Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Haddin (who also batted in the top order too) was also another good 7 for Australia with Faulkner at 8. Likewise Simon O'Donnell was a gun 7 in the late 80s.
-
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.
What makes a good #7 in ODIs?
- Thread starter trundler
- Start date
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
Kapil Dev is the Gold Standard
Great Bowler + Super Aggressive batsman capable of averaging 35+ in today's Game.
Great Bowler + Super Aggressive batsman capable of averaging 35+ in today's Game.
MrPrez
International Debutant
The 'good 7' is team-dependent, but most commonly it would be a batting all-rounder who can still bowl 8 overs a match, or 6/7 at a minimum.
Most ODI teams will have someone in the top 6 who can bowl a couple of overs, so the batting is arguably more important than the bowling.
I'd say a Ben Stokes archetype is ideal for the 7 spot - although Stokes is historically a bit too good to bat that low.
Most ODI teams will have someone in the top 6 who can bowl a couple of overs, so the batting is arguably more important than the bowling.
I'd say a Ben Stokes archetype is ideal for the 7 spot - although Stokes is historically a bit too good to bat that low.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...ll;orderby=runs;template=results;type=batting
A #7 will face 34.5 balls per match. Let's round that out to 6 overs per match. So he'll be bowling 8 and batting 6. You don't want Stokes bowling that many in an ODI unless he's on fire given he goes at 6s. I agree with Flem and Sunilz on needing someone who can arrest a collapse and bat properly there but on average a #7 will bowl more than bat.
A #7 will face 34.5 balls per match. Let's round that out to 6 overs per match. So he'll be bowling 8 and batting 6. You don't want Stokes bowling that many in an ODI unless he's on fire given he goes at 6s. I agree with Flem and Sunilz on needing someone who can arrest a collapse and bat properly there but on average a #7 will bowl more than bat.
Last edited:
Molehill
Cricketer Of The Year
Handy number to know. So they've either got to score a 20 ball 30 or a 50 ball 50 kind of batsman whilst pretty much bowling a full stint. It's kind of useful knowing that for filling that slot going forward. Certainly, for England that sounds like Sam Curran.
Molehill
Cricketer Of The Year
And presumably you'd give him the new ball too!!
MrPrez
International Debutant
I don't think looking at those numbers in isolation is a fair indication of the challenge.
The standard balance of a cricket team when there are no over limits is six batsmen, one keeper, and four bowlers.
Given the keeper is generally expected to be a solid batsman in their own right, it could be said that seven batsmen is considered to be the sweet spot in terms of batting depth.
Of course, we can't ignore that each bowler can only bowl ten overs in ODI cricket, so a sacrifice has to be made from the standard balance of a lineup.
The number 7 spot is where that compromise usually exists - either we have to run a fifth bowler who is not a specialist (ie a batting all-rounder), or we have to dink our batting depth to support a fifth specialist bowler.
Also, given the assumption that most ODI teams will have a sixth bowler who is a top-6 batsman, the value of a specialist 5th bowler is almost never equal to that of a full bowler, given that they will usually share overs with the sixth bowler.
Therefore, there is going to be a drop-off point where, depending on how these overs are shared, the batting becomes more important than the bowling.
You'd also have to contextualise within each team's strengths and weaknesses - if a team has an exceptional top 6, then there is less need for a great number 7 batsman, as they'd more often be wasted. Whereas if a team has a stronger bowling line-up, they could probably risk carrying a weaker fifth bowler in order to maximise their batting depth.
Yet another consideration is that if a team has a super weak 8-11 batting line-up, it might be more important to have a better number 7. Whereas if the team is like the old SA teams where Andrew Hall is the number 10, you'd probably lean towards more bowling.
All of this is to say that I think it is a far more situational consideration than those raw numbers would imply, and I think there are far more situations where a team has a solid sixth bowler sitting in their top 6, than situations where they have good number 8/9 batsmen.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
He is my ODI #6/7 for the India ATG side.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Afridi sucked lower in the order IMO.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Kapil: A quality bowler but more of a pinch-hitter and not capable up the order. Honestly, would be a better no.8 to finish an innings.
Imran: A capable lower order bat and a quality bowler. Gives the most impact for a weak team.
Klusener: The best lower order bat and a true finisher. Good for a team with a really strong bowling attack.
Flintoff: Great stats but still seems a bit of a lightweight.
Pollock: Worldclass bowler but again someone I would want for no.8
So to sum up: If you have a strong team, then Klusener is an ideal choice as the best pure no.7 bat and to finish an innings while being a decent bowler. If you have a weak team, then Imran offers a decent, reliable bat lower in the order and quality bowler.
Migara
International Coach
Klusener already did it by averaging 41 with bat and 30 with ball.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
How did you come to that conclusion? Kapil in the modern day would be Razzaq-level maybe.
What would Imran Khan average by this standard? Maybe 40+?
As a batsman, Imran was simply a level ahead of Kapil. He batted slower because he could go up the order and build the innings, but was capable of smashing lower down the order as well.
Btw, Imran to me was clearly a better ODI bowler than Kapil also.
There may be lineups where Kapil is more suitable to Imran, but quality-wise Imran as a solid lower order bat and high quality pacer was better than Kapil as a lower order pinch-hitter and quality pacer.
Last edited:
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
Razzaq bowling was inferior, Kapil was a regular top 5 - 10 bowler in rankings.
Until 1988
Kapil played 115 matches, Imran 102
Both averaged 29 with bat.. Strike Rate difference was a Whopping 35..! In Kapil's favour.
Imran scored one century and five 50s until then, Kapil one 100 and thirteen 50s.
Its very clear, Imran's stats are skewed, because he was two different players in different phases of his career.
Also he scored only one fifty outside top 6.
65% of his 50+ scores came in top 5 batting positions.
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
Kapil was far better bowler.
And no one consider Klusner as a 41 avg quality batsman. If then he would have been competing Kohlis and ABDVs for a specialist bat spot in alltime 11s.
41 avg at 90 strike rate in 90s/early 00s is a premium atg batsman category.
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Without going to statsguru, who has the best batting average at no 7 (minimum 1,000 runs)?
If no one has guessed by the time I wake up I will reveal the answer.
If no one has guessed by the time I wake up I will reveal the answer.
Last edited:
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
Is there any specific reason, i am not able to see Akram vs Ambrose thread ?