• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Aus loses when they bat first.

haroon510

International 12th Man
i just notice something that worths discussing here. Do guys think Aus have problem Defend thier Total score after they bat first? we have seen this that even they made big score they lost the match. example 5th odi Sa vs Aus. Aus lost despite scoring 434. no one can forget the upset win of Bangladish over Aus. that all happend after Aus Batted first.
what do u guys think?
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
There is no reason to think, since 2003:

55-14 batting first (25.0% losing)
42-10 batting second (25.4% losing)

They are virtually identical. So the answer is an emphatic no.
 

Natman20

International Debutant
NZ are the worst batting first. Australia are dominant in either batting first or second... well maybe not considering recent results.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Batting first always gives you the best chance of losing.

Simple as.

Well, unless the pitch is going to break-up in 100 overs. But that's unusual.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
With a couple of early wickets it can be hard to set a decent total - and you can never know what that is.

It's always easier if you know what you're chasing.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Well, so can not knowing.

People can feel under scoreboard pressure if they're scoring at only 3.8-an-over, even on a pitch where it might turn-out to be enough.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
Most teams seem to prefer to set a total first, I don't think that's an irrational preference formed without any thought on the subject. If you've got decent bowlers who can apply some pressure, setting a decent target is always the best way to win the game. It forces the opposition to bat for the run rate required, rather than their natural game or playing each delivery on its merits.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I'd say the best bowling-attacks always prefer to bowl first - because that way line-and-length can be treated on it's merits - at least for a time - without the opposition knowing that they need to go after it.

If you have a decent bowling-attack and you field first on a good batting pitch, you can easily restrict an opposition to 240-250. Then you know what you need, so if your opponents bowl similarly, you can play according to the run-rate you know you need, rather than trying to guess.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Australia are definitely a better team batting first than second, but it doesn't make that much difference. Some teams are the other way around.

Extremely rare that Ponting would win the toss and bowl, anyway.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
It's always more common to win the toss and bat, just because everyone knows that if it doesn't work you get far less criticism from the stuck-in-the-old-ways chaps in the pavilion and the tabloids that way.

Bat first and lose: no-one ever says anything, unless it was in conditions that were patently seamer-friendly, even then it's nowhere near as bad as the criticism you get for fielding on a pitch that crumbles.

But field first and lose, and it's always, without fail "[insert name of captain here] might just be regretting fielding first".

Hypocrisy in the extreme.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Not even going to bother arguing with that. It just makes no sense. You seriously think captains make the crucial decision about whether to bat first or not based on what people will say about them if they lose?
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
Actually agree with Richard that most captains are very reluctant to insert teams. I think that in general that's because batting first gives you the best chance to take the game away from the opposition, but there's also undoubtedly an element of reluctance to buck the orthodoxy and bowl first - media and pundit criticism is probably not an explicit part of most captain's thought processes, but the flogging they know is waiting if you opt to bowl and lose must play a role in all but the most confident individuals.

Still think choosing to bat DOES actually provide you with an advantage most of the time however...
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Not even going to bother arguing with that. It just makes no sense. You seriously think captains make the crucial decision about whether to bat first or not based on what people will say about them if they lose?
Only rarely is it crucial. Put simply - on most pitches, the team that plays best wins whether they bat first or second. Captains can bat or field, it rarely affects their chances. It does, however, affect the criticism they receive if things go wrong (which, inevitably, they sometimes will).
 

FRAZ

International Captain
I being a follower of Pak cricket for such a long time know one thing for sure that especially during the golden and long gone days of W's, I always had a worry that Pakistan will struggle while batting second cuz if the Pak batsmen knew the things then they were supposed to make some usual mess.. Batting first or second doesn't make a difference to Aus (Genuine product) but I was just referring to the "Made in Malaysia" cricket teams !!!
 

Nemesis27

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
The team batting first can either give the chasing team a realitively easy victory with a modest total or completely obliterate the opposition with a huge score they have almost no chance of chasing down (Although Australia has been known for its terrible defending of large totals in recent times)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Plenty of teams have failed (or almost failed) to defend large totals of late.

A massive score is no longer a shut-out. A very low one, though, has tended to remain so.
 

shortpitched713

International Regular
Plenty of teams have failed (or almost failed) to defend large totals of late.

A massive score is no longer a shut-out. A very low one, though, has tended to remain so.
Thats just your perception. Its a lot easier to remember instances where a team chases down a huge total, than it is to remember when a team might end up coming short against a relatively smaller total in which the pressure of the total can have played a role in the failure.

My feeling is that if there is any doubt about the pitch from the batsmen, then the latter will be much more likely than the former, which would explain why large totals are often chased down in the subcontinent and at a place like the Wanderers where everyone knew it was a belter from the early stages.
 

Top