, batting in the top-order got really, really tricky all of a sudden and they headed for safer pastures down the order? Answers on the back of a postcard.”
I know which one my money’s on.
Thanks for reading! Like my work? Please consider supporting me via a paid subscription or Buy Me A Coffee. For more info on how your support helps me produce this work and what your contributions go towards, see my About Page!
Like my work, but not that much? Fair enough! If you still want to support me, the best thing you can do is share this article far and wide: whether that’s with friends and family, teammates at your local club, on Reddit, or in your obscure cricketing discord server, I cannot emphasise enough how helpful every single share is.
Just keen to continue reading about cricket? No worries! If you liked this article, I think you might also enjoy:
Loved this article. Very interesting!
The simplest explanation is sometimes the best… and the best batsmen are simply coming out to bat later.
I wonder what the next stage in the evolution of 1-3 looks like. Opening rounders at 1 & 2, essentially all rounders with good defence? T20 like full attack at 1-3 to shift pressure onto the field and bowlers?