Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
A thread to pass the time.
In ODIs, I've long thought batting lineups aren't fluid enough. MS Dhoni is way ahead of the rest of the pack in that respect. He comes in for some criticism for it, but it would be stupid to come in at 5 regardless of the situation when he's so vulnerable to aggressive bowling and possibly the best in the world at scoring quickly against defensive fields. Likewise, I often wonder why real batsmen are still coming in ahead of sloggers with three or four overs left in the first innings. There's a bit of an edge to be gained by changing the order that teams have only started to scratch the surface of.
In tests, it's a bit trickier to say. Certainly there are times when it makes a lot of sense to mess around- promoting Ashwell Prince when quality seam is on at both ends, for example- but they're not so common because how you get the runs isn't so important. Having a settled batting order is undoubtedly important, but what's strange is that using a night watchman is totally standard but changing the order to suit any other specific circumstances is almost unheard of. Obviously players like to know when they're coming in, so I don't know if I'm convinced myself that messing around with the order is an effective tactic in tests. But it does occasionally seem senseless to stick rigidly to the plan when there's a good reason not to.
There's not too much agreement on what that plan should be, though. Should out-of-form players temporarily drop down the order? Should more aggressive players bat lower so that the team can better capitalise when the tail is in? Or is there an advantage to having an aggressive guy in early on, perhaps in the subcontinent, where the new ball is often more of a rare scoring opportunity than a tough period to get through? What about designing the order with the relative strengths of players against different types of bowling in mind? How about the intangibles- the tone-setting and responsibility taking and the like that Ian Chappell is obsessed with? I have to say, if a team manager told me to bat somewhere other than where I wanted for a reason like that I'd be pretty pissed off. In fact, I think the consensus among international teams is that none of those reasons are good enough to diverge from the principle of having as many players as possible bat where they want- perhaps that's why it comes up so much more often in the media than in practice.
Thoughts?
In ODIs, I've long thought batting lineups aren't fluid enough. MS Dhoni is way ahead of the rest of the pack in that respect. He comes in for some criticism for it, but it would be stupid to come in at 5 regardless of the situation when he's so vulnerable to aggressive bowling and possibly the best in the world at scoring quickly against defensive fields. Likewise, I often wonder why real batsmen are still coming in ahead of sloggers with three or four overs left in the first innings. There's a bit of an edge to be gained by changing the order that teams have only started to scratch the surface of.
In tests, it's a bit trickier to say. Certainly there are times when it makes a lot of sense to mess around- promoting Ashwell Prince when quality seam is on at both ends, for example- but they're not so common because how you get the runs isn't so important. Having a settled batting order is undoubtedly important, but what's strange is that using a night watchman is totally standard but changing the order to suit any other specific circumstances is almost unheard of. Obviously players like to know when they're coming in, so I don't know if I'm convinced myself that messing around with the order is an effective tactic in tests. But it does occasionally seem senseless to stick rigidly to the plan when there's a good reason not to.
There's not too much agreement on what that plan should be, though. Should out-of-form players temporarily drop down the order? Should more aggressive players bat lower so that the team can better capitalise when the tail is in? Or is there an advantage to having an aggressive guy in early on, perhaps in the subcontinent, where the new ball is often more of a rare scoring opportunity than a tough period to get through? What about designing the order with the relative strengths of players against different types of bowling in mind? How about the intangibles- the tone-setting and responsibility taking and the like that Ian Chappell is obsessed with? I have to say, if a team manager told me to bat somewhere other than where I wanted for a reason like that I'd be pretty pissed off. In fact, I think the consensus among international teams is that none of those reasons are good enough to diverge from the principle of having as many players as possible bat where they want- perhaps that's why it comes up so much more often in the media than in practice.
Thoughts?
