Why are there good tail-enders coming in now?

[slowfinger]

Before ,say 80's,there was no such thing as a 'decent'tailender and these days Australia have totally responsible (well keep it at) tailenders.How?Where?

Nd who is the best one?

 

[Richard]

The best tailender?

Hard to say, really - if you're good enough, you're not a tailender at all!

Suppose the only question that could be asked would be who's the best of those who play as specialist bowlers (eg, Ashley Giles did, Andrew Flintoff didn't).

 

[Evermind]

mayb michelle jenson not shure

 

[PhoenixFire]

Interesting spelling of Harbhajan tbh.

 

[silentstriker]

Well, what position do you consider a tailender? Warne came in at eight. Kumble will come in at nine this match and he has a Test century.

 

[slowfinger]

Well tbh, these are all good tail enders and I find that they are very confident players ( sorry for spelling Harbrajhan wrong )Keep it going!

 

[silentstriker]

Well tbh, these are all good tail enders and I find that they are very confident players ( sorry for spelling Harbrajhan wrong )Keep it going!

You spelled it wrong again.

 

[Engle]

Just do a cut-and-paste

 

[The Baconator]

I think there was actually some stats thing on cricinfo that showed that the averages from 8-11 haven't actually increased, much if at all, over the years. Could just be that teams care more about it these days, so the issue gets more attention.

 

[haroon510]

it has to Anil Kumble.. the guy always counts his wicket.. the best tailender has to be the indians if they play Kumble, Harbajin Singh, Pathan and Zaheer Khan..

 

[Richard]

Well, what position do you consider a tailender?

I consider someone a tailender based on their ability and performance, not the position they've batted in in a certain game.

The number of specialist bowlers selected varies. Some specialist bowlers are tailenders - ie, rabbits (Philip Tufnell, Peter Such), some are bowlers who bat a bit (Robert Croft, Dominic Cork), some are bowling-all-rounders (Craig White, Andrew Flintoff). Sometimes, teams might pick eight-to-elevens with no genuine tail-enders (White, Cork, Caddick, Gough for instance), sometimes they might pick them comprised entirely of them (Sidebottom, Hoggard, Harmison, Panesar).

 

[Top_Cat]

I think there was actually some stats thing on cricinfo that showed that the averages from 8-11 haven't actually increased, much if at all, over the years. Could just be that teams care more about it these days, so the issue gets more attention.

It's such a hard issue to analyse, though. And lumping in players 8-11 is a bit of a furphy. I'd be very interested in 9, 10, and 11 analysed individually because I'd very surprised if there's been no improvement in 11's batting. A county-by-country analysis would be interesting. Aside from Glenn McGrath, I don't remember a batting bunny for Australia for a while and even he managed a Test 50.

 

[Richard]

McGrath wasn't a bunny at the time he scored his half-century, though - from about 2002 or so onwards he was actually relatively competant.

Tait's no great shakes though is he?

Bruce Reid's batting ineptitude was famous, though obviously he rarely played 4 Tests on the trot.

Not sure about the likes of McDermott, Hughes.

 

[Son Of Coco]

McGrath wasn't a bunny at the time he scored his half-century, though - from about 2002 or so onwards he was actually relatively competant.

Tait's no great shakes though is he?

Bruce Reid's batting ineptitude was famous, though obviously he rarely played 4 Tests on the trot.

Not sure about the likes of McDermott, Hughes.

Hughes highest score was 72 I think...he also scored at least one other 50.

 

[cameeel]

Gillespie would have to be a shot for the title, a 200 and two (iirc) half-centuries.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Jerome Taylor.

Yesyes.

 

[NZTailender]

Gillespie would have to be a shot for the title, a 200 and two (iirc) half-centuries.

Scored the 200 as a nightwatchman tbf. But still, he would be considered a tailender in general so Gillespie would have to be up there.
But where do you draw the line? Franklin and Vettori bat where you would consider them as "tailenders" but given their more-than-capable talent with the bat I guess you would consider them "lower-order."

I guess we'd have to go on genuine tailenders - those who would be able to score a 20 or 30 in good time batting at 9-11, like your Lees, Khans or Bonds.
But then I've always rated Lee's batting; but would you consider him a lower order batsman? I'm not sure.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Lee is definitely better than a tailender ranking. He averages over 20 in Tests.

 

[Flem274*]

Well if its 9-11 I'll go for Franklin. If we're allowed number 8s then Vettori. It seems NZ can only produce good tail end batsmen lately.

 

[Dizzy #4]

Gillespie would have to be a shot for the title, a 200 and two (iirc) half-centuries.

Not to mention being the 2nd highest run scorer in Pura Cup for SA...