How important is batting position?

[GIMH]

This is something I think there are a wide range of views on across CC.

There are some posters, like Richard and Prince EWS who I think place great importance on batting order, I have read statements like below from them im the past:

"Vaughan is far inferior opening than at 3" - Richard
"[Sarwan] is a #6 batsman if ever I saw one" - EWS

Note these aren't exact quotes, though I think EWS was talking about Sarwan when he said that.

The purpose of this post isn't to make an example of those, but to show that they are obviously cricket fans who believe that batting position is of utmost importance to a cricketer's success.

Are there any of you out there who feel it is of less importance? Obviously we all know that opening and batting in the lower middle order require different skills, but then again, if you're playing in a strong side then batting at 6 or 7 you could quite often be exposed to the 2nd new ball anyhow, albeit from tired bowlers.

My opinions are:

• One batting position up/down doesn't make much difference but it is important for a player to be settled
• In line with that, a settled side should have a settled batting order, allowing partnerships to blossom over time
• Nonetheless, a world-class batsman should, IMO, be able to knock off runs be it at 1, 2 or 8.

Anyway, to the original question - how important do you think batting position is?

 

[biased indian]

Just ask the same to any one of the Make shift openers india had

Dravid,Laxman..many more

 

[cameeel]

Batting position is very important imo, but not to the extent where a batsman - say Hussey, for example - is any better or worse when batting at #4 compared to batting at #6.

Obviously opening is a specialist role, and Hayden or Graeme Smith would be far less effective batting lower down the order than opening the innings. #3 is also a fairly specalised position in that you need a batsmen who is able to play against both a brand new ball and an old ball according to the situation. After that, down to about number 6 I think that the order plays no role whatsoever in the likely performance of the batsmen, and from #8 downwards is tail-enders anyway - who obviously would not be able to fulfill the role of #s 1-7.

 

[Barney Rubble]

To me, the most important thing is whether or not a batsman is comfortable batting in a different position. I've been an opener for the majority of my pseudo-career, and it was usually because no-one else wanted to do it. Some batsmen convince themselves that they can only bat in a particular place, so when they go out to bat in a different one, their mindset is all different, they're not stable enough. It's a matter of flexibility - some have it, some don't.

 

[AKkAz]

Not entirely important imo, great batsman are able to perform in any position

 

[bond21]

Openers need to have a great defense, be able to play swing and not be afraid of quick bowling.

3 Needs to be able to bat against the new ball aswell, usually the best batsman in the team bats 3 not much different.

4 and 5 are more stroke makers and are usually good against spin

Then the rest from there.

opening is the hardest place to bat, as you go down it gets easier.

 

[bond21]

also its not that important to most batsmen.

Hussey is an opener and he bats 4 for Australia.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Just depends on the batsman himself, and how he best needs to prepare to play his best cricket. Some are flexible, others don't have that ability.

 

[Engle]

From first hand experience, I opened the inns entire career.
Mandate is clear, see off the attack and get some runs in process.

When dropped a few places, entire timing was off, as was mindset and mandate.
Back to opening, runs returned.

I'd say the top 3 positions are extremely important. Recall an article from Barry Richards confirming this.

 

[bond21]

also some batsmen hate waiting around so they like to open

 

[NUFAN]

also some batsmen hate waiting around so they like to open

Yes that's like me.

I don't think batting position is THAT important. Like Ricky Ponting could open really, it's just that you get used to a guy in a particular position that it seems weird to think of Ponting opening or even batting at 4.

 

[burr]

Don't think it's that important. I don't really believe in the stereotypes that openers need to be good against fast-bowling, middle order players need to be dashers etc. I think it's more about the individual mind-set as others have said.

 

[The Sean]

Mindset is important for sure - there are plenty of stories about players who were superstitious about their position in the batting order (Warwick Armstrong was one) and so if they are good enough to earn the right to that spot then it is probably in the team's best interest to play them there.

But there's no question that temperament and technique have a lot to do with it as well. Most top no.3s in my mind would make at least competent openers due to the fact that they often have to perform that role anyway - one of the reasons that you traditionally bat your top man at first drop is because he combines the strokeplaying ability to tear into an attack with the technique and temperament to play the opener's role if and when he has to come in at 1-for-not many.

Down the order it might be less of an issue, and you could argue that there's not a lot of difference in technique or ability between the bloke who bats at 4 or 5 - often it comes down to personal preference, such as for example Steve Waugh who settled brilliantly at the no.5 position and stayed there. That being said, a lot of these men down the years tend to be strokeplayers and are often quite aggressive in their approach, not relying so heavily on technique and watertight defence and as such would invariably be less successful moving up the order. Doug Walters, for instance, was one of the most effective and entertaining no.5s imaginable, but could you imagine him opening the batting?

In the end it all really comes down to where that batsman will do the best job individually within the parameters of the team as a whole, and hopefully by the time a cricketer attains the level we're talking about here he has a pretty good idea about that for himself.

 

[silentstriker]

Extremely important.

 

[Richard]

Haha, nice thread Martyn.

TBH, most of what I'd say has been said: some batsmen have strong preference for a certain position, some are fairly ambiguous; opening is obviously a specialist position.

As regards my quote about Vaughan; I've never, ever, ever been in favour of him opening, have always much preferred him at four (though three will do). His game is just not suited to opening, at all really, and it was a surprise he had even as much success as he briefly did there (not that said success was anywhere near so much as the scorebook made it look).

For mine, "the middle order" (broadly that's three to seven) is something which has its virtues and its negatives all the way. Some batsmen are very good at batting with the tail, and these batsmen don't have to conform to the same archetype, at all. Some batsmen are obviously best suited to coming in with the maximum opportunity to bat with as many genuine batsmen as possible, though I'm no subscriber to the "your best batsman must bat three" theorem - your best batsman should bat where he is best suited to bat, and if that's number-six, then number-six it is. Sir Garfied Sobers, a man who has plentiful claim on being the best batsman ever produced by West Indies often batted six.

Obviously, a good batsman is likely to be able to score runs wherever he bats - you could have put Sachin Tendulkar at the top of the Test order in the 1990s and he'd probably have done a perfectly decent job. But he preferred to bat four, and therefore that was where he should have and did bat. Just because good batsmen can score runs anywhere that doesn't mean you should think it doesn't matter where they bat.

However, if you had a middle-order of Headley, Weekes, Sobers and Lara (for instance) you really could have them in any order you want and it'd probably make little difference.

 

[Olwe]

it is very impotent, not only in the opering and middle order but also into the tail, it can be importent, for examlple some people stay in for ages but dont loose there wicket, but score next to no runs and do well at 11.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Some batsmen convince themselves that they can only bat in a particular place, so when they go out to bat in a different one, their mindset is all different, they're not stable enough. It's a matter of flexibility - some have it, some don't.

Just depends on the batsman himself, and how he best needs to prepare to play his best cricket. Some are flexible, others don't have that ability.

Great minds think alike, Jacko.

 

[vic_orthdox]

it is very impotent

TBH, the topic at hand is batting position, not my *** life.

 

[Richard]

 

[Lillian Thomson]

TBH, the topic at hand is batting position, not my *** life.

I heard that your batting position is stable and your *** life belongs in one.