Why do batsmen take quIck singles in test crickEt despite them never being worth it?

[OverratedSanity]

Not going to get a better time to make this thread. Genuine question which I have pondered for years

Quick singles in test matches are completely pointless afaic.

Quick singles in test matches are dumb

The risk/benefit tradeoff is so skewed against it in the longer format, yet so many batsmen do it. Massive coaching failure of modern cricket imo.

 

[honestbharani]

Rahane's fault, the ****er.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

I think sometimes they are worth it. To recall the last Aus vs Ind series, the Australian batsmen seemed to get bogged down very easily because they were so dependent on piercing the field and particularly getting the ball to the boundary, and they didn't really have the opportunity.

 

[morgieb]

Perceived release of pressure, stops them from getting bogged down.

Which I think is fair enough, but also shows the problem with defensive techniques in today's cricket.

 

[Spark]

Perceived release of pressure, stops them from getting bogged down.

Which I think is fair enough, but also shows the problem with defensive techniques in today's cricket.

i really don't think this is a modern invention. it was SOP in the great aus sides of the 00s to take quick singles wherever possible to unsettle bowling rhythms.

 

[honestbharani]

Its not a big deal. Friggin Rahane just had to ruin today though.

 

[OverratedSanity]

i really don't think this is a modern invention. it was SOP in the great aus sides of the 00s to take quick singles wherever possible to unsettle bowling rhythms.

Thats relatively modern and its coincided with the increase in popularity of the ODI game. Im convinced that if batsmen were adaptable enough to completely set aside quick singles in tests, the benefit would be pretty substantial. Mid 2000s Australia were probably too talented and dominant for that to have any negative effect.

And maybe if the Pratt runout doesnt happen they win the Ashes

 

[Spark]

Thats relatively modern and its coincided with the increase in popularity of the ODI game. Im convinced that if batsmen were adaptable enough to completely set aside quick singles in tests, the benefit would be pretty substantial. Mid 2000s Australia were probably too talented and dominant for that to have any negative effect.

And maybe if the Pratt runout doesnt happen they win the Ashes

okay by modern i mean "by anyone still playing today".

it was definitely a major part of australia's overall approach to batting. in any case i don't see it as particularly relevant to today's dismissal, that wasn't a run called through that was too tight, that was just a stone cold bake by rahane which has happened for time immemorial and is just plain bad running. no one thought of shane watson as a taker of quick singles, for example

 

[honestbharani]

Like I said, ****ing Rahane.

 

[Pup Clarke]

I remember Pujara getting run out taking a three v SA (?) a few years ago, think it was the first few deliveries he faced. Was just the most unneccessary dismissal

To answer your question I have no idea really

 

[Uppercut]

Thats relatively modern and its coincided with the increase in popularity of the ODI game. Im convinced that if batsmen were adaptable enough to completely set aside quick singles in tests, the benefit would be pretty substantial. Mid 2000s Australia were probably too talented and dominant for that to have any negative effect.

And maybe if the Pratt runout doesnt happen they win the Ashes

A lot of stuff they did was part of their Large Penis Cricket philosophy that was helpful for them psychologically. Maybe you can't strip out individual tactics like quick singles without undermining that overall philosophy.

 

[cnerd123]

What do you even mean by a quick single? Kohli and Rahane could take a run safely in the same situation that Inzy and Akhtar would struggle.

Modern day cricketers train to find singles in more situations than those of previous generations. They run faster, they call better, and they do their homework on fielders so they know who to target, sometimes right down to which hand they'll run on. Run if it is to their left, stay if it is to their right.

When they do the cost benefit analysis in their head before setting off, I am pretty sure they aren't thinking "10% chance i get out here, **** it lets run anyways it's worth the risk". It they are, that's dumb. I'm sure they're just thinking "can I make it?" , and if the answer is yes, they run. And if they are smart, athletic and alert, they can make more runs than other batters.

 

[Prince EWS]

#intent

Seriously though most run-outs in Tests come from miscommunication or yes-no calls rather than players just straight up not making the run. No matter where you draw the line as to how comfortable a run should be before you take it, you're always going to get mix-up and yes-nos when it's on the fringe of that line.

 

[honestbharani]

Rahane was just a ****ing moron. Should have at least sacrificed himself there.

 

[Engle]

I was sufficiently concerned about this to start a thread in 2018, and received all manner of excuses why it's perfectly OK to risk the run in a Test match
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/threads/run-out.78826/

Go figure

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Taking quick singles in any format of the game is an alpha move

 

[honestbharani]

**** Rahane

 

[Spark]

i'd also hazard that more aggressive runners are less likely to be involved in run outs than, well, lazy runners, principally because aggressive runners are almost universally good callers of a run (regardless of whether they're good judges of a run, though they're usually that too) and as we saw today, it's bad calling that kills you, not too-aggressive running.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Don't let Angelo Mathews call:

Who has run out their partners the most in international cricket?

And which player has gone the longest without being run out?

www.espncricinfo.com

Ironically it also mentions Rahane went 64 tests & 205 partnerships before he ran out Pant in Wellington earlier this year. Clearly making up for lost time...

 

[Engle]

Smart running is always better than alpha/aggressive running

The 1st day of the 1st Test with your captain and most reliable batsman in a groove is not the time to ruin your responsibilities with the risk for a ruddy run.