How important are runs from number 8?

[Gob]

I think runs from all positions are v important

 

[Spikey]

more important than runs at number 7 in OD/T20 cricket tbh

 

[kyear2]

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

The basic key.

 

[ankitj]

I think runs from all positions are v important

Exactly. That's a no brainer. However it's what you sacrifice to get those runs is what matters.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Should I pull a Kyear and bring up how Carse's runs from no 9 made the difference from a position of parity to advantage??

 

[ankitj]

No

 

[kyear2]

Exactly. That's a no brainer. However it's what you sacrifice to get those runs is what matters.

Precisely

Taking 20 wickets has to the primary consideration.

And yes it can be crucial, but it shouldn't be the primary consideration.

 

[kyear2]

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

Very true, but there's also no guarantee that the no 8 will succeed when your best batsmen haven't.

Not to mention that if it's a regular occurrence, you have bigger issues.

But yeah, it would give some hope.

 

[GIMH]

Nothing kills momentum more than 5 out all out.

 

[Ali TT]

I can't think of many test sides over the years who haven't had one of their best bowlers who also knows how to handle a bat and can do a job at #8. Sides are probably more inclined to squeeze in a fifth bowler at 6 or 7 who isn't really up to scratch in either discipline

 

[the big bambino]

Respective No.8s for their sides have been Snow, Giles, Hogg, Bishop, Warne and Roberts. Others have been Colley, O'Keefe, Kevin Wright, Chris Lewis, Phil De Freitas and Tim Zoehrer.

The quality of the 1st group is much better than the second, even allowing for the presence in it of the King of Spain. Giles did compliment his team and contributed in the bowling of effective overs allowing the pace men a breather.

Teams containing the first group were markedly more successful than those in the second. While it is a selective example I still think the lesson generally holds true. Pick your No.8 for the quality he brings to the side. As that is usually a bowling position then that is what you favour. If you think Warne in the first group is stretching it to make a point, he would still be selected as a bowler even if he was a lesser batsmen but still good enough to be higher than 9, 10 and 11.

The second group looks like they were selected as a compromise. Trying to get a few runs out of the position by lengthening the tail. and at the expense of bowling quality. I think teams are better off picking a good bowler at No.8 than what eventually turns out to be a no rounder - and coach some batting into him.

 

[Ali TT]

Respective No.8s for their sides have been Snow, Giles, Hogg, Bishop, Warne and Roberts. Others have been Colley, O'Keefe, Kevin Wright, Chris Lewis, Phil De Freitas and Tim Zoehrer.

The quality of the 1st group is much better than the second, even allowing for the presence in it of the King of Spain. Giles did compliment his team and contributed in the bowling of effective overs allowing the pace men a breather.

Teams containing the first group were markedly more successful than those in the second. While it is a selective example I still think the lesson generally holds true. Pick your No.8 for the quality he brings to the side. As that is usually a bowling position then that is what you favour. If you think Warne in the first group is stretching it to make a point, he would still be selected as a bowler even if he was a lesser batsmen but still good enough to be higher than 9, 10 and 11.

The second group looks like they were selected as a compromise. Trying to get a few runs out of the position by lengthening the tail. and at the expense of bowling quality. I think teams are better off picking a good bowler at No.8 than what eventually turns out to be a no rounder - and coach some batting into him.

I think Phil deFreitas was a frontline bowling option at the time, and batted more frequently at 9 than 8 in tests. Chris Lewis probably selected more on hope - one of many "new Bothams" of that era and England would've probably liked him to bat higher up (he had quite a few goes at 7).

Many England fans at the time thought Giles was selected because of his batting over better spin options, but he was a much stronger bowler in county cricket than his contemporaries until Monty came along. If England had wanted a batting spin bowler at 8, they could've given Swann a debut much sooner than they did, but he wasn't well thought of by Fletcher.

 

[LangleyburyCCPlayer]

I think Phil deFreitas was a frontline bowling option at the time, and batted more frequently at 9 than 8 in tests. Chris Lewis probably selected more on hope - one of many "new Bothams" of that era and England would've probably liked him to bat higher up (he had quite a few goes at 7).

Many England fans at the time thought Giles was selected because of his batting over better spin options, but he was a much stronger bowler in county cricket than his contemporaries until Monty came along. If England had wanted a batting spin bowler at 8, they could've given Swann a debut much sooner than they did, but he wasn't well thought of by Fletcher.

Did Swann start off batting up the order at county level, or am I misremembering that? The King of Spain did a job, but Swann was far better, why didn't Fletcher fancy him?

 

[Ali TT]

Did Swann start off batting up the order at county level, or am I misremembering that? The King of Spain did a job, but Swann was far better, why didn't Fletcher fancy him?

I think cause he was a **** on Fletcher's first tour.

 

[LangleyburyCCPlayer]

Update: a fine first Test 50 for Carse (forget the batting order, he is a better batter these days than Woakes), and a gritty contribution from Washington too in the first innings. India didn’t get many runs from 9 to 11, but Bumrah and Siraj put in a sturdy shift that, if they had Pant rather than Jadeja to join them, maybe would have ended differently for India