Who is really to blame for Australia's batting collapses post 2007 in Ashes series?

[vic_orthdox]

The best way of putting it is that by getting out for 50, you keep the opposition in the game. As an opening batsman, by getting out for 50, first of all you've gone through the hardest part of your batting and gotten out, and also expose the middle order to a greater level of pressure. You kill the game by making 100s, and make it so easy for the numbers 4-6 if they come in at 3/200 rather than 3/120.

One of the biggest instigators for Australia's success was the conversion rates of Langer, Slater and Hayden, the three mainstay openers between 1995 and 2006.

Slater: 21 x 50, 14 x 100 [40%]
Hayden: 29 x 50, 30 x 100 [51%]
Langer (as opener): 18 x 50, 16 x 100 [47%]

Katich (as opener): 17 x 50, 8 x 100 [32%]
Watson (as opener): 12 x 50, 2 x 100 [14%]

EDIT: the other factor is ensuring that you keep the fielding team out there for longer. Especially for the sake of the second innings; would you rather be facing a team that bowled for 90 overs, or 130 overs, in the first innings? It makes it more likely that you'll be exposed to a collapse in the second innings.

 

[tooextracool]

The best way of putting it is that by getting out for 50, you keep the opposition in the game. As an opening batsman, by getting out for 50, first of all you've gone through the hardest part of your batting and gotten out, and also expose the middle order to a greater level of pressure. You kill the game by making 100s, and make it so easy for the numbers 4-6 if they come in at 3/200 rather than 3/120.

One of the biggest instigators for Australia's success was the conversion rates of Langer, Slater and Hayden, the three mainstay openers between 1995 and 2006.

Slater: 21 x 50, 14 x 100 [40%]
Hayden: 29 x 50, 30 x 100 [51%]
Langer (as opener): 18 x 50, 16 x 100 [47%]

Katich (as opener): 17 x 50, 8 x 100 [32%]
Watson (as opener): 12 x 50, 2 x 100 [14%]

EDIT: the other factor is ensuring that you keep the fielding team out there for longer. Especially for the sake of the second innings; would you rather be facing a team that bowled for 90 overs, or 130 overs, in the first innings? It makes it more likely that you'll be exposed to a collapse in the second innings.

Think this is a great post tbh, a point I actually wanted to touch on myself. Having watched England this series, it really had struck me as to how easy its been for the middle order to come in and score runs after Cook, Trott and Strauss (to some extent) have already got runs under their belt. It goes back to Australia's dominance and how it was so much easier for some of those middle order batsmen to capitalize on the efforts of Haydens, Langers and Pontings.

Its not even so much that coming in at 300/3 gives batsmen the psychological advantage. Its about the fact that a bowler who is bowling at 300/3 has already been completely demoralized by having been caned around the park. However, coming in when the team is 120/3 is quite a bit different because most bowlers bowl better and have their tail up when they sense opportunity.

 

[Ruckus]

The best way of putting it is that by getting out for 50, you keep the opposition in the game. As an opening batsman, by getting out for 50, first of all you've gone through the hardest part of your batting and gotten out, and also expose the middle order to a greater level of pressure. You kill the game by making 100s, and make it so easy for the numbers 4-6 if they come in at 3/200 rather than 3/120.

That would be true if you made a hundred in both innings. However, if you made a 100 and 0, any advantage given by the 100 in the first innings is lost by getting a duck in the second innings. In the first innings pressure will be minimal on the middle order, whilst in the second in will be at a peak.

Some player score runs by getting very high scores and very low scores (e.g. Marcus North) while others seem to get many intermediate scores (e.g. Watson). The difference between Watson and North, is that North has a ****ty average whilst Watson doesn't. The pattern of scoring is irrelevant.

 

[TumTum]

Its not even so much that coming in at 300/3 gives batsmen the psychological advantage. Its about the fact that a bowler who is bowling at 300/3 has already been completely demoralized by having been caned around the park. However, coming in when the team is 120/3 is quite a bit different because most bowlers bowl better and have their tail up when they sense opportunity.

That is all well and true, but you are forgetting what happens when your in form batsman fall for cheap scores?

 

[tooextracool]

That would be true if you made a hundred in both innings. However, if you made a 100 and 0, any advantage given by the 100 in the first innings is lost by getting a duck in the second innings. In the first innings pressure will be minimal on the middle order, whilst in the second in will be at a peak.

Think you have just answered your own question. At least in the first option, you have virtually eliminated the chances of a collapse by scoring a 100. By scoring a 50 in each innings you have essentially left your team open to collapse in both innings.

 

[vic_orthdox]

That would be true if you made a hundred in both innings. However, if you made a 100 and 0, any advantage given by the 100 in the first innings is lost by getting a duck in the second innings. In the first innings pressure will be minimal on the middle order, whilst in the second in will be at a peak.

But it hasn't, because the runs that you have scored in the first innings make it easier for the people beneath you to make runs. When an opener scores a ton, the job becomes a million times easier. So by making a hundred, you've established a greater lead because everyone beneath you finds run making easier.

I've said it three times in the above paragraph, hopefully it sinks in.

The other aspect to it is that as the most set batsman, getting out for a middling score like 50-70 is a huge fillip to the bowling side, and exposes the team further than what losing the newer batsman up the other end does. You have a greater responsibility once you are the set batsman, and Watson in particular throws that away regularly.

 

[Ruckus]

That is all well and true, but you are forgetting what happens when your in form batsman fall for cheap scores?

Exactly, only one side of the coin is being looked at here. If you say that many batsmen convert 50's in the first innings AND the second innings (hence meaning both the first and second innings totals will be high), then the reason you will likely win the match is simply because that means the players are averaging much higher than usual.

So back to the original point fo the thread, batting collapses are definately NOT Watson's fault. Look to the players who are averaging less - North, Ponting etc.

 

[TumTum]

tooextracool, you are only looking at one side of the story.

By scoring a 100 & 0 (or 0 & 100) you are improving your chances of winning the match. However you are also improving your chances of losing the match. So it all evens itself out.

And it is believed that having a higher conversion rate is always better, which is true but it is assuming that you will have a higher average to go with it.

 

[Ruckus]

Think you have just answered your own question. At least in the first option, you have virtually eliminated the chances of a collapse by scoring a 100. By scoring a 50 in each innings you have essentially left your team open to collapse in both innings.

Bull****. Why is scoring a 50 making it likely that a collapse will ensue? Sure, it is creating more pressure than if you scored a 100, but it is also less pressure than if you scored a 0.

 

[Ruckus]

But it hasn't, because the runs that you have scored in the first innings make it easier for the people beneath you to make runs. When an opener scores a ton, the job becomes a million times easier. So by making a hundred, you've established a greater lead because everyone beneath you finds run making easier.

I've said it three times in the above paragraph, hopefully it sinks in.

The other aspect to it is that as the most set batsman, getting out for a middling score like 50-70 is a huge fillip to the bowling side, and exposes the team further than what losing the newer batsman up the other end does. You have a greater responsibility once you are the set batsman, and Watson in particular throws that away regularly.

And the runs you DON'T score in the second innings makes it much more likely people beneath you WON'T make runs. Stop just looking at one side of the coin.

 

[TumTum]

But it hasn't, because the runs that you have scored in the first innings make it easier for the people beneath you to make runs. When an opener scores a ton, the job becomes a million times easier. So by making a hundred, you've established a greater lead because everyone beneath you finds run making easier.

Assuming the batsman's 1st innings runs are always higher.

 

[vic_orthdox]

And the runs you DON'T score in the second innings makes it much more likely people beneath you WON'T make runs. Stop just looking at one side of the coin.

There's no rule in cricket saying that you have to fail after making a score. Or that your average over a Test will match your career average.

 

[benchmark00]

Wickets are a part of cricket. The suggestion that a batsman is to blame because he gets out and puts the others batsmen under pressure is silly. These guys are professional athletes, they're always going to be under pressure to perform.

The real people to blame for collapses are the people who come in when a wicket falls and fail to try and consolidate.

 

[Ruckus]

There's no rule in cricket saying that you have to fail after making a score. Or that your average over a Test will match your career average.

Exactly. So the reason they would succeed is because of a HIGHER AVERAGE over the match. That was my point to begin with.

 

[TumTum]

There's no rule in cricket saying that you have to fail after making a score. Or that your average over a Test will match your career average.

Ok so you get 2 centuries in the 1st match and get a pair in the 2nd match.

 

[tooextracool]

tooextracool, you are only looking at one side of the story.

By scoring a 100 & 0 (or 0 & 100) you are improving your chances of winning the match. However you are also improving your chances of losing the match. So it all evens itself out.

And it is believed that having a higher conversion rate is always better, which is true but it is assuming that you will have a higher average to go with it.

I dont think I am to be honest. 50s dont win games at the end of the day and if you score a 50 you are almost certainly relying on someone else to come in and score a 100 in order to have some chance of winning the game (unless you have 7 batsmen that can score 50 in very game) As has been pointed our already, a set batsman has no excuse for getting out without scoring a century once he crosses 50.

Im going to say another thing here. No one can consistently maintain scoring 50s. Im going to use Ian Bell as an example here. Look at Ian Bell's career and you'll find that he scored plenty of pretty 50s and even maintained an average in excess of 40. However, when his form died and he went through a lean patch his average fell away and he had little to fall back on because he never managed to score any centuries and win matches.

Similarly, whenever Watson goes through a lean patch, and believe me it will happen, he will regret the times when he failed to convert these half centuries while he was in form.

 

[Ruckus]

Ok so you get 2 centuries in the 1st match and get a pair in the 2nd match.

The only way to justify that converting more 50's into centuries for someone like Watson will lessen the chance of a collapse, is if you assume he improves his career average as an opener. To suggest he needs to improve his average of around 50 is ludicrous. He isn't Bradman. A 50+ average as an opener is world class.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Assuming the batsman's 1st innings runs are always higher.

a) It's the general pattern of cricket. Most people average more in the first innings than the second.
b) It's how cricket works, the team with the first innings lead ends up being in the best position to win the match. It's especially important if you bowl first, because the more runs that you make in the first innings means that you have to chase less in the conditions that are usually the toughest to score in (4th innings of match).

 

[TumTum]

I dont think I am to be honest. 50s dont win games at the end of the day and if you score a 50 you are almost certainly relying on someone else to come in and score a 100 in order to have some chance of winning the game (unless you have 7 batsmen that can score 50 in very game) As has been pointed our already, a set batsman has no excuse for getting out without scoring a century once he crosses 50.

Im going to say another thing here. No one can consistently maintain scoring 50s. Im going to use Ian Bell as an example here. Look at Ian Bell's career and you'll find that he scored plenty of pretty 50s and even maintained an average in excess of 40. However, when his form died and he went through a lean patch his average fell away and he had little to fall back on because he never managed to score any centuries and win matches.

Similarly, whenever Watson goes through a lean patch, and believe me it will happen, he will regret the times when he failed to convert these half centuries while he was in form.

Again I agree with everything you post, lol. But you are still only looking at one side of the story.

The fact is Watson DOES average 50 and DOES score a 50 every innings (so far). Whether he will have a lean patch where he doesn't score runs is another story, and will be reflected in his future average.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Wickets are a part of cricket. The suggestion that a batsman is to blame because he gets out and puts the others batsmen under pressure is silly. These guys are professional athletes, they're always going to be under pressure to perform.

The real people to blame for collapses are the people who come in when a wicket falls and fail to try and consolidate.

Obviously the fact that batsmen aren't starting well is a big issue for Australian cricket. But the toughest time to bat is early. Test cricketers are picked to make 100s, not 50s, and Australia's inability to convert - especially at the top of the order - over the past 2 years is a large, and often overlooked, reason for why collapses occur.

That's the point that I'm raising. Was going to write an Ashes HQ blog on this whole thing, but really CBF now. Written most of it in here.