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

[OverratedSanity]

Quick singles are for intent memers

 

[Pratters]

There is nothing wrong with a single when there is one to be taken. Quick ones and twos put a lot of pressure on the opposition. Plus, they add to the runs which helps you in the end goal.

 

[Kirkut]

It is quite important if the outfield is slow. I watched Sachin's 148 in Sydney during his debut Aussie tour and he had hit only 12 fours, besides that he and Shastri literally ran many 4 runs when there were no boundary ropes!

 

[Coronis]

Most runouts aren’t occurring because of trying to take quick singles that aren’t there its because of people saying yes then changing their mind and leaving their partner stranded. Excellent running between wickets (including taking as many singles as you can) is a very important part of being a great batsman.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Because they are worth it. Even if you just add up runs from "quick" singles (if you consider kohli last night as such) then for every run out that happens you'd not be run out well over 50 times IMO, making it a mathematically sound tactic already.

And that's before you even take into account the huge value in rotating strike that both helps the batsmen and disrupts the bowlers and fielders.

If you're talking about genuinely suicidal 50/50 singles though then yeah they usually look dumb in hindsight but cricketers aren't robots and they make misjudgements, probably thinking it was an easier run than it turned out to be.

You can't just say "**** it, no short singles" because you will end up missing out on a lot of runs, building pressure on yourself and it's not conducive to winning cricket matches.

 

[Bijed]

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

Didn't he run himself out first ball once, possibly also in that series?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah he was runout stupidly twice in the same game. This was immediately after Shastri-Kohli had commented that he needs to show more intent and keep the runs ticking along when Pujara made a 100 ball 20 in the previous game on a greentop.

 

[Line and Length]

Over half a century ago, one of Australia's more successful opening batting partnership (Simpson/Lawry) featured quick singles. When asked about the tactic, one of them (I can't recall which) said, "We take them because it's safer at the other end."

 

[Daemon]

Theoretically it makes perfect sense to dial down the quick singles in Tests.

Practically though, if you try to adjust the way you run every other month in between formats you'll probably just get muddled in the head and end up getting run out more often.

 

[ankitj]

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

Kohli's too. Over eager to steal that single.

 

[Engle]

Running is an essential part of the game. It keeps the scoreboard ticking, throws the bowler of his plans, puts pressure on the opposition. This is not the issue.

The issue is that at the highest level of Test cricket, it has to be tuned to a fine art, a well-oiled machine with pin-point precision and decision.

What we're seeing instead is shambolic school-boy shenanigans.

Even at the club level, I would never have called for this run, and as non-striker would have quickly turned it down.

 

[Engle]

Theoretically it makes perfect sense to dial down the quick singles in Tests.

Practically though, if you try to adjust the way you run every other month in between formats you'll probably just get muddled in the head and end up getting run out more often.

You have to adjust the way you run within 5 days in a Test if for e.g. you're chasing quickly or protecting the tail or an injured batsman.

 

[Gnske]

This is the highest iq thread on this forum.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Theoretically it makes perfect sense to dial down the quick singles in Tests.

Practically though, if you try to adjust the way you run every other month in between formats you'll probably just get muddled in the head and end up getting run out more often.

This just seems like a poor excuse. If batsmen can adjust the way they play the rest of their game according to the format, why not this. They probably do adjust anyway, they dont look for the quick single in the longer format anywhere near as much because at some level they understand it isnt worth it. But they refuse to take it as far as they should.

 

[TheJediBrah]

This just seems like a poor excuse.

Yeah it is. That's not one of the reasons. But I would have thought you have got more than enough legit reasons in this thread already to keep you happy for a while

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Why do modErators not fix grammAtical errors in thRead titles?

 

[Spikey]

posters rights.

 

[trundler]

WHy do moderators not fix grammatical errors in thread titles?

Phlegm happened

 

[Daemon]

If batsmen can adjust the way they play the rest of their game according to the format

They can and do but surely you agree it results in a less than optimal outcome for most of them

 

[nightprowler10]

Guys have we asked how HB feels about this?