You blame it on experimentation — ask India, the West Indies and England— or you could simply point to the nature of pitches, but one single statistic highlights the strange jinx that has hovered over this crucial batting slot. Just 455 runs have been garnered at an average of 15.6 in 29 innings at this year’s edition, one half-century knock from Bangladesh’s Aftab Ahmed notwithstanding. And, No 3 batsmen have crossed double figures only 14 times.

Veterans of the game point to the flip-flops in the batting order. The trend, they say, can only be reversed if teams conform to the age-old line: have your best technician at No 3. Now look at some of the odd names that have occupied this slot in this tournament: Irfan Pathan, Dwayne Bravo, Herschelle Gibbs and Kevin Pietersen. Then let’s ask the big question: why?

Pointing to Pathan’s failure, Sunil Gavaskar writes: “When Dravid comes in to bat, there’s already pressure with two wickets gone early.” Then there’s Ravi Shastri who calls India’s No 3 muddle a “serial quarrel” with Indian fans. “You keep thrusting Pathan at No 3. Bull-headedness is one thing but carrying on in the same vein is foolhardiness”.

South African Daryl Cullinan, one of the world’s best No 3s — except when it came to facing Shane Warne — feels that as far as his team is concerned, the choice is clear: Jacques Kallis. “If Mickey Arthur (South Africa coach) wants to really play brave cricket he should bat Kallis in the most important and most pivotal position in one-day batting — No 3 instead of in the middle where he has a convenient excuse to knock it around because the top order has failed again. Kallis also needs a great season to be remembered for winning trophies and not only for being SA’s greatest cricket statistic! His best chance in achieving this will be to bat at three,” he writes.

Former India opener and national coach Anshuman Gaekwad agrees that the No 3 position is the most important post in any batting order. “He has to be your best batsman. A perfect number three has to have a sound technique, temperament and also should be able to strike a balance between the top-order and the middle order,” he says. “In this Indian team, it has to be Dravid and I can’t understand the logic behind sending Pathan repeatedly in that position, the result of which is there for everyone to see,” he says.

Even West Indian great Michael Holding wants the best at No 3 to lay “the pitch for the rest”. “The best batsman of the team must take the one-drop position for it is pivotal and prepares the pitch for the rest. If your best man is lower in the order, the ones preceding him can tend to relax. It even works if the best man was to fail at the number three spot. The ones who follow him would then respond to the responsibility,” he says on his official website.

Yashpal Sharma, former middle order batsman and ex-national selector, says you need to send in hitters at No 3 if the situation demands it. Otherwise, he says, it has to be your best batsman. “You play according to the situation. It’s okay to send in a pinch-hitter when you are chasing a big total, but when you are batting first, you should send in the best batsman. If early wickets have fallen, he should try and see off the new ball and be able to remain safe when the bowlers are fresh,” he says. “To me it’s most important that the No 3 should never allow the bowlers to get on top, he should be a technician and be able to graft his runs and take minimum risk. In this Indian team, I can see no one better than Dravid for that,” adds Sharma.

Yashpal may find it nothing but sheer coincidence that No 3 batsmen have failed in this tournament, but Ajit Wadekar, former India coach and captain, feels the jinx has more to do with the mental state of batsmen. “You can call it a jinx, but I will say it’s the confusion in the minds of the players pertaining to their role in the team. If you see, most of the teams have gone about changing their batting order through calls for flexibility, but this gets the player nowhere. It only shows a lack of mental preparedness,” asserts Wadekar.

Looking back, then only Ponting, Jayawardene and Younis have conformed to the popular theory. But what of their failure (Ponting, of course, has another chance against India today)? “Nothing but bad luck, bad shots,” says Wadekar. Meanwhile, the jinx continues.