The long tail conundrum...

[Spikey]

Comes as a package, Australia does place emphasis on their bowlers being able to bat , Where would Australia be in 2003 if Bichel didn't play a blunder in one of the games ..

2015 , Faulkner was playing the Klusener mode ..They had way more talented bowlers than Faulkner but understood the importance of balance ..

2017 Pakistan won the Champions Trophy with Shadab Khan and Hasan Ali at 8 and 9 .

If your bowlers can bat it is a great luxury to have in white ball cricket

I've talked about this before but 2015 Faulkner was a wrong decision that ended up working out for Australia because Faulkner's best bowling performances happened in 2015

So basically Faulkner was being picked to play as a bowling all-rounder who was expected and needed to bowl 7 to 10 overs, and was batting at 7 or below where there's a realistic chance he might not bat, or bat a very small amount of time, but it was his batting performances, because he had some memorable performances with the bat, that was keeping him in the team. (to the point that for the 2015 WC, we moved Brad Haddin to 8 which is insane). To me, this is is extremely illogical. you know what he has to do, and you know what he probably doesn't have to do, but you're picking him because of the later. His average with the ball was over 30 and some guy called Pat Cummins was the guy on the sidelines who uh I reckon could probably bowl to 7 to 10 overs a little bit better than James Faulkner.

As could have been reasonably expected, Faulkner's batting magic ran out, starting from 2015 the WC. His very last game before the WC he hit a 50*, and then from the 2015 WC to the end of his career, he had a OD batting average of 18.71. (It was 48.12 before the 2015 WC, nearly half of his innings were not out if you're wondering how it was that damn high). Meanwhile his bowling average at the 2015 WC was his second best in a series in which he played 2 or more games throughout his entire OD career. After the 2015 WC, his bowling went back to his pre-2015 levels (actually slightly better!) but with the batting magic gone, they realised that actually, Faulkner shouldn't be in the team. Which come the 2019 WC was kind of annoying because we needed a bowling all-rounder type to have at 7, but Faulkner was cooked. It's kind of amazing how Faulkner's bowling peaked when it really needed to and more or less went back to normal straight afterwards (but slightly better!!)



but anyway, this is for a guy batting at 7 or 8. not 9 or 10.

 

[Silver Silva]

I've talked about this before but 2015 Faulkner was a wrong decision that ended up working out for Australia because Faulkner's best bowling performances happened in 2015

So basically Faulkner was being picked to play as a bowling all-rounder who was expected and needed to bowl 7 to 10 overs, and was batting at 7 or below where there's a realistic chance he might not bat, or bat a very small amount of time, but it was his batting performances, because he had some memorable performances with the bat, that was keeping him in the team. (to the point that for the 2015 WC, we moved Brad Haddin to 8 which is insane). His average with the ball was over 30 and some guy called Pat Cummins was the guy on the sidelines who uh I reckon could probably bowl to 7 to 10 overs a little bit better than James Faulkner.

As could have been reasonably expected, Faulkner's batting magic ran out, starting from 2015 the WC. His very last game before the WC he hit a 50*, and then from the 2015 WC to the end of his career, he had a OD batting average of 18.71. (It was 48.12 before the 2015 WC, nearly half of his innings were not out if you're wondering how it was that damn high). Meanwhile his bowling average at the 2015 WC was his second best in a series in which he played 2 or more games throughout his entire OD career. After the 2015 WC, his bowling went back to his pre-2015 levels (actually slightly better!) but with the batting magic gone, they realised that actually, Faulkner shouldn't be in the team. Which come the 2019 WC was kind of annoying because we needed a bowling all-rounder type to have at 7, but Faulkner was cooked. It's kind of amazing how Faulkner's bowling peaked when it really needed to and more or less went back to normal straight afterwards (but slightly better!!)

View attachment 38767

but anyway, this is for a guy batting at 7 or 8. not 9 or 10.

Didn't Mitchell Johnson bat at 9 and Starc at 10 on 2015 WC ? I would say that's a lovely advantage to have

 

[Spikey]

Didn't Mitchell Johnson bat at 9 and Starc at 10 on 2015 WC ? I would say that's a lovely advantage to have

yeah and starc didn't score a single run in his three innings and MJ scored 27 of his 31 runs in one of his four innings. they played 8 games. ( it was 27 handy runs in the semi final that weren't needed coz MJ then dismissed Kohli for 1 off 13 lol). it's not actually an advantage if you don't use it. it's just not that important in ODI cricket. if you happen to have it, that's great, but for the Donald in an ATG SA OD XI example, they can roll with him at 9. you need to get 10 quality overs of that guy at 9 in an OD match

 

[Silver Silva]

yeah and starc didn't score a single run in his three innings and MJ scored 27 of his 31 runs in one of his four innings. they played 8 games. ( it was 27 handy runs in the semi final that weren't needed coz MJ then dismissed Kohli for 1 off 13 lol). it's not actually an advantage if you don't use it. it's just not that important in ODI cricket. if you happen to have it, that's great, but for the Donald in an ATG SA OD XI example, they can roll with him at 9.

Having a long batting line isn't necessarily about the output , it's about the security..

Also you don't consider the psychology which can't be quantified but is important..

Having a long batting line up can dictate how a team plays their cricket , Captain Morgan placed an emphasis on a long batting line up because it gave his top and middle order the freedom to just go all out and murder the bowling , also it can be quite annoying when you have a side 6 down and out comes this guy who can smash you around the park ..

I appreciate it's low percentage, but if you have India at 80/5 it's practically game over with Shami, Bumrah, Siraj and Kuldeep batting..

Can't really say the same when you facing England in their prime .. if a bowler is only being chosen for his bowling he has to be world class , if you are choosing Kasun Rajitha at 9 you deserve to be smashed

 

[TheJediBrah]

Depends , if your three best bowlers are genuine no.11's it be foolish to play them all imo unless they are Once in a lifetime bowlers

No strong disagree. It would be foolish not to

 

[Prince EWS]

No strong disagree. It would be foolish not to

So you think the opposite?

 

[TheJediBrah]

So you think the opposite?

Why can't I stop

 

[capt_Luffy]

Depends , if your three best bowlers are genuine no.11's it be foolish to play them all imo unless they are Once in a lifetime bowlers

The reason why Shami didn't played most of the matches this WC in favour of "cough cough" Shardul Thakur until Hardik got injured. But I think it's kinda an extreme example. Shardul, imo, isn't a good enough bat to merit selection over Shami, India just wanted thier no. 8 to bat. Though, in the whole tournament, India hardly needed no. 6; except the final when our batting finally collapsed.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Yeah when bowling skills are very close and there's a huge gulf in batting then there's a decision to be made. Whereas Shami vs Thakur should have been a no-brainer but for the allure of #batdeep. India were much better playing 3 bunnies and having a gun attack than having Thakur carry a bowling load.

England in the 2015-2019 cycle loved their batdeep memes too but they pretty much abandoned it when it came to the crunch of the WC. Archer came in for Willey and they dropped Ali for Plunkett shortly into the tournament. Plunkett/Archer/Rashid/Wood from 8-11 was a much weaker tail than they'd been fielding for ages, and all selected for their bowling not their batting.

 

[ataraxia]

So you think the opposite?

Why can't I stop

Well, this up-and-coming meme about contradictions is certainly reflective of, if nothing else, TJB's habitual position on Graham's hierarchy of disagreement.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Well, this up-and-coming meme about contradictions is certainly reflective of, if nothing else, TJB's habitual position on Graham's hierarchy of disagreement.

Um actually it's reflective of the opposite

 

[ataraxia]

Um actually it's reflective of the opposite

Personally disagree tbh.

 

[Daemon]

It depends on the drop in bowling quality if you were to replace your no. 9 with someone who bats a bit better.

If it’s anything even resembling material then it’s just not worth it, which is usually the case.

No. 8 gets more tricky.

 

[peterhrt]

There have been a few occasions when a team fielding four men who averaged under ten with the bat has won a Test match. It happened less than year ago when Bangladesh beat Ireland. Sri Lanka also chose such a team last year against New Zealand.

England beat Australia at The Oval in 1993 with Fraser, Watkin, Such and Malcolm at numbers 8 to 11.

During the Packer era Australia defeated England with Hogg, Dymock, Hurst and Higgs in the side. Between them they contributed one run in the first innings and seven in the second. Australia have gone into ten Tests with all eleven men having scored a first-class hundred. They didn't win any of them.

West Indies won at Wellington in 1956 with five players (numbers 7 to 11) who finished with single figure career averages in Test matches: Binns, Ramadhin, Frank King, Dewdney and Valentine. Keeper Alfie Binns only played five Tests but was actually a decent batsman with a first-class average of 37.

 

[capt_Luffy]

There have been a few occasions when a team fielding four men who averaged under ten with the bat has won a Test match. It happened less than year ago when Bangladesh beat Ireland. Sri Lanka also chose such a team last year against New Zealand.

England beat Australia at The Oval in 1993 with Fraser, Watkin, Such and Malcolm at numbers 8 to 11.

During the Packer era Australia defeated England with Hogg, Dymock, Hurst and Higgs in the side. Between them they contributed one run in the first innings and seven in the second. Australia have gone into ten Tests with all eleven men having scored a first-class hundred. They didn't win any of them.

West Indies won at Wellington in 1956 with five players (numbers 7 to 11) who finished with single figure career averages in Test matches: Binns, Ramadhin, Frank King, Dewdney and Valentine. Keeper Alfie Binns only played five Tests but was actually a decent batsman with a first-class average of 37.

I think playing and even winning a Test match with a bad tail is possible, but is certainly rare. Like if you look at most of the great teams, they all batted deep to some extent; whether it's Windies with Marshall, Aussies with Lindwall and Johnston and later with Warne and Lee or even current India with Ashwin; most of good teams atleast have a decent no. 8. Like the recent India vs South Africa 2nd Test for example, all of the players from no. 8 onwards aren't reliable bats. Though India went on to win the match, in the first innings Indian batting totally collapsed after a good start and lost all the last six wickets without scoring a single run..... I think such a line-up is not a problem for one or two matches, but could cause problems in the long run.

 

[kyear2]

There have been a few occasions when a team fielding four men who averaged under ten with the bat has won a Test match. It happened less than year ago when Bangladesh beat Ireland. Sri Lanka also chose such a team last year against New Zealand.

England beat Australia at The Oval in 1993 with Fraser, Watkin, Such and Malcolm at numbers 8 to 11.

During the Packer era Australia defeated England with Hogg, Dymock, Hurst and Higgs in the side. Between them they contributed one run in the first innings and seven in the second. Australia have gone into ten Tests with all eleven men having scored a first-class hundred. They didn't win any of them.

West Indies won at Wellington in 1956 with five players (numbers 7 to 11) who finished with single figure career averages in Test matches: Binns, Ramadhin, Frank King, Dewdney and Valentine. Keeper Alfie Binns only played five Tests but was actually a decent batsman with a first-class average of 37.

Excellent post as usual. The highlighted post is especially telling, and neither extreme is an especially good idea.

I think playing and even winning a Test match with a bad tail is possible, but is certainly rare. Like if you look at most of the great teams, they all batted deep to some extent; whether it's Windies with Marshall, Aussies with Lindwall and Johnston and later with Warne and Lee or even current India with Ashwin; most of good teams atleast have a decent no. 8. Like the recent India vs South Africa 2nd Test for example, all of the players from no. 8 onwards aren't reliable bats. Though India went on to win the match, in the first innings Indian batting totally collapsed after a good start and lost all the last six wickets without scoring a single run..... I think such a line-up is not a problem for one or two matches, but could cause problems in the long run.

Agree that the above scenario isn't tenable long term either.

And while there's the view that I don't value tail depth, that's not true, it just depends on the quality available and what's the trade off required.

 

[ataraxia]

And the gulf between Hadlee and McGrath's bowling is of course far too large to contemplate compromising.

 

[Blenkinsop]

Plunkett/Archer/Rashid/Wood from 8-11 was a much weaker tail than they'd been fielding for ages, and all selected for their bowling not their batting.

Rashid has ten first-class centuries and an average of 32. Plunkett has three first-class centuries. Wood can definitely hold a bat, and England have always held a touching faith in Archer's ability with the bat, not that he has often shown it in international cricket.

 

[kyear2]

And the gulf between Hadlee and McGrath's bowling is of course far too large to contemplate compromising.

I made a generalized statement, not within any context.

But to answer your question, I'm sure to most not.

I just have a preference for one over the other? And nothing says all two can't make it.

Actually according to the last poll, that was the preference.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And the gulf between Hadlee and McGrath's bowling is of course far too large to contemplate compromising.

This but unironically