Why don't teams reverse the batting order on greentops?

[Gollum]

12 minutes ago, Tattieboy said:

Have you played cricket , captained and used this tactic?

I have played cricket but only on mats. Don't need such tactics on mats. 

[Tattieboy]

2 hours ago, Gollum said:

Don Bradman once did it in 1936-37 Ashes on a wet wicket. The idea was for the lower order to spend some time while the wet wicket was exposed to the sun, hence making conditions easier for the top order batsmen. 

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/17549/scorecard/62643/Australia-vs-England-3rd-Test-england-tour-of-australia-1936-37/

 

As you can see Bradman (no 3 batsman) came at no 7 as did other top batsmen like Fingleton and McCabe. Numbers 9, 10, 11 were top 3 and other lower order batsmen too were pushed up (wasn't a complete reversal per se). The previous innings England had been bowled out for 76, the main Aussie batsmen came after 30-35 overs and plundered the Poms, Bradman got 270, Fingleton 136 and Aussies won by 365 runs !!!

 

I don't think this radical approach was repeated again in test cricket, I wonder why. On a greentop more often than not you lose your top order for not many, might as well send the tail 1st and pray for the best. If it works out fine, if not rather them dismissed than your best batsmen. On green/moist decks batting gets easier after the 1st 25-30 overs because the ball gets older/softer, ball loses the pronounced seam, pitch eases up and the quicks aren't as fresh as in the 1st spell. Too often we see 40/3 or 60/5 in such situations, is it any better than 30/5 (30 overs) with your best players not yet dismissed? Unlike the top order the tail doesn't have much hope of scoring runs but do those extra 20-30 runs really matter, just send them out there and ask them to defend/leave and just look to survive. Who knows if they stick there for some time even the opposition will start getting frustrated. And another thing, most of the balls Smith/Kohli/Root/ABDV/KW nick to the keeper/slip cordon, I doubt the lower order are good enough to even make contact with such deliveries. We often hear that the batsman is too good for that jaffa to not nick it, even in this SA series a number of deliveries that took the edge  had movement that was so extravagant that the tailenders could only have wafted at thin air there. 

 

In Cape Town in both innings we lost our top 6 for not many and our last 5 had the best batting conditions. Had Kohli/Dhawan/Vijay/Rohit got such batting conditions we could have scored a lot more. In the 2nd innings of Centurion the new ball was doing all sorts of crazy up down stuff and there was only an hour and a half before stumps. May be the tail was too hopeless to expect much of but if we had Bhuvi in that match may be a batting order of Bhuvi, Ishant, Che, Patel, Ashwin could have seen off that phase with our best batsmen starting fresh on day 5 in relatively easier conditions. No need for full reversal, put a Pujara at no 3 in stead of the slogger Shami who won't necessarily do the job. 

 

What say? Not talking only specifically about India but all teams on greentops or conditions where the new ball bowlers have tremendous advantage. May be 20-30 years ago the tailenders were mugs with the bat with no protection like helmet, chest guard, arm guard etc. Modern day tailenders I would presume are more capable and may even pull it off. When I say pull it off, I mean a paltry 55/5 after 30 overs would count as a huge tactical victory. 

 

 

What you forgot was the actual details of the match of why this came about 

England had declared at 76 -9 because the wicket was so dangerous , first time two sides had declared a first innings. 

There was approx 30 mins left which Bradman wasted time asking about the declaration,  the light was poor and wicket very dangerous.  He sent in two night watchmen for the 20 mins or so , one got out and he sent another. Both lasted the few overs. Next morning normal order commenced on fall of the first night watchman. 

This is not the revolutionary reverse batting order you claim but trying to see out a few overs in poor light on a dangerous wicket at close of  play. 

[Gollum]

14 minutes ago, zen said:

Reversing the batting order on green top would mean likes of Bumrah opening the batting and Vijay batting at 11, Pujara at 9 and Kohli at 8 

 

Gavaskar will I’ll feel that his position as an ATG opener is threatened as tailenders can do his job

 

I don't want a complete reversal.

Say we have Bhuvi in stead of Bumrah next test and get an extremely green mamba how does this look?

1. Bhuvi

2. Ishant

3. Che

4. Karthik

5. Ashwin

6. Kohli (best batsman)

7. Pandya (up the ante)

8. Rahul/Dhawan (up the ante, impending new ball)

9. Vijay (2nd new ball by this time but bowlers more tired and pitch easier)

10. Rahane

11. Shami

 

With normal strategy we will most probably be 100/6 after 35 overs only to recover and post 220 odd, recovery too depends on someone doing a Hardik Pandya from Cape Town. I also genuinely believe that if SA play their normal order they will be max 220 all out if we take all catches now that we know what lengths to hit.  

 

With this strategy say it clicks and we are 50/4 after 30 overs, take control of the game in the next 50 overs to get 240/7 when the 2nd new ball is taken. Now we have Kohli, Vijay, Rahane and Shami as our not out batsmen and we may get a much larger score.

Edited January 21, 2018 by Gollum

[Ankit_sharma03]

Wo bowling bhi kare batting bhi kare, batsman to baraat men aaye hai 

[zen]

11 minutes ago, Gollum said:

I don't want a complete reversal

Say we have Bhuvi in stead of Bumrah next test and get an extremely green mamba how does this look?

1. Bhuvi

2. Ishant

3. Che

4. Karthik

5. Ashwin

6. Kohli (best batsman)

7. Pandya (up the ante)

8. Rahul/Dhawan (up the ante, impending new ball)

9. Vijay (2nd new ball by this time but bowlers more tired and pitch easier)

10. Rahane

11. Shami

 

With normal strategy we will most probably be 100/6 after 35 overs only to recover and post 220 odd, recovery too depends on someone doing a Hardik Pandya from Cape Town. I also genuinely believe that if SA play their normal order they will be max 220 all out if we take all catches now that we know what lengths to hit.  

 

With this strategy say it clicks and we are 50/4 after 30 overs, take control of the game in the next 50 overs to get 240/7 when the 2nd new ball is taken. Now we have Kohli, Vijay, Rahane and Shami as our not out batsmen and we may get a much larger score.

That’s too risky esp if the bowlers get injured when exposed to relatively tough conditions and fresh bowlers firing on all cylinders 

 

In cricket, scorecard pressure can come in to play as well. For e.g. pressure on Rahane coming in at 3 wkts down vs 8-9 wkts down would be different. A wkt or two would mean Rahane would be left stranded (a batting resource wasted)

 

Also it potentially robs a batsman to built a partnership or play a long inning. In test, usually a couple of batsmen have to get going with the rest chipping in so coming down the order means less chances of playing that long inning 

 

which is why opening is considered a specialist position. If not likes of Afridi would be opening in tests

Edited January 21, 2018 by zen

[Gollum]

11 minutes ago, Tattieboy said:

What you forgot was the actual details of the match of why this came about 

England had declared at 76 -9 because the wicket was so dangerous , first time two sides had declared a first innings. 

There was approx 30 mins left which Bradman wasted time asking about the declaration,  the light was poor and wicket very dangerous.  He sent in two night watchmen for the 20 mins or so , one got out and he sent another. Both lasted the few overs. Next morning normal order commenced on fall of the first night watchman. 

This is not the revolutionary reverse batting order you claim but trying to see out a few overs in poor light on a dangerous wicket at close of  play. 

I didn't check the details of the match, just read an article a long time back about Bradman's revolutionary idea, that is how that particular article was presented. From espncricinfo's match details, end of day 2 it was Aus 3/1 so you may well be right about the no 11 and no 10 being sent to negotiate a few minutes. Still my point stands. Forget about the match or Bradman's role. Original question was why don't modern era teams reverse batting order on greentops, let us discuss this pertinent topic and forget whose idea it was or wasn't or whether there is any historical precedent. 

[Gollum]

10 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

Wo bowling bhi kare batting bhi kare, batsman to baraat men aaye hai 

They won't be called upon to do this every match, like I said only in extreme conditions like Manchester test of 2014.

4 minutes ago, zen said:

That’s too risky esp if the bowlers get injured when exposed to relatively tough conditions and fresh bowlers firing on all cylinders 

 

In cricket, scorecard pressure can come in to play as well. For e.g. pressure on Rahane coming in at 3 wkts down vs 8-9 wkts down would be different. A wkt or two would mean Rahane would be left stranded (a batting resource wasted)

 

Also it potentially robs a batsman to built a partnership or play a long inning. In test, usually a couple of batsmen have to get going with the rest chipping in so coming down the order means less chances of playing that long inning 

 

which is why opening is considered a specialist position. If not likes of Afridi would be opening in tests

Tailenders can get injured any time. Modern day tailenders have best possible protection available to them, besides with a brand new cherry and greentop doubt bowlers will try to hit the batsmen, they will try to pitch it up. 

 

The rest of your post is very interesting. But in my hypothetical line up Rahane will have a competent batsman batting alongside him till either of them gets out. In such extreme conditions batsmen will have to make that mental adjustment where a 20 or 30 will be as important as a 100 on a normal pitch. 

 

[Tattieboy]

2 minutes ago, Gollum said:

I didn't check the details of the match, just read an article a long time back about Bradman's revolutionary idea, that is how that particular article was presented. From espncricinfo's match details, end of day 2 it was Aus 3/1 so you may well be right about the no 11 and no 10 being sent to negotiate a few minutes. Still my point stands. Forget about the match or Bradman's role. Original question was why don't modern era teams reverse batting order on greentops, let us discuss this pertinent topic and forget whose idea it was or wasn't or whether there is any historical precedent. 

May well be???

Completely changes your post of Bradman just reversed the batting line up 

 

The reason is because tailenders have no chance against the new ball . Psychologically it would be completely different for them . They would be intimated to the full , everything but the kitchen sink would be thrown at them . 

 

[Gollum]

1 minute ago, Tattieboy said:

May well be???

Completely changes your post of Bradman just reversed the batting line up 

 

The reason is because tailenders have no chance against the new ball . Psychologically it would be completely different for them . They would be intimated to the full , everything but the kitchen sink would be thrown at them . 

 

Still that is quite drastic. If 30 minutes are left in a days' play you would expect the normal openers to bat and only if a wicket falls in the last 10 minutes or so would you see a nightwatchman. Bradman's idea was radically different methinks. Not as revolutionary as I imagined when I opened this thread, but surprising nonetheless. Pitch may have been dangerous but I doubt that was the only dangerous pitch of that era. 

[Tattieboy]

34 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Still that is quite drastic. If 30 minutes are left in a days' play you would expect the normal openers to bat and only if a wicket falls in the last 10 minutes or so would you see a nightwatchman. Bradman's idea was radically different methinks. Not as revolutionary as I imagined when I opened this thread, but surprising nonetheless. Pitch may have been dangerous but I doubt that was the only dangerous pitch of that era. 

Bradman was scared his team had to bat 

His words 

" worst wicket I ever saw in my life"

He ordered the bowlers to bowl wide, set his fielders on the boundary. 

18 balls were faced , 6 appeals against the light . 

He did  it because England declared in first innings to make them bat ....tit for tat 

[Tattieboy]

3 hours ago, Gollum said:

Don Bradman once did it in 1936-37 Ashes on a wet wicket. The idea was for the lower order to spend some time while the wet wicket was exposed to the sun, hence making conditions easier for the top order batsmen. 

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/17549/scorecard/62643/Australia-vs-England-3rd-Test-england-tour-of-australia-1936-37/

 

As you can see Bradman (no 3 batsman) came at no 7 as did other top batsmen like Fingleton and McCabe. Numbers 9, 10, 11 were top 3 and other lower order batsmen too were pushed up (wasn't a complete reversal per se). The previous innings England had been bowled out for 76, the main Aussie batsmen came after 30-35 overs and plundered the Poms, Bradman got 270, Fingleton 136 and Aussies won by 365 runs !!!

 

I don't think this radical approach was repeated again in test cricket, I wonder why. On a greentop more often than not you lose your top order for not many, might as well send the tail 1st and pray for the best. If it works out fine, if not rather them dismissed than your best batsmen. On green/moist decks batting gets easier after the 1st 25-30 overs because the ball gets older/softer, ball loses the pronounced seam, pitch eases up and the quicks aren't as fresh as in the 1st spell. Too often we see 40/3 or 60/5 in such situations, is it any better than 30/5 (30 overs) with your best players not yet dismissed? Unlike the top order the tail doesn't have much hope of scoring runs but do those extra 20-30 runs really matter, just send them out there and ask them to defend/leave and just look to survive. Who knows if they stick there for some time even the opposition will start getting frustrated. And another thing, most of the balls Smith/Kohli/Root/ABDV/KW nick to the keeper/slip cordon, I doubt the lower order are good enough to even make contact with such deliveries. We often hear that the batsman is too good for that jaffa to not nick it, even in this SA series a number of deliveries that took the edge  had movement that was so extravagant that the tailenders could only have wafted at thin air there. 

 

In Cape Town in both innings we lost our top 6 for not many and our last 5 had the best batting conditions. Had Kohli/Dhawan/Vijay/Rohit got such batting conditions we could have scored a lot more. In the 2nd innings of Centurion the new ball was doing all sorts of crazy up down stuff and there was only an hour and a half before stumps. May be the tail was too hopeless to expect much of but if we had Bhuvi in that match may be a batting order of Bhuvi, Ishant, Che, Patel, Ashwin could have seen off that phase with our best batsmen starting fresh on day 5 in relatively easier conditions. No need for full reversal, put a Pujara at no 3 in stead of the slogger Shami who won't necessarily do the job. 

 

What say? Not talking only specifically about India but all teams on greentops or conditions where the new ball bowlers have tremendous advantage. May be 20-30 years ago the tailenders were mugs with the bat with no protection like helmet, chest guard, arm guard etc. Modern day tailenders I would presume are more capable and may even pull it off. When I say pull it off, I mean a paltry 55/5 after 30 overs would count as a huge tactical victory. 

 

 

Getting back to this theory of yours. 

How much of a reversal would you like to see?  Complete 11-1?

What would you be expecting say numbers 8 -11 to score for you to say it was a success? 

[Gollum]

36 minutes ago, Tattieboy said:

Getting back to this theory of yours. 

How much of a reversal would you like to see?  Complete 11-1?

What would you be expecting say numbers 8 -11 to score for you to say it was a success? 

Not a complete reversal, If it were up to me I wouldn't want guys like Bumrah and Shami up the order because they wouldn't serve the purpose. I sure as hell won't dislodge Pujara from no 3 because he is a good blocker, in easier conditions he will be too slow to make this idea work. For Pujara instruction would be to hold one end till 30 odd overs and then increase the tempo.

 

I would want 2 bowlers (Bhuvi, Ishant) who are capable with the bat (defence) + Che + Ashwin + Keeper at the top. I wouldn't expect too many runs from them, the gauge of success here should be in terms of time/overs. Ideally overs 30-80 should be set for the likes of Kohli, Rahul, Pandya to get the runs with a rearguard of Vijay and Rahane to face the 2nd new ball. 

Edited January 21, 2018 by Gollum

[Tattieboy]

6 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Not a complete reversal, If it were up to me I wouldn't want guys like Bumrah and Shami up the order because they wouldn't serve the purpose. I sure as hell won't dislodge Pujara from no 3 because he is a good blocker, in easier conditions he will be too slow to make this idea work. For Pujara instruction would be to hold one end till 30 odd overs and then increase the tempo.

 

I would want 2 bowlers (Bhuvi, Ishant) who are capable with the bat (defence) + Che + Ashwin + Keeper at the top. I wouldn't expect too many runs from them, the gauge of success here should be in terms of time/overs. Ideally overs 30-80 should be set for the likes of Kohli, Rahul, Pandya to get the runs with a rearguard of Vijay and Rahane to face the 2nd new ball. 

Okay that plan means either Bhuvi or Ishant to last first 30 overs 

Have they lasted 30 overs ever in test cricket?

If they opened the batting I would predict they wouldn't last 3 overs 

[Gollum]

2 minutes ago, Tattieboy said:

Okay that plan means either Bhuvi or Ishant to last first 30 overs 

Have they lasted 30 overs ever in test cricket?

If they opened the batting I would predict they wouldn't last 3 overs 

No it means Bhuvi+Ishant+Che+Ashwin+Keeper lasting 30 overs. Bhuvi is a decent test batsman with a few 50s, Ishant has lasted for close to 100 balls a few times in international cricket, Che is Che, Ash is no mug.........not an impossible proposition as you are trying to make it out to be .

Edited January 21, 2018 by Gollum

[wanted_desi]

I would swap Sharmas for sure. Rohit and Ishant on Greentop. 

[velu]

looks like we are already doing that  

[Tattieboy]

44 minutes ago, Gollum said:

No it means Bhuvi+Ishant+Che+Ashwin+Keeper lasting 30 overs. Bhuvi is a decent test batsman with a few 50s, Ishant has lasted for close to 100 balls a few times in international cricket, Che is Che, Ash is no mug.........not an impossible proposition as you are trying to make it out to be .

Give me your India batting order then

[Gollum]

12 minutes ago, Tattieboy said:

Give me your India batting order then

Already posted the same in this thread:

1. Bhuvi

2. Ishant

3. Che

4. Karthik

5. Ashwin

6. Kohli (best batsman)

7. Pandya (up the ante)

8. Rahul/Dhawan (up the ante, impending new ball)

9. Vijay (2nd new ball by this time but bowlers more tired and pitch easier)

10. Rahane

11. Shami

[Tattieboy]

3 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Already posted the same in this thread:

1. Bhuvi

2. Ishant

3. Che

4. Karthik

5. Ashwin

6. Kohli (best batsman)

7. Pandya (up the ante)

8. Rahul/Dhawan (up the ante, impending new ball)

9. Vijay (2nd new ball by this time but bowlers more tired and pitch easier)

10. Rahane

11. Shami

If I put this to a Test nation coach do you think it might be seen to have merit ?

[Gollum]

4 minutes ago, Tattieboy said:

If I put this to a Test nation coach do you think it might be seen to have merit ?

I am running out of ways to explain that such an arrangement should be tried out only in the rarest of rare cases. 

Edited January 21, 2018 by Gollum