• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Great lower order batting teams in history?

Migara

International Coach
Which team had extremely strong lower order batting in past ? Please don’t include any current Team . I am mainly interested in past teams .
Did SA in 90s have strongest lower order ?
This, probably is.

Early Klusener, Pollock, Boje / Symcox, Snell were pretty gun or decent with the bat. Only last two comprising of Donald or de Villiers were real rookies with the bat.
 

Migara

International Coach
Best Sri Lanka had was Somachandra de Silva (21), Ravi Ratnayake (25) and Rumesh Ratnayake (14) at 8, 9 and 10. Vaas (24) and Dharmasena (20) and Upul Chandana (27) were the other combination, but played very few matches
 

anil1405

International Captain
No team can beat this SA team in terms of lower order.

Lol at that contribution of the no.8-11.

But that 8-11 order most likely would've been a one off thing. What their lower order looked like consistently during late 90's and early 00's was more of this, which would take some beating.

8. Pollock
9. Klusener
10. Boje
11. Donald

Even with a proper no.11 bunny that lower order looked amazing.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Australia theoretically had very strong lower orders in the fifties when Lindwall, Benaud, Davidson or Archer were around, but the actual performance fell some way short of what might have been expected.
 

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Northamptonshire that season trent copeland played with them

no really. They had a handful of games where their 8 to 11 was:

David Willey fc average 27
David Murphy (+) fc average 26
Steven Crook fc average 31
Trent Copeland fc average 16 but this was during copeland's fc peak with the bat, averaging 35 the australian summer before and doing the same for Norths

best summed up in this game which won they won by an innings after being 6/156 lmao https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...rthamptonshire-vs-essex-593537/full-scorecard
 

Shady Slim

International Coach
Northamptonshire that season trent copeland played with them

no really. They had a handful of games where their 8 to 11 was:

David Willey fc average 27
David Murphy (+) fc average 26
Steven Crook fc average 31
Trent Copeland fc average 16 but this was during copeland's fc peak with the bat, averaging 35 the australian summer before and doing the same for Norths

best summed up in this game which won they won by an innings after being 6/156 lmao https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/county-championship-division-two-2013-592760/northamptonshire-vs-essex-593537/full-scorecard
they won by an innings after being 8-171 and behind by twelve still, meaning that their ninth and tenth wicket partnerships outdid the entire second dig of the essexites
 

Dendarii

International Debutant
That's a pretty stupid side to pick though. Test cricket isn't just about making big scores, it's also about bowling the opposition out and winning matches. That side has eleven good batsmen but only one top class bowler, even though South Africa had others available for selection at that time.
Like who? It looks like the only other bowlers that were on that tour were Donald, who was injured for that match; Adams, who hadn't been particularly effective in the previous test; and Ntini, who had yet to play a test and may even have left after the ODIs.
 

Pap Finn Keighl

International Debutant
South Africa had amazing batting depth around the time they were banned for apartheid with Trevor Goddard, Denis Lindsay and Mike Proctor at 7, 8, 9.

Procter @ 9 ?
He bats at 8 in my AT 11
 

Pap Finn Keighl

International Debutant
No team can beat this SA team in terms of lower order.

This level of Batting depth is possible in AT 11s without compromising bowling quality.
But some people think having Mcgrath at 10 or 11 is better than selecting Hadlee, as the batting abilities of number 10/11 is irrelevant. I dont get it. For me More is better.
NB: bowling alone, Hadlee > Mcgrath IMO.
 

The_CricketUmpire

U19 Captain
I thought the lower collectively of Warne (8), Lee (9) Gillespie (10) and McGrath (11) was not too bad in Test cricket:

Warne - Lee - Gillespie - McGrath

Shane Warne
Innings: 199
Not Outs: 17
Runs: 3,154
Average: 17.32
50s: 12
100s: 0
Highest Score: 99

Brett Lee
Innings: 90
Not Outs: 18
Runs: 1,451
Average: 20.15
50s: 5
100s: 0
Highest Score: 64

Jason Gillespie
Innings: 93
Not Outs: 28
Runs: 1,218
Average: 18.73
50s: 2
100s: 1
Highest Score: 201 not out

Glenn McGrath
Innings: 138
Not Outs: 51
Runs: 641
Average: 7.36
50s: 1
100s: 0
Highest Score: 61

Total
Innings: 520
Not Outs: 114
Runs: 6,464
Average: 15.92
50s: 20
100s: 1
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
This level of Batting depth is possible in AT 11s without compromising bowling quality.
But some people think having Mcgrath at 10 or 11 is better than selecting Hadlee, as the batting abilities of number 10/11 is irrelevant. I dont get it. For me More is better.
NB: bowling alone, Hadlee > Mcgrath IMO.
I liked the post until you said the "bowling alone Hadlee > McGrath" part. You've overdone, what was already a very good and legitimate point by adding something needlessly controversial to it.

But I agree, you could make an ATG side, with something like:

Khan/Botham/Miller
Pollock
Hadlee
Warne/Ashwin/Jadeja

for 8-11 frontline bowlers, and it's very arguable how much you'd be losing compared to specialists.
 

Sunil1z

International Regular
I liked the post until you said the "bowling alone Hadlee > McGrath" part. You've overdone, what was already a very good and legitimate point by adding something needlessly controversial to it.

But I agree, you could make an ATG side, with something like:

Khan/Botham/Miller
Pollock
Hadlee
Warne/Ashwin/Jadeja

for 8-11 frontline bowlers, and it's very arguable how much you'd be losing compared to specialists.
Ashwin/Jadeja are clearly inferior to Warne . They have no chance in ATXI
 

peterhrt

U19 Vice-Captain
There have been 50 occasions to date when every member of a Test eleven had scored a first-class hundred before the beginning of the match. It has happened 23 times with England, ten each with Australia and India, three times with New Zealand, twice with South Africa, and once each for Pakistan and Zimbabwe. Results have been 16 wins, 13 defeats and 21 draws. Australia did not win any of her matches with eleven centurions.

The first occurrence was for England against Australia at The Oval in 1886, and the most recent for India against Australia at Dharamshala in March 2017.

Concentrating just on these matches, one way of measuring the strength of the lower order would be to look at the four “worst” batsmen in each team. This could be done by taking the lowest four final first-class career averages, and calculating the combined average of the four. For simplicity all averages are rounded down to the nearest whole number. The batsmen identified can have batted anywhere in the order on the day, not necessarily from 8 to 11.

Several of the teams have been mentioned on this thread already:

The “worst” four batsmen of the 1902 England team have a combined first-class career average of 25. In ascending order they were Lockwood, Braund, Lilley and Rhodes. The equivalent figure for England's first such team in 1886 was 19.

The South African combination of 1907 scores 21. All eleven averaged at least twenty in first-class cricket, but only Nourse and Faulkner over thirty.

Australia's best score is 27 against Pakistan in 1959, represented by Lindwall, Grout, Davidson and Benaud. In 1956 alone the Aussies fielded no fewer than five Test elevens with eleven first-class centurions.

The South Africans at Adelaide in December 1998 return a high figure of 30, thanks to Richardson, Symcox, Pollock and Bacher. This is matched by New Zealand a few months later at Old Trafford.

England's eleven against Bangladesh in 2016 was actually “strengthened” a few weeks later in Rajkot when Ansari replaced Batty, to give a reading of 28.

The highest such score ever recorded is 34 by India against West Indies in Delhi, November 1983, courtesy of the World Cup winners mentioned earlier in the thread. This is the only instance of all eleven men not only having scored centuries, but also finishing with a first-class average over thirty.

The next highest (31) was also for India against West Indies, in 1962. This time only keeper Kunderam averaged under thirty. It did not prevent India losing the series 5-0.

Pakistan's eleven centurions appeared against India at Lahore in 1989, and Zimbabwe's at Perth in 2003.

Only once have all twenty-two players in a Test match scored a first-class hundred beforehand: England v Australia at Lord's in 1905.
 

h_hurricane

International Vice-Captain
Though it was a single occasion, the Australian tail in the 2nd innings here is easily the best in history.

The legendary role reversal match.


On the other hand, have a look at the opening batsmen in that innings. Easily the worst in history.
 

AndrewB

International Vice-Captain
I wouldn't call it easily the best: Australia did a similar "send the tail in early" approach for the 2nd innings at Melbourne in 1902 (the first innings totals had been 112 and 61), so their last 5 was Hill-Trumper-Noble-Duff-Armstrong, who all had Test batting averages in the 30s.

England at Brisbane in 1950-1 held back Hutton and Compton to 8 and 9.
 

Top