Who is really to blame for Australia's batting collapses post 2007 in Ashes series?

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

An average = all runs/ all dismissals (whether it be in the 1st or 2nd innings, combining both the easy and difficult batting conditions), thanks

Next?

Fixed.

[stephen]

Originally Posted by TumTum

What about 0 & 100?

I'd rather a 50 and a 50 than a 0 then 100.

The second innings is for building the lead (if you are doing well in the test) or saving the match (if you are doing poorly). You are far more likely to be in the lead if you make good first innings runs.

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by stephen

I'd rather a 50 and a 50 than a 0 then 100.

The second innings is for building the lead (if you are doing well in the test) or saving the match (if you are doing poorly). You are far more likely to be in the lead if you make good first innings runs.

Exactly my point. Everyone is assuming that the 100 is scored in the 1st innings. Especially if you are using Gambhir as an example

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by stephen

Getting 100 and then 0 is better than getting 50 and 50, but not by much.

In the first situation, the extra runs help apply more pressure to the other side earlier in the game, which will generally cause them to be mentally behind.

I would much rather have taken a 100/0 performance out of Watson in this test match. With his extra 50 runs in the first innings we may have seen some bigger partnerships, which would have given us more time in the good batting conditions, which would have seen us build a bigger total due to the lower order players facing more tired bowlers.

Instead of getting 295 we may have gotten 350 or 400. You cannot neglect the psychological effect that having a teammate hit a hundred gives you.

First innings runs generally help set the tone of a match and more often than not tend to be more valuable than second innings runs.

Once again though you are just looking at one side of the coin. If he made 100 and 0, in the second innings we could suffer a massive collapse due to being down 1/0. Any psychological advantage gained by the big first innings score would be lost when England suddenly find themselves right back in the game.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by stephen

First innings runs generally help set the tone of a match and more often than not tend to be more valuable than second innings runs.

Indeed. Sehwag a fantastic example of this.

Having a good 4th innings average is nice, but it's so overrated at times. Steve Waugh proves this.

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by Jono

Indeed. Sehwag a fantastic example of this.

Having a good 4th innings average is nice, but it's so overrated at times. Steve Waugh proves this.

Sehwag is also a great example of how annoying it is for a team to suddenly lose their opener straight away in a run chase.

[TumTum]

The thing is DeusEx, if your team posts a big total in the 1st innnings, you will play less 2nd innings as you will either win by an innings or the opposition will bat for a draw. Hence your poor 2nd innings record won't be as harmful.

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by TumTum

The thing is DeusEx, if your team posts a big total in the 1st innnings, you will play less 2nd innings as you will either win by an innings or the opposition will bat for a draw. Hence your poor 2nd innings record won't be as harmful.

But if you score a 0 and 100, you will post a smaller first innings total, yet will be able to chase a bigger total (if batting second)?

[G.I.Joe]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

But if you score a 0 and 100, you will post a smaller first innings total, yet will be able to chase a bigger total (if batting second)?

But in your example, you're only chasing a bigger total because you did squat in the first innings. If you did well in the first innings, you wouldn't have to chase that big a total.

Its the total runs you score in the Test that matters, not how prettily you manage to distribute them.

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

But if you score a 0 and 100, you will post a smaller first innings total, yet will be able to chase a bigger total (if batting second)?

You could, but most would be in vain.

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by G.I.Joe

But in your example, you're only chasing a bigger total because you did squat in the first innings. If you did well in the first innings, you wouldn't have to chase that big a total.

Its the total runs you score in the Test that matters, not how prettily you manage to distribute them.

Yeah exactly it's total runs. That's why the comparison is between 100 and 0, vs 0 and 100. Total runs the same.

[G.I.Joe]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

Yeah exactly it's total runs. That's why the comparison is between 100 and 0, vs 0 and 100. Total runs the same.

There doesn't need to be a comparison. Its pointless to do so.

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by G.I.Joe

You're missing the point. There doesn't need to be a comparison. Its pointless to do so.

So your saying both are the same? Because that's what I've been arguing for the past 20 pages. The others have been disputing it.

[G.I.Joe]

Fair enough. I read just the last page tbh

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by G.I.Joe

There doesn't need to be a comparison. Its pointless to do so.

Some people reckon it is important (which I agree to a certain extent). But most are assuming that the batsman would score the majority of their runs in the 1st innings, ignoring the possibility that it might be the other way around, and using that outcome to suggest that it is better than scoring 2 50s.