What makes a good #7 in ODIs?

[trundler]

Statistically, the best #7 (by far) is Dhoni who averages 44 there but a guy like Dhoni really shouldn't be wasted down at 7. After that, you have a bunch of bits and pieces players like Mahmudullah, Razzaq and Harris who all averaged ~34. On average, a #7 faces 35-40 balls per innings and is expected to bat in the death overs.

What inspired this thread is seeing a Holder at 7 and instinctively thinking that West Indies were light on batting. So what is the level of batting aptitude that's just right for a #7, which wouldn't be better utilised higher up the order nor look more secure at 8? Hardik at 6 looks too light on batting and Shadab at 8 looks too low. What is the right balance?

 

[honestbharani]

The answer is, as usual...............

 

[honestbharani]

To answer it more seriously, I am a big believer of fluid batting orders, especially #4 onwards in ODIs and even from #3 in T20s. What I would say is, you would want at least 7 batsmen who are capable of scoring 100s in ODIs in your line-up. Idealy 3 of them should be able to hit out from ball 1.

 

[trundler]

To answer it more seriously, I am a big believer of fluid batting orders, especially #4 onwards in ODIs and even from #3 in T20s. What I would say is, you would want at least 7 batsmen who are capable of scoring 100s in ODIs in your line-up. Idealy 3 of them should be able to hit out from ball 1.

This confirms my belief that Razzaq is the archetypal #7. Ideally every time would like a unicorn like Klusener but Razzaq is more of a realistic standard. Someone with good hitting ability who can reliably bowl 7-8 overs. An extra bit of context I should've mentioned is that the #7 is going to be the 5th bowler in most cases too which should rule out the Maxwells IMO.

 

[CricAddict]

This confirms my belief that Razzaq is the archetypal #7. Ideally every time would like a unicorn like Klusener but Razzaq is more of a realistic standard. Someone with good hitting ability who can reliably bowl 7-8 overs. An extra bit of context I should've mentioned is that the #7 is going to be the 5th bowler in most cases too which should rule out the Maxwells IMO.

Yes, and it rules out Dhoni too unless you have a good bowler at 6. Also, a number 7 should be measured in strike rate and not average.

 

[Molehill]

It all very much depends on the state of the match. If your number 7 comes in at 100-5 in the 20th over, you need a solid batsman who can help see you through 50 overs. But if he's coming in at 290-5 in the 47th then it's a whole different story.

England for a while had Moeen Ali there. He's a good enough batsman to play each of those scenarios and you would get a decent amount of overs out of him on the right pitches too. Sam Curran should become ideal for the role.

 

[Migara]

Answer would be Shahid Afridi.

Good enough bowler and a batsman who can be used as a floater for short high impact innings.

Another option would be a big hitting wicket keeper.

 

[anil1405]

It all very much depends on the state of the match. If your number 7 comes in at 100-5 in the 20th over, you need a solid batsman who can help see you through 50 overs. But if he's coming in at 290-5 in the 47th then it's a whole different story.

England for a while had Moeen Ali there. He's a good enough batsman to play each of those scenarios and you would get a decent amount of overs out of him on the right pitches too. Sam Curran should become ideal for the role.

90s bowlers would be licking their lips if they saw Moeen at no.7 in the batting order. He would've averaged 15 in that position.

 

[Molehill]

90s bowlers would be licking their lips if they saw Moeen at no.7 in the batting order. He would've averaged 15 in that position.

90's bowlers might also be shocked to see him smash them back over their heads. Totally different game now in ODI's. They never had to deal with ramps, reverse sweeps etc or just the general level of aggression seen these days.

 

[honestbharani]

Answer would be Shahid Afridi.

Good enough bowler and a batsman who can be used as a floater for short high impact innings.

Another option would be a big hitting wicket keeper.

Think I agree with this. He had more of a range than the block/bash Razzaq.

 

[trundler]

Vehemently disagree with Afridi and Mo being good enough though Afridi was at least good enough to bowl his quota. Both are way too inconsistent for the spot imo.

 

[anil1405]

90's bowlers might also be shocked to see him smash them back over their heads. Totally different game now in ODI's. They never had to deal with ramps, reverse sweeps etc or just the general level of aggression seen these days.

He can barely hit the current bowlers over the head and averages 22 at no.7 playing your ramps, sweeps etc.

Moeen is arguably as good as Chigumbura in terms of his output.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Klusener would be the gold standard, but didn’t Pollock or some others play ahead of him in that SA team?

 

[_00_deathscar]

It all very much depends on the state of the match. If your number 7 comes in at 100-5 in the 20th over, you need a solid batsman who can help see you through 50 overs. But if he's coming in at 290-5 in the 47th then it's a whole different story.

That’s a long way to say “Jadeja”

 

[peterhrt]

Flintoff? Batted there a dozen times. Normally at 5 or 6.

 

[Molehill]

Vehemently disagree with Afridi and Mo being good enough though Afridi was at least good enough to bowl his quota. Both are way too inconsistent for the spot imo.

I was more using Mo as an example, not saying he was perfect. The problem with Number 7 is that the role required is inconsistent.

Klusener would be the gold standard, but didn’t Pollock or some others play ahead of him in that SA team?

Klusener is a decent shout, but could you get 10 overs out of him?

 

[anil1405]

Klusener is indeed the gold standard for that spot.

And then you have players like:

Harris
Razzaq
O'Donnell
Oram
Pathan

Although Corey Anderson batted mostly at no.6, feel he would've been perfect for that no.7 spot.

People like Morkel, T Perera, Moeen, Afridi etc. were way too inconsistent and/or simply not reliable for that position.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Vehemently disagree with Afridi and Mo being good enough though Afridi was at least good enough to bowl his quota. Both are way too inconsistent for the spot imo.

I think for someone to be as good a bat as you want the idealised #7 to be then in any normal team they'd be batting higher than 7 because a player that good is unlikely to be left at #7 unless they're in an ATG batting team.

There can't be too many teams whose 5th bowler is a better batsman than Afridi and Moeen* who don't play them in the top 6 of their side as a full allrounder.


*at least, the Moeen of a few years back. Could switch his name for Livingstone for a similarly unreliable-but-theoretically-high-ceiling English 2nd spinner if you liked.

 

[trundler]

I think for someone to be as good a bat as you want the idealised #7 to be then in any normal team they'd be batting higher than 7 because a player that good is unlikely to be left at #7 unless they're in an ATG batting team.

There can't be too many teams whose 5th bowler is a better batsman than Afridi and Moeen* who don't play them in the top 6 of their side as a full allrounder.


*at least, the Moeen of a few years back. Could switch his name for Livingstone for a similarly unreliable-but-theoretically-high-ceiling English 2nd spinner if you liked.

Mo averages 28/50 and spent years between fifties until the recent BD series though. I don't think those numbers are good enough in this era. The conundrum you mentioned is part of what inspired this thread though.

I'll throw O'Donnell's name in the hat also.

 

[Molehill]

Mo averages 28/50 and spent years between fifties until the recent BD series though. I don't think those numbers are good enough in this era. The conundrum you mentioned is part of what inspired this thread though.

I'll throw O'Donnell's name in the hat also.

And yet Moeen is also good enough to have 3 ODI tons (to put it in perspective, Klusener has 2). Batting at 7 in the current England set up is a tough gig as you rarely get much more than a late order slog, hence that average.

Some 7's get rather more opportunity than others...