The World Has Forgotten How To Bat

[NasserFan207]

Agreed with Daemon. And back in the day you'd take the bloke scoring 30 (30) too. The reason you didn't bat like Sehwag then was because it just wasn't possible (or at least was very difficult) with the kind of bats they used.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by Daemon

cricket is all about runs and I'm quite happy taking someone who averages 30 over someone who averages 20, the strike rate doesn't even come into consideration when making a choice like that.

maybe you'll need the guy who bats slowly to grind you out some draws, someday, but in the end it's all down to runs for me.

awta

[zorax]

Originally Posted by Daemon

cricket is all about runs and I'm quite happy taking someone who averages 30 over someone who averages 20, the strike rate doesn't even come into consideration when making a choice like that.

maybe you'll need the guy who bats slowly to grind you out some draws, someday, but in the end it's all down to runs for me.

The counter argument is that, by failing to see off the new ball, the opener has exposed the batsmen below him to the new ball. In doing so, he has increased their chances of getting out cheaply, and thus they are likely to score less runs that they would have had the opener seen off the new ball.
So the additional 10 runs he may have scored have been negated by the runs he has cost the team by exposing the middle order to the new ball.

[NasserFan207]

Originally Posted by zorax

The counter argument is that, by failing to see off the new ball, the opener has exposed the batsmen below him to the new ball. In doing so, he has increased their chances of getting out cheaply, and thus they are likely to score less runs that they would have had the opener seen off the new ball.
So the additional 10 runs he may have scored have been negated by the runs he has cost the team by exposing the middle order to the new ball.

True, but you are more likely to dull the ball by smacking it than letting it go through.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by zorax

The counter argument is that, by failing to see off the new ball, the opener has exposed the batsmen below him to the new ball. In doing so, he has increased their chances of getting out cheaply, and thus they are likely to score less runs that they would have had the opener seen off the new ball.
So the additional 10 runs he may have scored have been negated by the runs he has cost the team by exposing the middle order to the new ball.

I doubt that by bringing the newer batsman about 20-30 deliveries earlier you are reducing his average by 10 runs (which points to the earlier example of the 10 run difference b/w the openers)

[zorax]

I personally feel the Top 3 batsmen have a duty to see off the new ball. Aggressively, defensively, it doesn't matter. But they have to ensure that the batsmen below them aren't needed to bat in the first 30 overs, when the new balls still has it's shine and hardness.

Ofcourse, this is less of a factor when you play in places like India, where the new ball doesn't do much, and where the most difficult passage of play is with the ball about 15 - 40 overs old with the spinners getting bite off the wicket, or with the old ball reverse swinging. In situations like that, there are runs to be taken when the new ball is used, and people like Sehwag exploit that perfectly.

But then you go to places like England, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia, and the old values and principles still stand. Even Hayden would give the first few overs to the bowlers before hammering them into dust. We've seen it time and time again - a good base from the Top 3 is essential to a good score. Even if not in terms of runs, but in terms of seeing off the new ball.

[zorax]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

I doubt that by bringing the newer batsman about 20-30 deliveries earlier you are reducing his average by 10 runs (which points to the earlier example of the 10 run difference b/w the openers)

I'm sure a quick analysis of the batting averages of batsmen 4 to 7 around the world and across history will show that they are prone to average less if they are needed to bat in the first 20/30 overs than if they get to come in after that.

[zorax]

Originally Posted by NasserFan207

True, but you are more likely to dull the ball by smacking it than letting it go through.

Fair enough. If the batsmen in the middle order get to come in with the ball devoid of it's shine and hardness, then that's fine, even if it's in the 10th over.

But that generally isn't the case with attacking openers, is it?

[Daemon]

Originally Posted by zorax

The counter argument is that, by failing to see off the new ball, the opener has exposed the batsmen below him to the new ball. In doing so, he has increased their chances of getting out cheaply, and thus they are likely to score less runs that they would have had the opener seen off the new ball.
So the additional 10 runs he may have scored have been negated by the runs he has cost the team by exposing the middle order to the new ball.

True, but that's assuming he scores say 10 (10). In a similar situation the slower bloke would've scored 6 (20) or something which to be honest, isn't all that big a difference. Also a counter counter argument is that by having a rapid start he puts the opposition on the backfoot quickly and doesn't let the opening quicks settle into a rythm while 'dulling' the ball like what NasserFan said.

These things balance each other out I think which is why I'd always go for the bloke who scores more runs.

[NasserFan207]

Originally Posted by zorax

Fair enough. If the batsmen in the middle order get to come in with the ball devoid of it's shine and hardness, then that's fine, even if it's in the 10th over.

But that generally isn't the case with attacking openers, is it?

Well look, in my book you dont really want an opener who scores 20 or 30, both have done a poor job really. If you get in as an opener, you have to make it count. The most important thing is not to get out cheaply in the first few overs.

[zorax]

Originally Posted by Daemon

True, but that's assuming he scores say 10 (10). In a similar situation the slower bloke would've scored 6 (20) or something which to be honest, isn't all that big a difference. Also he counter counter argument is that by having a rapid start he puts the opposition on the backfoot quickly and doesn't let the opening quicks settle into a rythm.

These things balance each other out I think which is why I'd always go for the bloke who scores more runs.

The opening quicks may have been unsettled, but now the new batsman coming in is facing a relieved bowler who just has taken a wicket, and who has a ball which is still hard and swinging.

Just as bad really.

And surviving 10 balls is about the same as 20, I agree, but we aren't dealing with such small difference practically. It's more about comparing the Sehwag, Warner, Tamims etc. to guy like Akash Chopra, Alviro Peterson and Cook.

If, on average, you have an opener scoring 40 off 40, or one scoring 20 off 80, then I do feel the 20 off 80 is better for the job. He is laying a platform for the side and seeing off the shine. The difference of 20 runs will be more than made up by the middle order who are not exposed to the new ball and who can cash in.

Although, as I said earlier, this doesn't apply to all places and pitches in the world.

[zorax]

Originally Posted by NasserFan207

Well look, in my book you dont really want an opener who scores 20 or 30, both have done a poor job really. If you get in as an opener, you have to make it count. The most important thing is not to get out cheaply in the first few overs.

Agreed. Like I said, if they see off the new ball consistently, then I don't mind how they do it. The point of the opener is not to expose the middle order.

The openers around the world are a mix of those who play in a slow style but see off the new ball consistently (Cook, Peterson, Compton, Powell) and those who like to whack the shine off (Gayle, Warner, Sehwag, Dilshan, Tamim). The problem with the latter bunch is that they also have the tendency to fall early, exposing the batsmen below to the new ball, which is bad.

That's why I bring up Hayden again. He was a big, bruising opener who tore attacks apart...but even he made sure he had seen off the new ball and survived a few overs before he laid into the bowling. He was the perfect example of what an attacking opener should be like. Even someone like Greenidge.

[Hurricane]

Originally Posted by zorax

The opening quicks may have been unsettled, but now the new batsman coming in is facing a relieved bowler who just has taken a wicket, and who has a ball which is still hard and swinging.

Just as bad really.

And surviving 10 balls is about the same as 20, I agree, but we aren't dealing with such small difference practically. It's more about comparing the Sehwag, Warner, Tamims etc. to guy like Akash Chopra, Alviro Peterson and Cook.

If, on average, you have an opener scoring 40 off 40, or one scoring 20 off 80, then I do feel the 20 off 80 is better for the job. He is laying a platform for the side and seeing off the shine. The difference of 20 runs will be more than made up by the middle order who are not exposed to the new ball and who can cash in.

Although, as I said earlier, this doesn't apply to all places and pitches in the world.

Thanks for your comments. Naturally I agree with all of them.