Where to bowl to Steve Smith?

[OverratedSanity]

smith is a talentless FTB

I think you should stick to this thread

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/world-cup-2015/65696-crap-innings-thread-6.html

 

[greg]

I find it interesting the obsession with promoting successful batsmen up the order, especially in England. Time after time it is demonstrated that the riskiest place to bat on normal English pitches in English conditions (ie. excluding exceptional dry summers with barely a cloud to be seen) is at the top of the order. No matter how good you are it is rare that a batsman can consistently dominate from there. Test matches in England are invariably won by the batting in the middle and lower middle order. Even when Australia were dominant it was the likes of Steve Waugh that often made the difference. So that is where, in England, I reckon you want your best batsmen to bat (especially when you don't have a surfeit of resources).

 

[Hurricane]

I find it interesting the obsession with promoting successful batsmen up the order, especially in England. Time after time it is demonstrated that the riskiest place to bat on normal English pitches in English conditions (ie. excluding exceptional dry summers with barely a cloud to be seen) is at the top of the order. No matter how good you are it is rare that a batsman can consistently dominate from there. Test matches in England are invariably won by the batting in the middle and lower middle order. Even when Australia were dominant it was the likes of Steve Waugh that often made the difference. So that is where, in England, I reckon you want your best batsmen to bat (especially when you don't have a surfeit of resources).

Nice post.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

A couple of beers on a Friday night makes me a drunk does it? Well I'd say that's pretty much most of cricketweb ****ed them................off to rehab for all of us!!

Your post in this thread may have been a harmless throw away quip, but on top of everything else you've posted before and during this series it all adds up to being extremely cringeworthy material. Like I said I felt like calling you out when you pissed everyone off after Cardiff but I refrained.............last night I thought sod it this bloke needs to know he's an ass.

A couple of beers on a Friday night makes me a drunk does it? Well I'd say that's pretty much most of cricketweb ****ed them................off to rehab for all of us!!

Your post in this thread may have been a harmless throw away quip, but on top of everything else you've posted before and during this series it all adds up to being extremely cringeworthy material. Like I said I felt like calling you out when you pissed everyone off after Cardiff but I refrained.............last night I thought sod it and did.

Nice edit of the last line. I think you should have stuck with the original though. Such is the wisdom of it I have it earmarked for my headstone.

 

[Adders]

I decided not to stoop to your level tbh.

 

[indiaholic]

I find it interesting the obsession with promoting successful batsmen up the order, especially in England. Time after time it is demonstrated that the riskiest place to bat on normal English pitches in English conditions (ie. excluding exceptional dry summers with barely a cloud to be seen) is at the top of the order. No matter how good you are it is rare that a batsman can consistently dominate from there. Test matches in England are invariably won by the batting in the middle and lower middle order. Even when Australia were dominant it was the likes of Steve Waugh that often made the difference. So that is where, in England, I reckon you want your best batsmen to bat (especially when you don't have a surfeit of resources).

It has something to do with the Australian attitude that if your best batsman doesn't bat at three then it is a slight on his virility. Mindblowingly stupid but you hear the likes of Chappell state it so often.

 

[91Jmay]

I find it interesting the obsession with promoting successful batsmen up the order, especially in England. Time after time it is demonstrated that the riskiest place to bat on normal English pitches in English conditions (ie. excluding exceptional dry summers with barely a cloud to be seen) is at the top of the order. No matter how good you are it is rare that a batsman can consistently dominate from there. Test matches in England are invariably won by the batting in the middle and lower middle order. Even when Australia were dominant it was the likes of Steve Waugh that often made the difference. So that is where, in England, I reckon you want your best batsmen to bat (especially when you don't have a surfeit of resources).

Yeah this is a smart take, it is a different game in England than in Australia/South Africa and teams need to be ready to treat it as such. Perhaps Root at number 3 in Australia would be fine, with dropping back to 4 at home? I know that would horrify some but its about what helps the team win.

 

[Furball]

Yeah this is a smart take, it is a different game in England than in Australia/South Africa and teams need to be ready to treat it as such. Perhaps Root at number 3 in Australia would be fine, with dropping back to 4 at home? I know that would horrify some but its about what helps the team win.

South Africa is harder than England for a top order batsman.

 

[indiaholic]

I do believe teams need to be more flexible with their batting orders. If they have players who are dominant in conditions that don't swing then they make sure that they come in when the ball is not swinging. This can very easily turn into one of those uselessly cute tactics but I don't think it is without merit.

 

[Dan]

South Africa is harder than England for a top order batsman.

Not for an Australian​ top order batsman.

 

[greg]

I should finesse that i didn't mean that a team's best player (perhaps i should have said biggest run scorer) should always bat in the middle order, if their game is suited to batting higher up. In the extreme a team's best player could of course be an opener. But, with the proviso that you don't want a big runscorer consistently getting left shepherding/being stranded by a weak tail, pushing them up the order when others maybe better suited to the challenges involved is just wasteful.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I find it interesting the obsession with promoting successful batsmen up the order, especially in England. Time after time it is demonstrated that the riskiest place to bat on normal English pitches in English conditions (ie. excluding exceptional dry summers with barely a cloud to be seen) is at the top of the order. No matter how good you are it is rare that a batsman can consistently dominate from there. Test matches in England are invariably won by the batting in the middle and lower middle order. Even when Australia were dominant it was the likes of Steve Waugh that often made the difference. So that is where, in England, I reckon you want your best batsmen to bat (especially when you don't have a surfeit of resources).

Not that I disagree with you, but I think the argument on the other side championed by the likes of the Chappels and the Warnes is that when the conditions are tough, send your best batsman to face it rather than your third best or fourth best.
Plus the other point is, suppose you send someone else, say a Vogues at 3, and he gets out, then you have Smith facing the exact same conditions, this time with 2 wickets down.

Also, Australia's dominance has a lot to do with Hayden, Langer and Ponting setting it up game after game.

 

[Furball]

Hayden and Ponting didn't have great records in England though.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't think batsmen should be positioned based on how good they are, they should be picked for the role that suits them. I like Smith at 3 because his technique encourages bowlers to hold a line further from the stumps, which makes it easier to see off the new ball. He's not had an amazing series, but a lot of his dismissals haven't been to the pitched up+swinging away deliveries that are the usual win-move in England, so you can see how he's negated conditions to an extent.

5 should be the player who doesn't necessarily have the technique for the toughest conditions/bowling but can pile on the runs once things get a little easier. Ballance and Bairstow are both obvious 5s. 4 should be someone in between, Root is ideal, Tendulkar is the most obvious example. 6 and 7 should have the ability to accelerate because they'll be doing a lot of batting with the tail.

Australia's batting order looks fine to me, with the exception of Nevill at 7, whose ability to bat time and make things easier for the batsmen to follow is completely wasted. But realistically he's not going higher than 6 with MMarsh/Voges dropping down one, so it doesn't make much difference, especially if MMarsh doesn't play.

For some reason the Channel 9 wanker-pack love talking bollocks about the batting order. I mean, they talk bollocks about most things, but batting order especially.

 

[Flem274*]

#5 to me has always been a position for either skiing downhill or being the last line of defense. jobs like the spinners and the second new ball are also their responsibility. it's not a position for a flake.

i'd just order the batting from better against pace to better against spin, or where they batted coming up the levels, where they feel most comfortable etc. slower batsmen also ideally bat higher if they're good enough and try and prevent two slow guys being right next to each other in the order or two biffers.

 

[Uppercut]

#5 to me has always been a position for either skiing downhill or being the last line of defense. jobs like the spinners and the second new ball are also their responsibility. it's not a position for a flake.

i'd just order the batting from better against pace to better against spin, or where they batted coming up the levels, where they feel most comfortable etc. slower batsmen also ideally bat higher if they're good enough and try and prevent two slow guys being right next to each other in the order or two biffers.

Yeah agree with everything except the bolded, mainly because of that Cook+Trott partnership.

It definitely changes depending on where you are too. Australia's entire intent-oriented philosophy has been completely exposed by English conditions. It's a place where technical+strategic considerations become more important relative to psychological ones.

 

[mr_mister]

more talk about batting orders, yawn. newsflash fellas, it doesn't matter as much as everyone thinks, except for the openers

 

[mr_mister]

#5 to me has always been a position for either skiing downhill or being the last line of defense. jobs like the spinners and the second new ball are also their responsibility. it's not a position for a flake.

i'd just order the batting from better against pace to better against spin, or where they batted coming up the levels, where they feel most comfortable etc. slower batsmen also ideally bat higher if they're good enough and try and prevent two slow guys being right next to each other in the order or two biffers.

whats #6's role then?

 

[Kirkut]

I find it interesting the obsession with promoting successful batsmen up the order, especially in England. Time after time it is demonstrated that the riskiest place to bat on normal English pitches in English conditions (ie. excluding exceptional dry summers with barely a cloud to be seen) is at the top of the order. No matter how good you are it is rare that a batsman can consistently dominate from there. Test matches in England are invariably won by the batting in the middle and lower middle order. Even when Australia were dominant it was the likes of Steve Waugh that often made the difference. So that is where, in England, I reckon you want your best batsmen to bat (especially when you don't have a surfeit of resources).

That speaks volumes about Dravid. Though he did not dominate express pace bowling like Ponting, Laxman or Pietersen, against seam/swing he was almost invincible when batting at his best.

 

[Spark]

Yeah agree with everything except the bolded, mainly because of that Cook+Trott partnership.

It definitely changes depending on where you are too. Australia's entire intent-oriented philosophy has been completely exposed by English conditions. It's a place where technical+strategic considerations become more important relative to psychological ones.

Cook and Trott when they were both in form weren't that slow.

whats #6's role then?

Jack of all trades or counterattack. But also needs to know how to bat with the tail.