How important are runs from number 8?

[LangleyburyCCPlayer]

Obviously number 8s are predominantly in the team for their bowling, but how much stock should you put in their batting? India at Headingley collapsed both times as Thakur did his best rabbit impression which gave England hope when India were looking well on top (granted, his bowling, as well as anyone not named Bumrah was not much cop!), but then Washington came in at Edgbaston, played a key knock from number 8, and they go on and make a mammoth total. He would go wicketless in England’s first innings, but by then, had he already done his job and effectively won the game by creating the platform for a big first innings total?

 

[Srinath P]

They are more of a bonus than a necessity.

Someone like Washington would score 25-30 runs per test at 8 and barely take a wicket.

The impact of someone like Arshdeep or Kuldeep who could take 2-3 wickets per innings is much higher.

 

[LangleyburyCCPlayer]

They are more of a bonus than a necessity.

Someone like Washington would score 25-30 runs per test at 8 and barely take a wicket.

The impact of someone like Arshdeep or Kuldeep who could take 2-3 wickets per innings is much higher.

I think at a minimum, if they aren’t going to score as many runs as a prime Woakes, they should at least be able to block and keep the innings going long enough for the recognised batters to be able to kick on, Jadeja was left stranded at Headingley because 8-11 was so poor with the bat (though I do admit that sometimes that just happens and maybe next time Thakur plays he’ll do a better job)

 

[Srinath P]

I think at a minimum, if they aren’t going to score as many runs as a prime Woakes, they should at least be able to block and keep the innings going long enough for the recognised batters to be able to kick on, Jadeja was left stranded at Headingley because 8-11 was so poor with the bat (though I do admit that sometimes that just happens and maybe next time Thakur plays he’ll do a better job)

Kuldeep can definitely block the ball. He has played some handy knocks at home.

 

[shortpitched713]

Depends on the team, but as long as you're not giving up anything on the bowling end, it can only be a plus.

 

[Ali TT]

Hmm @Chin Music, I remember some intense debates about this exact point

 

[peterhrt]

It would appear that Number 8 has always been expected to get a few runs. Average by era in the position:

1877-93: 15.63
1894-1914: 19.82
1920-39: 20.07
1946-69: 20.09
1970-99: 20.84
2000-25: 22.52

Of the major Test-playing nations South Africa's Number 8s have the highest batting average (23.71) and England's the lowest (19.46).

Daniel Vettori has scored most runs: 2227 @ 39. He and Ashwin have four hundreds. There have been three Test double hundreds from Number 8, by Imtiaz Ahmed, Wasim Akram and Jason Holder. In Imtiaz's case it was the only time he batted that low in the order.

 

[LangleyburyCCPlayer]

It would appear that Number 8 has always been expected to get a few runs. Average by era in the position:

1877-93: 15.63
1894-1914: 19.82
1920-39: 20.07
1946-69: 20.09
1970-99: 20.84
2000-25: 22.52

Of the major Test-playing nations South Africa's Number 8s have the highest batting average (23.71) and England's the lowest (19.46).

Daniel Vettori has scored most runs: 2227 @ 39. He and Ashwin have four hundreds. There have been three Test double hundreds from Number 8, by Imtiaz Ahmed, Wasim Akram and Jason Holder. In Imtiaz's case it was the only time he batted that low in the order.

Not surprised to see South Africa top this list considering they were so keen to stuff their team with all-rounders that Pat Symcox once played at number 11! Pollock would have been their go-to number 8 at the time wouldn't he? He was a bloody good number 8 wasn't he?

 

[Chin Music]

Hmm @Chin Music, I remember some intense debates about this exact point

Yeah, “Pivotal” is a word that springs to mind from the dim and distant past….ll

 

[ashley bach]

Tim Southee was a firm believer that number 8 runs didn't really matter.

 

[peterhrt]

Not surprised to see South Africa top this list considering they were so keen to stuff their team with all-rounders that Pat Symcox once played at number 11! Pollock would have been their go-to number 8 at the time wouldn't he? He was a bloody good number 8 wasn't he?

He is the fifth highest run-scorer at Number 8 from all countries. And also has the fifth highest average (30.96) of those with 1,000 runs, after Vettori, Boucher, Kapil Dev and Jason Holder.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Tim Southee was a firm believer that number 8 runs didn't really matter.

And yet, on those rare occasions that he did score runs and in particular bat with half of his available brain cell, then he could make a difference (c.f. his valuable runs in the recent 1st Test vs. India). The situational awareness of a brick submerged in a bog. Thick as mince.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Runs from no 8 are extremely important. If a big number 8 can run from the scrum and get over the advantage line this provides front foot ball, gets the opposition backpedalling, and gives your backs far more options.

A number 8 can run the blindslide and make space for the halfback/scrum half to double around and release the blindside winger. Likewise a no 8 can run at the opposition's 1st 5/ fly half and set up 2nd phase play.

 

[subshakerz]

It's not just no.8, you need a tail that can wag and hang around. Three bunnies at the end is disaster.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Tim Southee was a firm believer that number 8 runs didn't really matter.

Hits for 6 mattered though

 

[ashley bach]

And yet, on those rare occasions that he did score runs and in particular bat with half of his available brain cell, then he could make a difference (c.f. his valuable runs in the recent 1st Test vs. India). The situational awareness of a brick submerged in a bog. Thick as mince.

Yeah you could be sure when he came out the 7th was falling soon. That innings he played in India though was top notch and came as a total surprise.
Looking back it may of been the only sensible innings he played, but it was certainly just about the best.

 

[Xix2565]

Obviously number 8s are predominantly in the team for their bowling, but how much stock should you put in their batting? India at Headingley collapsed both times as Thakur did his best rabbit impression which gave England hope when India were looking well on top (granted, his bowling, as well as anyone not named Bumrah was not much cop!), but then Washington came in at Edgbaston, played a key knock from number 8, and they go on and make a mammoth total. He would go wicketless in England’s first innings, but by then, had he already done his job and effectively won the game by creating the platform for a big first innings total?

I wouldn't say Washington did his job in England's first innings tbh. People should remember that Akash and Siraj took all the wickets in that innings, and combined for 17 out of 20 wickets taken. You shouldn't expect insane performances everytime, and for me, while Washi did make valuable runs, he also didn't have a great impact with the ball until the final innings which on a different day would've really hurt India who didn't have enough bowling at positions 9-11 to warrant 3 ARs who were largely more impactful with the bat than the ball.

I think it'd be nice to have someone who can make runs, but their most important job is to be able to be a reliable Test bowler above all else. And that's going to vary by conditions, which is why I didn't like his selection compared to other Indian options since I didn't think he was good enough as a spinner alone to warrant a bowling spot.

 

[ankitj]

Wickets are more important from a number 8.

 

[Coronis]

Wickets are more important from a number 8.

Boucher would say number 7

 

[Burgey]

If you’re 6/50 odd I’d say they’re very important. Less so if you’re 6/480.