why dont teams shuffle their batting order according to pitches?

[dass]

i have always wonder why dont teams do this? like if you have a great batting pitch, you might want to open with a aggressive batsmen like Afridi or Dhoni, but when the pitches are slow or bowler friendly, why not open with solid batsmen like Dravid or Ponting? why dont they switch around the orders sometimes according to the pitches??

 

[Perm]

It's been done, I beleive the Australian's did it way back and Bradman came in at #7 and scored a double century.

 

[dass]

so yeah it worked right ?

why dont teams do this now.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Usually players bat in a particular batting position for a reason. There are all sorts of problems associated with shuffling the batting order.

Your average opener might do fine against the new ball, but struggle against spin early in their innings, thus batting down the order could be tricky. Similarly, a strong middle order batsman might get out early to the new ball, especially on a lively pitch, and then your middle order is exposed. And really, players perform best when given a consistent role. A player who doesn't know where he will be batting will find it more difficult to prepare and perform consistently.

This mostly relates to test cricket though. If you're talking about ODIs, there's more room for this sort of thing and some teams do it. Australia used to shuffle Bevan around the order a fair bit, and South Africa seem to do the same thing with a few of their players, like Kallis and Boucher. India with Dhoni a bit as well. Even in ODIs though, there are different skillsets associated with batting in different places.

 

[Josh]

Solidarity, preference, consistency. Just to name a few.

 

[Matt79]

It's been done, I beleive the Australian's did it way back and Bradman came in at #7 and scored a double century.

That practice was due to uncovered pitches - once they got wet they could be unplayable as they dried out - however if you could last until they totally dried they would be playable again. One flaw Bradman had was a pronounced dislike of trying to bat on wet pitches (I mean, all batsmen disliked it probably, but he wasn't the wet pitch player Hobbs or Hammond was), so on the occasion in question sent in almost everyone else, gambling that once the pitch dried, he could come in and make the runs required. Obviously this isn't a problem these days.

These days it seems to be the preference of almost every batsmen to know their role and when they're due to come in.

 

[PhoenixFire]

That practice was due to uncovered pitches - once they got wet they could be unplayable as they dried out - however if you could last until they totally dried they would be playable again. One flaw Bradman had was a pronounced dislike of trying to bat on wet pitches (I mean, all batsmen disliked it probably, but he wasn't the wet pitch player Hobbs or Hammond was), so on the occasion in question sent in almost everyone else, gambling that once the pitch dried, he could come in and make the runs required. Obviously this isn't a problem these days.

These days it seems to be the preference of almost every batsmen to know their role and when they're due to come in.

Wouldn't Bradman have a better chance of surviving wet pitches than anyone else in the team?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Wouldn't Bradman have a better chance of surviving wet pitches than anyone else in the team?

Simply because he was the best batsman in the team does not mean he was the best batsman in all conditions.

 

[PhoenixFire]

But he wasn't just the best batsman in the team, he was the best batsman of all time by a country mile.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

But he wasn't just the best batsman in the team, he was the best batsman of all time by a country mile.

Take my comment and apply it to a global situation. The point is exactly the same.

 

[PhoenixFire]

But who else had a better defensive technique than him? Woodfull, Hasset, Morris and McCabe all had good ones, but as good as The Don?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

But who else had a better defensive technique than him? Woodfull, Hasset, Morris and McCabe all had good ones, but as good as The Don?

The best batsman doesn't necessarily equate the best technique, approach, temperament etc. etc.

You see where I'm going with this?

 

[C_C]

This mostly relates to test cricket though. If you're talking about ODIs, there's more room for this sort of thing and some teams do it. Australia used to shuffle Bevan around the order a fair bit, and South Africa seem to do the same thing with a few of their players, like Kallis and Boucher. India with Dhoni a bit as well. Even in ODIs though, there are different skillsets associated with batting in different places.

I actually think that in ODIs batting is even more specialised than in Tests.
In tests, in my opinion, the top three (openers and 1 down) are the only ones that are speialised. It wouldnt matter much if Tendulkar started batting at #5 or #6 or if Steve Waugh batted at #4 or #6. But in ODIs, the role of the opener is just as specialised- you need someone who can hit boundaries consistently to take advantage of the fielding restrictions.
But you also need specialised #6-# 7, who can score as many quick, clean runs as they can.
I don't think Ponting/Tendulkar or Lara would do better than Kemp, Razzaq or McCallum comming in the last 5 overs.

 

[PhoenixFire]

The best batsman doesn't necessarily equate the best technique, approach, temperament etc. etc.

You see where I'm going with this?

I so, but doesn't the best technique, approach, temperament add towards being the best batsman? They are the makings of the best batsman, am I right?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I so, but doesn't the best technique, approach, temperament add towards being the best batsman? They are the makings of the best batsman, am I right?

It can, but it isn't the definition of a great batsman. A great batsman is one who scores heavily enough to be considered great. It doesn't matter how pretty the manner of scoring is.

Consider these:

Brian Lara is clearly the best batsman in the West Indian team, but Daren Ganga has better technique.
Ricky Ponting is clearly the best batsman in the Australian team, but Matthew Hayden is a better player of spin.

Bradman may have been the greatest batsman to play the game, but that doesn't mean he was the greatest batsman on wet pitches in the world, let alone in his team. The fact that he didn't like to play on wet pitches shows that he wasn't exactly in the right mindset for success. That alone would likely inhibit him.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I get what your saying now. But wouldn't his genius of batting mean that even if by comparison he was poor at a certain aspect of the game, he would still be far better than anyone else?

 

[marc71178]

I actually think that in ODIs batting is even more specialised than in Tests.
In tests, in my opinion, the top three (openers and 1 down) are the only ones that are speialised. It wouldnt matter much if Tendulkar started batting at #5 or #6 or if Steve Waugh batted at #4 or #6.

Whilst I agree that you need a different type of player for the opening/3 role to the middle order (3 is IMO the key one as it has far more need to adapt to different situations (could be in at 0-1 or 200-1)), I do think the roles of 4 through to 6/7 differ as well.

For instance, a number 6 is more likely to have to face the second new ball than the 4, as well as more having to bat with tailenders - each of those involves a fair degree of differing skills to get the most out of the team and the individual...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I get what your saying now. But wouldn't his genius of batting mean that even if by comparison he was poor at a certain aspect of the game, he would still be far better than anyone else?

Not necessarily. I'm sure there's a club level cricketer somewhere who would score more runs than Ponting on a raging turner against Harbhajan and Murali.

 

[PhoenixFire]

You think? Ponting has never been that good against spin on spinning tracks, but I couldn't reall say to whether a club cricketer would.

 

[C_C]

Whilst I agree that you need a different type of player for the opening/3 role to the middle order (3 is IMO the key one as it has far more need to adapt to different situations (could be in at 0-1 or 200-1)), I do think the roles of 4 through to 6/7 differ as well.

For instance, a number 6 is more likely to have to face the second new ball than the 4, as well as more having to bat with tailenders - each of those involves a fair degree of differing skills to get the most out of the team and the individual...

Generally speaking though, most #4-#7 batsmen in tests have faced enough collapses by their fellow batsmen to've gained experience facing the new ball on a more worn pitch.
I think its also a fairly common aspect of cricket historically for great/world-class batsmen to be shuffled around #4-#6.