Batting position roles

[anzac]

this may be one for all you coaches to answer.........

it used to be that in Test cricket there were fairly defined roles for each place in the batting order from 1 - 6 (the traditional team selection being 6 batsman, 1 'keeper & 4 bowlers). While some of these roles may have been interchangeable with a position next to it, they were always required to be filled....

from memory it used to be something like.....

Openers - see off the new ball & protect the middle order from exposure too soon - bat thru the more difficult conditions when the ball is new & moving - more renowned for their impregnable defense rather than for their attractive shot making.....ability to punish the bad ball but not required to make runs happen - requires patience & calmness

3 & 4 - the best batsmen / stroke / shot makers in the team - very good techniques both in defence and attack - the run makers to set up & score the innings once the platform has been laid by the Openers - still required to look at the big picture of the innings rather than the immediate happenings in the middle

5 & 6 - now this is where I get unsure - part of me tells me that while one of these batsmen can be fairly free form & aggressive, another part tells me that one of them then needs to be a bit more dogged - ie one able to hit there way out of trouble, the other able to graft and form partnerships with the lower order etc to save the innings if required.......

my questions are these.......

are these 'traditional' roles correct?
are they still applicable in the modern game esp in light of 'Allrounders' & Waugh's tactic of aggressive batting?
who then are the better examples of each role?

 

[Linda]

Openers ...more renowned for their impregnable defense rather than for their attractive shot making.....

Hayden and Sehwag kind of blow that part out of the water don't they?

As for the 3 & 4 positions, I think that definately still applies today. Ponting, Tendulkar, Lara, (Martyn ect all bat there for a reason..

 

[Bazza]

I think it has changed recently, although that used to be true.

For example, England recently had Vaughan and Trescothick opening, who will play shots, Butcher at three is a key player and he forms good partnerships with Hussain who is 4. Thorpe at 5 is the guy who can work it around and bat all day for 50 if he has to. Stewart at 6 would tend to play a counter attacking innings, as would Flintoff at 7. Then you have a couple of players who can hang around and support a proper batsman (ie Giles), before the tailenders.

Australia have changed the mould somewhat, and all good opening partnerships can attack now, especially if the bowling isn't great (eg Hayden and Langer, Smith and Gibbs).

Third is often a sides dogged player (Hussain used to be at three, or Dravid for India). Then at four you have your key batsman (like a Tendulkar or Lara, the man you really rely on for a big score). Five and six are often a batsman you are looking to introduce so he is protected, and the roles would be one stroke player and one solid player who will rebuild from a collapse or see off the second new ball maybe.

 

[krkode]

If you can all bat and you can all score at a comfortable place, there is no need for "roles."

Australia, for example. I don't see any roles in their team; just because they can all give the ball a good whack and they can all score at 4 runs an over and they can all drop anchor and stay there. Some times you'll see wickets fall early, sometimes not. Sometimes Hayden scores a century, sometimes it's Martyn. Sometimes Steve Waugh plays for 6 hours, sometimes it's Katich.

India, however, are an example of a team that quite clearly has roles. We all know Tendulkar's role. Ganguly's role is similar. Dravid's is, more often than not, to hold the innings together, Yuvraj's is to score quick runs late in the order, etc.

This attribution of roles is what I think a team's weakness. So and so fails in their "role" and the whole order is lost. Say the best new-ball-players get out early, and then the rest come in who have spent years practicing on the old ball but don't know how to play a new-ball fast bowler - they're ruined!

This is the reason why I think Australia, even though they compare less favorably to Indian batsmen as individuals, are the better batting team.

India's role-giving has caused them to rely on individual heroics. First test - Ganguly. Second test - Dravid and Laxman, third test - Sehwag, fourth test - Tendulkar. 5th ODI of VB series - Laxman. The day a team can stop relying on individual heroics and the "role-playing" is the day that team will be the unchallenged best.

hmmm...I realize I've rambled on for so long. I should coach some team...then we'll see my theory in the works... :P

 

[hourn]

I reckon its good to have reasonably aggressive opener/s, but they must be very good bats if they wanna play an attacking game.

It was also seen as the openers job in the old days to ensure that the new ball was seen off and to protect the middle order.

But now, i reckon having one guy who's prepared to go after a few things is a good way to go, because it sets a tone for the opposition early on.

If after 10 overs, your already 40-50 runs than the opposition is already hitting panick stations as they can see the score rocketing.

But depending on the standard, you may not have an all class aggressive batsmen willing to open, so you may have to go with either a) the two guys who are most comfortable against the new pill, or b) the two best batsmen defensively.

having two aggressive openers is a tactic that can backfire, but not a bad one either. Australia have it very close to perfect. Hayden is all fire, Langer usually waits a little bit longer but ticks the rate over when he wants to. But if Hayden gets out, and Australia hve a bit of a mini collapse at the top, Langer is capable of playing his older stodgier style were he just occupies the crease.

Number three has to be the best batsmen of the remaining middle order bats. Basically the guy most likely to score a 50 or 100.

Four would be the most aggressive of your remaining specialist batsmen, while the difference between five and six is minimal so not something that would be that important.

But the order of the top four is important to team balance.

Keeper would usually bat six, but in grade cricket in Sydney, you'll find them batting anywhere from opener to eleven.

 

[Langeveldt]

Well an Ideal batting attack would be two defensive openers, and then a mixture of strokemakers and gritty batsmen..

I love performing the anchor role for my club, just a pity the strokemakers rarely pay off! But its a good way of getting big team runs.. Partnerships etc...

 

[marc71178]

Re: Re: Batting position roles

Hayden and Sehwag kind of blow that part out of the water don't they?

By possessing neither characteristic?

 

[anzac]

my curiosity was sparked the other day when Jerry Coney remarked that he didn't think Styris was a genuine No4 as he tried to play shots too often at balls that he could leave alone and didn't have to try and score off.

He also said that it was an indication that he (Styris) was not being mindful of the BIG picture re the state of the game or the team innings - or something to that effect.

As a consequence he said he thought Styris was more in line with a number 5 or 6 batsman's role because of the way he plays. This then gave rise to my subsequent pairing Styris & McMillan together as competing for the same spot in the batting lineup as they both play a similar type of game, and hence my calls for more competition for middle order places......

Looking at the Aussie team I know that they do not have a genuine 'Allrounder' and their batting goes down to 6 (as does RSA, IND, PAK & WI & SRL), followed by the 'keeper at 7, then their 4 frontline bowlers - basically the 'traditional' lineup I outlined to start with. What became curious to me was that in comparison NZ & ENG bat 'Allrounders' at about No6 or 7 - Cairns, Flintoff etc.

in comparing the contributions of these current 'Allrounders' to those of yesteryear (Hadlee, Imran, Akram, Dev etc) I feel that the modern players are not contributing enough with either bat or ball on a regular basis - apart from Pollock none of them are opening bowlers for a start.

Furthermore when you compare the modern 'Allrounders' batting contributions to those of batsmen & 'keepers playing at 6 & 7, I begin to wonder if NZ & ENG are not short changing themselves in the runs dept on a regular basis, by essentially only having 5 specialist batsmen in their order as opposed to 6, particularly if their 'keeper is not a strong / regular contributer with the bat..........

eg IMO NZ has a team that has the potential to contribute well down the order, but with Styris at No4, McMillan 5, Cairns 6, Oram 7 & Hart 8 it can also be fairly brittle & inconsistant so far as scoring goes.

From memory the Indian Tour was the first in a long time that we had a number of players contribute with the bat - prior to this it usually fell to Richardson & Fleming to do so (and Astle), and if they got out cheaply the opposition had a good chance to restrict the innings total. A similar pattern re-emerged in the recent Test series v Pakistan........

am I reading too much into this batting lineup & roles, or could it be part of the reason why those other teams perform regularly with the bat as they have more assets & coverage regarding contributions????

 

[deeps]

openers traditionaly IMO there's one solid one,and one stroke player..... ala chopra and sehwag atm

no3s are traditionally solid batsman,who r often required to play the anchor role

no4 is the strokemaker...the mark waugh,and teh tendulkar etc.

no5 is a solid one, who can also play shots if required.....and take over the anchor role if the no3 fails

no6 is really dpendenat on the team,but usually an all rounder or the keeper


which is why symonds is NOT suited to no5.....he's not solid,his shots are far too risky and flashy

 

[bugssy]

openers traditionaly IMO there's one solid one,and one stroke player..... ala chopra and sehwag atm

no3s are traditionally solid batsman,who r often required to play the anchor role

no4 is the strokemaker...the mark waugh,and teh tendulkar etc.

no5 is a solid one, who can also play shots if required.....and take over the anchor role if the no3 fails

no6 is really dpendenat on the team,but usually an all rounder or the keeper


which is why symonds is NOT suited to no5.....he's not solid,his shots are far too risky and flashy

so u think ricky ponting plays the anchor role.lol

mate all these positions maybe 10 yrs ago where specialist positions but these days with the good teams attacking the poor bowling, (australia, india, sth africa, -- these teams will never say die and will attack from the 1st ball if they need to.)

test batting positions are out the window except for the all important number 11

 

[MrPerko]

Hey- really good question Anzac... some interesting discussion.

I think most of the posts have been pretty correct, but I'd like to emphasize what Bazza said about the 5 and 6 players being able to build an innings and score freely, but also able to adapt to the second new ball and play a traditional openers role (good driver, knowing where your off stump is etc.).

 

[Richard]

If you ask me these stereotypical roles were never much of a good idea.
Scoring-rates in the early and mid 20th-century days were fast, if not quite as fast as now. The only times when scoring-rates were ever really slow was the '70s, '80s and '90s. It's also the only time they were recorded exactly.
The best idea for me is to have 7 good batsmen - who worry about scoring runs before worrying about what pace they score at. Good batsmen can score quickly and slowly - but for me there is no justification in picking a batsman with an average of 35 and a SR of 65 ahead of one with an average of 45 and a SR of 40.
Indeed, I often think "defensive" batsmen are better players than "aggressive" ones, just due to the lack of tendency to drive on the up. But you can only really select on statistics - if average is equal, a superior SR is probably the best option.

 

[anzac]

openers traditionaly IMO there's one solid one,and one stroke player..... ala chopra and sehwag atm

no3s are traditionally solid batsman,who r often required to play the anchor role

no4 is the strokemaker...the mark waugh,and teh tendulkar etc.

no5 is a solid one, who can also play shots if required.....and take over the anchor role if the no3 fails

no6 is really dpendenat on the team,but usually an all rounder or the keeper


which is why symonds is NOT suited to no5.....he's not solid,his shots are far too risky and flashy

I understand where you are coming from re the top 5, even if I think that the order of the roles may be different......but I have to disagree re No6

from what I can see most teams still have a specialist batsman at No6, or at least a batsman who may be a part time bowler - only ENG & NZ seem to select a bowling 'allrounder' as high as No6 in Flintoff & Cairns, & I have my doubts that their selection in a batting role is justified....

so far as Symonds goes the point is somewhat irrelevant because he doesn't play in Tests which is where the batting roles come into it - in ODIs you need to score as many runs as quickly as you can in a limited time, so the concept of defined roles is not all that applicable - or at least no where near the same as in Tests........

 

[Linda]

Re: Re: Re: Batting position roles

By possessing neither characteristic?

Well, ahh they arn't really known for their defencive shots... I dont think Im sure what you mean.

 

[anzac]

I tend to believe that these roles are still applicable today, but the edges have become somewhat blurred.

The major difference these days IMO is that in the modern game there are fewer 'defensive' type players as teams look to follow the Aussie example & score runs......eg Richardson would be one of the few clearly 'defensive' top 6 batsmen in the major teams.......

I think that the 'traditional holding / defensive' roles are now occupied by more moderate players, and there are more 'aggressive' batsmen or at least batsmen playing in a more 'aggressive' style.......

even tho' we are seeing more aggressive openers IMO one of them usually plays a more conservative / consolidation type role against the new ball attack, to provide the 'protection' for the middle order - this is still done from a 'moderate' style as opposed to a 'defensive' one & once the opening bowlers loose their advantage with the new ball then both batsmen can attack the bowling........

Thinking about it I think Deeps' post was pretty close to the way most teams have it set in their batting, with the major exception being the Aussies - they have reversed No3 & 4 as a deliberate strategy to score quickly, dominate the bowling & build momentum for the innings...........

similarly with Lehman & Waugh I also think they reversed the 'traditional' roles of 5 & 6, with Lehman's State experience as an aggressive opener giving him both the defensive qualities against the new ball, and the aggression to punish the bowling as the ball gets older.......Waugh provided the last dogged rear guard if required, having the skills to build & dominate partnerships with the Tail, yet still able to score freely & make his tons..........it will be interesting to see if they change their order with Lehman coming back & maybe play him at 6 with Katich retaining the 5 spot........

 

[maximoose]

'Richardson would be one of the few clearly 'defensive' top 6 batsmen in the major teams.......'

i'd say chopra is another. Hes got a classy technique, but scores slowly and generally leaves everything outside off. Perfect partner to sehwag!

 

[marc71178]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Batting position roles

Well, ahh they arn't really known for their defencive shots... I dont think Im sure what you mean.

"attractive shot making" although I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

 

[SquidAU]

IMO there always had to have been 2 types of opener an strokeplayer and an anchor.......Marsh and Boon, Slater and Taylor

 

[deeps]

so u think ricky ponting plays the anchor role.lol

mate all these positions maybe 10 yrs ago where specialist positions but these days with the good teams attacking the poor bowling, (australia, india, sth africa, -- these teams will never say die and will attack from the 1st ball if they need to.)

test batting positions are out the window except for the all important number 11

well, i did say "TRADITIONALLY" plenty of times

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

IMO there always had to have been 2 types of opener an strokeplayer and an anchor.......Marsh and Boon, Slater and Taylor

What about Haynes and Greenidge, Hayden and Langer, Gibbs and Smith?