What makes a good #7 in ODIs?

[trundler]

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...

3 tons with that average means he's been ****e the rest of the time. It's much easier to get a not out batting that low too and yet Moeen still averages 22 at 7 (worse than Holder who inspired this thread). Klusener batted even lower but was remarkably consistent yet trail blazingly destructive so averaged much higher anyway. Regardless, Klusener is the Gilchrist of finishers so it's unrealistic to hold him up as a standard IMO. Like Cummins/Garner are unparalleled among third seamers. I was more thinking about what should make the cut for a not-terrible team. Naturally, people are going to disagree on where precisely the cut off is but I'm very averse to the kind of bits and pieces utility pick Moeen and even Afridi are though again I'll begrudgingly grant Afridi the status of being a frontline spinner. Mo's bowling isn't good enough for what his batting is and vice versa.

 

[Sunil1z]

Klusener (batting all rounder) or Kapil Dev ( bowling all rounder)

Honourable mention : Imran Khan ( however he would be more suitable at 6) and Flintoff

 

[trundler]

Klusener (batting all rounder) or Kapil Dev ( bowling all rounder)

Honourable mention : Imran Khan ( however he would be more suitable at 6)

Who would you pick between them (batting AR or bowling AR) assuming a good to decent top 6 and 4 frontline bowlers?

 

[Migara]

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.

90s bowlers had access to proper reverse swing due to ball rules. Try ramping it when it is snaking through the air.

 

[Sunil1z]

Who would you pick between them (batting AR or bowling AR) assuming a good to decent top 6 and 4 frontline bowlers?

Depends on pitch
On bowling friendly pitch : batting all rounder
On batting friendly pitch: bowling all rounder

 

[Ali TT]

What you want from your number 7 depends a lot on who you have to fill the other ten spots, more so than most others positions I'd suggest. I'm not sure you need a consistent performer at that position because what's required of them will vary so much from match to match. A consistent performer at 7 is probably wasted and would warrant promotion to 5 or 6. If those spots are already filled with better bats then maybe you should be thinking about someone who provides a stronger bowling option.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Early Hussey is easily the best ODI no 7 of all time. Australia could play a specialist bat there as they had Gilchrist, Watson and Symonds all in the top 6.

But finally he has a worthy challenger - the great Michael Bracewell who averages 76.7 @ 7 at a s/r of 129.

 

[SteveNZ]

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.

I'm surprised this hasn't happened more in ODIs/T20s. I know it has at times, but it's not a widely used practice.

As much as he's maligned in Tests, Michael Bracewell is a pretty decent ODI No.7. Two big daddy tons in his 16 innings, big hitter who accesses all areas of the ground, good fielder and bowls fairly tight off spin. Ideal for the sub-continent World Cup.

The ideal No.7 definitely bowls - I dunno if you'd be so lucky to say they're a banker for 10 overs (luxury if they are) but you're probably getting 10 out of them on a good day, and a few from someone else on a not so good day. They're definitely a hitter, again ideally you'd like them to be able to play a decent innings from 100-5 after 20 if they needed to. And yeah I agree, they could be used as a floater in the right situations. Don't think it's ideal if your keeper bats this low, as it means you need someone in the top 6 who is a dependable bowling option, which certainly for my country isn't the case

 

[Flem274*]

Ideally you want an allrounder or keeper who can go from ball one with domestic experience higher in the order to give competence against good bowling.

2007 Shane Watson for example, or Chris Cairns.

Pure icing is a cook in the headlights to quality bowling.

 

[Pothas]

Disappointed to see @Red_Ink_Squid commenting in this thread and not mentioning Woakes. Feel he is actually the right sort of player, would probably have done it more in a different era.

Very tricky position but also not all that important most of the time.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Disappointed to see @Red_Ink_Squid commenting in this thread and not mentioning Woakes. Feel he is actually the right sort of player, would probably have done it more in a different era.

Very tricky position but also not all that important most of the time.

Haha, don't worry, he was absolutely the first player I thought of! Just conscious I've been spamming my Woakes love even more than usual lately.

 

[Ashes81]

I don't think that averages are that important in ODI cricket for the lower order batsmen as they often have to throw caution to the wind.

A quickfire 20 off say 12 balls can be a very useful knock but doesn't do much for your average.

At 7, I always want a finisher, someone who can see the side home when the pressure is on.

For my money Dhoni is as good a number 7 as I've seen and I don’t see him being wasted down there - 7 is a crucial position.

 

[Nintendo]

Maxwell should be in this discussion, no? 800 runs @43 and a SR of 120 @7 so far.

 

[CricAddict]

Suresh Raina was a great number 7 too. Can hit the ball from ball one, bowl a few good overs and also a much more solid batsman than few of the others mentioned here.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Peak Andrew Symonds (2003-) would be the perfect #7 IMO, ironically though he batted at 5 during that period so didn't really actually do it. During that time they had guys like Michael Clarke and Mike Hussey batting 7 which seems really backwards in hindsight

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Peak Andrew Symonds (2003-) would be the perfect #7 IMO, ironically though he batted at 5 during that period so didn't really actually do it. During that time they had guys like Michael Clarke and Mike Hussey batting 7 which seems really backwards in hindsight

????

Hussey averaged 121 (thanks to lots of not outs admittedly) @ 101 s/r when batting 7. He was an absolute gun there who could score from ball one. He's probably the best 7 of all time.

Symonds (like C Cairns and Flintoff) needed time to get in and was thus much better at 5.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Klusener (batting all rounder) or Kapil Dev ( bowling all rounder)

Honourable mention : Imran Khan ( however he would be more suitable at 6) and Flintoff

Flintoff was best at 5

 

[Fuller Pilch]

CDG was pretty good there as was early NZ career Ronchi

 

[TheJediBrah]

Symonds needed time to get in

Flintoff yes but not really Symonds

Hussey was great at no. 7 because he happened to do it when in the form of his life

 

[TheJediBrah]

Shane Watson would have been an ideal no. 7 too. Did great work in the position early in his career before he peaked, can only imagine a 2009-2014 Watson could have done even better

more likely option as 5th bowler than Symonds too (don't @ me Redhill)