Runs at 9, 10, 11?! (Test Cricket)

[shortpitched713]

How useful are they, and would you pick bowlers based on that criteria? What if you're South Africa and most of your bowlers can seemingly bat for some reason. What if they're all absolute mugs? Should they just block and let their better partner score, or should they actually be going with an approach of trying to score themselves?

At face value, they're as important as any other runs, so all things equal... But yeah rarely is it that all things are equal. Almost always, bowlers get picked to bowl though, incomprehensible incompetence with the bat be damned.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Any run contributed will be appreciated.

 

[ankitj]

Of course lower order runs are useful. It's all about trade offs though. I'd happily pick 4 non batsmen if they are clearly the 4 best bowlers available for the conditions.

 

[kyear2]

I think generally the best way to look at these all round or secondary skills would be to use them as a tie breaker rather than a primary objective.

 

[Line and Length]

There is no reason why lower order players shouldn't work on improving their batsmanship. I recall when tailenders in Australoia's team/squad were allocated to seasoned batsmen to coach them. Glenn McGrath was allocated Steve Waugh and within a few months McGrath was showing greater confidence and competence.
This is illustrated by the fact that, from 1993-2000, McGrath's batting average was 5.87 and from 2001 to 2007 it was 10.09 .Not great figures but, for a typical number 11, McGrath almost doubled his value with the bat.

 

[ankitj]

There is no reason why lower order players shouldn't work on improving their batsmanship. I recall when tailenders in Australoia's team/squad were allocated to seasoned batsmen to coach them. Glenn McGrath was allocated Steve Waugh and within a few months McGrath was showing greater confidence and competence.
This is illustrated by the fact that, from 1993-2000, McGrath's batting average was 5.87 and from 2001 to 2007 it was 10.09 .Not great figures but, for a typical number 11, McGrath almost doubled his value with the bat.

Bumrah is a much improved batsman too. Broke a record that was held by Brian Lara.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

It isn't just the runs that a 9-11 scores; it is also the runs scored at the other end (often by a specialist bat or a keeper/allrounder), as well as the tiredness and frustration inflicted on the fielding side.

 

[Coronis]

There is no reason why lower order players shouldn't work on improving their batsmanship. I recall when tailenders in Australoia's team/squad were allocated to seasoned batsmen to coach them. Glenn McGrath was allocated Steve Waugh and within a few months McGrath was showing greater confidence and competence.
This is illustrated by the fact that, from 1993-2000, McGrath's batting average was 5.87 and from 2001 to 2007 it was 10.09 .Not great figures but, for a typical number 11, McGrath almost doubled his value with the bat.

Imagine if he had Bradman, he might’ve hit a ton before Warne.

 

[kevinw]

England once had a tail of Caddick, Mullally, Tufnell and Giddens. Three number elevens and Caddick is probably a ten by today's standards.

It's useful if your number eight can score the odd fifty but can regularly contribute 20s/30s. That's where someone like Woakes is gold dust, especially at home. Your nine would still be a guy you want to average in the teens with the bat. Less likely to hit half-centuries, but certainly chipping in with some useful scores now and then. Mark Wood is excellent for this. Ten and eleven are more about holding a bat to let the other guy hit runs.

Whether you pick one bowler over another because of their bowling? It really depends on the difference it makes. I remember England picking Saj Mahmood because they thought he could bat and would lengthen the tail (he didn't).

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I remember England picking Saj Mahmood because they thought he could bat and would lengthen the tail (he didn't).

There were a lot of positive things England thought about Saj Mahmood that never materialised. This is one of the less important of those.

 

[FBU]

I remember Agar's 98 at 11 and also at 11 Tino Best's 95. There was Southee's 77* at 10 with 9 sixes. Tail end batting is great fun to watch.
Saqib Mahmood leading run scorer in the innings at no 11 with 49 in the WI.

 

[kevinw]

Anderson hit 81 Vs India batting at 11, alongside Root, who scored a ton.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

I remember Agar's 98 at 11 and also at 11 Tino Best's 95. There was Southee's 77* at 10 with 9 sixes. Tail end batting is great fun to watch.
Saqib Mahmood leading run scorer in the innings at no 11 with 49 in the WI.

Jerome Taylor's ton....Alzarri 86

Both in New Zealand

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Yasir Shah's 100 in Australia is a good shout out also

(What position was he batting in?)

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Ian Smith scored 173 off 136 balls at no 9 for NZ v India in 1990. NZ were put in on a green top and collapsed to 85/6 and 131/7 before Smith and Hadlee saved the innings.

 

[ataraxia]

Yasir Shah's 100 in Australia is a good shout out also

(What position was he batting in?)

#8 IIRC

 

[Qlder]

#8 IIRC

So not relevant to this thread lol

 

[the big bambino]

This thread reminds me of my favourite cw complaint, moaning about a team's inability to dismiss a tail cheaply then under rating bowlers adept at skinning rabbits.

 

[kyear2]

This thread reminds me of my favourite cw complaint, moaning about a team's inability to dismiss a tail cheaply then under rating bowlers adept at skinning rabbits.

I was thinking the same. But I think the problem might be, and trying to phrase this properly... If the perception is that some are more adept at tail enders than the top order?

But I've believed that sometimes it is complacency and indiscipline that allows some of these runs. Sorry to again revert back to the recently concluded ashes, but there was a particular match when England went bouncer crazy and lost the plot.

 

[the big bambino]

I was thinking the same. But I think the problem might be, and trying to phrase this properly... If the perception is that some are more adept at tail enders than the top order?

But I've believed that sometimes it is complacency and indiscipline that allows some of these runs. Sorry to again revert back to the recently concluded ashes, but there was a particular match when England went bouncer crazy and lost the plot.

Tbf the circumstance that rubs specifically is the argument being used to separate Akram from other bowlers in comparisons. Whereas his methods against the tail should be followed by bowlers even if they don't possess his level of skill.

I have a perhaps distorted recollection of Lillee being ineffective against the tail because he treated them as he would real batsmen. The image that keeps recurring in my mind is Underwood slashing him over the slips on a frustrating number of occasions.

I think both sides in the ashes bowled quite badly at times and the fault was with the length chosen.