Batting with tailenders and Sachin's strategy in the Sydney Test, 2008

[riya]

Well SRT of 90s was a very different man .He was watchful but had the will to take on the best in teh business,still he had great average .A little difference to SRT of 2000s,he will be overly worried while nearing to a century or double century .Too much bothering which some time take the better off him .I was shocked by that Sydney knock,a great knock that was,but exposing tailenders was not a good move .Laxman did the same many times,Ganguly did that .Yes they are all trying to save the averages and being selfish in that way .They have saved so many matches for us too .But they tried to preserve average . On a second thought,can't blame them for looking for average.simply because while discussing about the best batsmen people will look into the averages. As for the thread .If u think that i have the same problem for Tendulkar like FL,i cannot help it .Because i am not obsessed with starting numerous threads like ''Is SRT a God '' some thing on the line. My reaction was a knee jerk one to the Sydeny test mainly because of the expectation that i ahve for him.That was not the Tednulkar of the 90s.simply .

[The Outsider]

Well SRT of 90s was a very different man .He was watchful but had the will to take on the best in teh business,still he had great average .A little difference to SRT of 2000s,he will be overly worried while nearing to a century or double century .Too much bothering which some time take the better off him .I was shocked by that Sydney knock,a great knock that was,but exposing tailenders was not a good move .Laxman did the same many times,Ganguly did that .Yes they are all trying to save the averages and being selfish in that way .They have saved so many matches for us too .But they tried to preserve average .

Do you realize that ever since Waugh pioneered the strategy on a consistent basis most teams have adopted it and unless a match is being saved hardly anyone in world cricket shields tailenders anymore? Or maybe all those people with a collective experience of thousands of test matches have marbles in their heads and should be consulting you and fineleg on whether it is selfish and against the team spirit?

[riya]

It is not about totally shielding but totally exposing a full over to a tailender .I am all for rotating the strikes,like Waugh or Dhoni used to do with the tailenders .Those were different way of playing .Not the kind Tendulkar or Laxman or Ganguly did. That is an ability playing with tailenders,Dhoni has that .

[Ram]

I think its fair to say that even though Riya has been unfairly critical of Sachin at various points, she has also not held back on praising him many times. Even during his recent 100 in NZ, she was one of the first people to give a congratulatory message.

[Ram]

Do you realize that ever since Waugh pioneered the strategy on a consistent basis most teams have adopted it and unless a match is being saved hardly anyone in world cricket shields tailenders anymore? Or maybe all those people with a collective experience of thousands of test matches have marbles in their heads and should be consulting you and fineleg on whether it is selfish and against the team spirit?

I still don’t agree with Sachin’s tactics that day. I was fine with him rotating the strike with Bhajji, even RP Singh. But to repeatedly take a single in the first couple of balls of an over and hand the strike over to a rookie no.11 who till then had not even scored 20 runs in his entire professional batting career simply does not make sense. Sure, it worked that day. But it could have also easily bombed horribly.

[The Outsider]

It is not about totally shielding but totally exposing a full over to a tailender .I am all for rotating the strikes' date='like Waugh or Dhoni used to do with the tailenders .Those were different way of playing .Not the kind Tendulkar or Laxman or Ganguly did. That is an ability playing with tailenders,Dhoni had that .[/quote'] Do you want me to paste cricinfo commentary wherein Waugh took singles off the first ball of the over - he did it on numerous occasions? As for Dhoni, I can't recall any of his innings where he shielded the tail except at Lords' which was a completely different match situation.

[DomainK]

I still don’t agree with Sachin’s tactics that day. I was fine with him rotating the strike with Bhajji, even RP Singh. But to repeatedly take a single in the first couple of balls of an over and hand the strike over to a rookie no.11who till then had not even 20 runs in his entire professional batting career simply does not make sense. Sure, it worked that day. But it could have also easily bombed horribly.

I dont think Tendulakr was actually leaving it to fate. He had something in his mind. May be the no11 had spent time with him in the nets and Tendulkar knew he could trust him. Yuvraj looked like a no 11 in front of Mendis.....till Tendulkar taught him how to play Mendis.

[riya]

Do you want me to paste cricinfo commentary wherein Waugh took singles off the first ball of the over - he did it on numerous occasions? As for Dhoni, I can't recall any of his innings where he shielded the tail except at Lords' which was a completely different match situation.

He did that too .He loved to preserve his average too :giggle: But being a batsmen who used to bat with tailenders in more occasions he used to rotate strikes in many matches i remember . Dhoni utilises people like bhajji not some one like Ishant .

[The Outsider]

I still don’t agree with Sachin’s tactics that day. I was fine with him rotating the strike with Bhajji, even RP Singh. But to repeatedly take a single in the first couple of balls of an over and hand the strike over to a rookie no.11 who till then had not even scored 20 runs in his entire professional batting career simply does not make sense. Sure, it worked that day. But it could have also easily bombed horribly.

Tendulkar would have seen him in the nets to know what he was capable of doing and what he was not. He refused to take a single to prevent Hogg having an entire over at him, so he surely had a plan. Bombed horribly? We might have ended up 20-25 runs short at the most. Even Tendulkar could have got out trying to play a big shot like Ganguly ended up against South Africa at Kanpur.

[The Outsider]

He did that too .He loved to preserve his average too :giggle: But being a batsmen who used to bat with tailenders in more occasions he used to rotate strikes in many matches i remember . Dhoni utilises people like bhajji not some one like Ishant .

Harbhajan was not even the topic of discussion but in this very innings Harbhajan was "utilized" by Tendulkar for 60 odd runs.

[Ram]

I dont think Tendulakr was actually leaving it to fate. He had something in his mind. May be the no11 had spent time with him in the nets and Tendulkar knew he could trust him. Yuvraj looked like a no 11 in front of Mendis.....till Tendulkar taught him how to play Mendis.

If Tendulkar had seen Ishant bat in the nets and thought he could handle himself, fine. That explains why he confidently gave him the strike. But that still does not explain why Sachin made no efforts whatsoever to accelerate the scoring. He did not play any attacking shots at all, did not even look to. He made no efforts to improvise – try the chip shot over cover for two, or fine paddle sweep for four. He just playing as if there was a regular batsman at the other end who could also score. Now, that does not make sense. To begin with, I was livid that Sachin actually routinely gave the strike to Ishant the first few balls of the over. But, after listening to you guys, I am willing to concede that I was wrong and maybe he knew Ishant could survive. But as I said, that still does not explain why Sachin made no efforts at to take It upon himself and score. If anyone wants to REALLY know how a top order batsman should bat with the tail, they should watch Kumara Sangakkara’s 192 against Australia in the second test of their series in 2007. I think he added something like 80 off 15 overs with Malinga and Malinga’s contribution in that partnership was in single digits. Sure, Sri Lanka was chasing a target and match circumstances were different, but still the general principle of a top-order batsman batting with a no.11 is the same and does not change.

[Ram]

Tendulkar would have seen him in the nets to know what he was capable of doing and what he was not. He refused to take a single to prevent Hogg having an entire over at him, so he surely had a plan. Bombed horribly? We might have ended up 20-25 runs short at the most. Even Tendulkar could have got out trying to play a big shot like Ganguly ended up against South Africa at Kanpur.

And by how many minutes did we lose the Sydney test? Imagine if Sachin had accelerated and score a good 15-20 runs more, so Australia would have had to declare later and who knows what might have happened. Bottom line is not whether the tactics worked in this specific case or not, Bottom line is that the tactics did not make any cricketing sense at all, vis-à-vis the complete lack of any effort to accelerate the scoring. And I don’t buy the ‘what if he had gotten out’ theory. If a batsman in his 19th year of international cricket and 25,000 runs behind him cannot back himself to improvise and score a few quick runs, who can? Mind you, I am not even saying he should have slogged every ball across the line. Just mere nudges and chips shots for 2s and 3s would have done. But what did we get? Just Business-as-Usual push to long-on and long-off in the first 2,3 balls of the over, as though nothing’s different.

[DomainK]

If Tendulkar had seen Ishant bat in the nets and thought he could handle himself, fine. That explains why he confidently gave him the strike. But that still does not explain why Sachin made no efforts whatsoever to accelerate the scoring. He did not play any attacking shots at all, did not even look to. He made no efforts to improvise – try the chip shot over cover for two, or fine paddle sweep for four. He just playing as if there was a regular batsman at the other end who could also score. Now, that does not make sense. To begin with, I was livid that Sachin actually routinely gave the strike to Ishant the first few balls of the over. But, after listening to you guys, I am willing to concede that I was wrong and maybe he knew Ishant could survive. But as I said, that still does not explain why Sachin made no efforts at to take It upon himself and score. If anyone wants to REALLY know how a top order batsman should bat with the tail, they should watch Kumara Sangakkara’s 192 against Australia in the second test of their series in 2007. I think he added something like 80 off 15 overs with Malinga and Malinga’s contribution in that partnership was in single digits. Sure, Sri Lanka was chasing a target and match circumstances were different, but still the general principle of a top-order batsman batting with a no.11 is the same and does not change.

You will never know the answer unless someday Sachin answers that directly. But we can believe that there was good reason to do so. May be it was live coaching for Ishant where he was guiding him giving him valuable match experience. In that case he would leave the stage to him. May be he just wanted to get on the nerves of the opposition and frustrate them to no end. May be he wanted to tire the bowlers out. There could be several reasons and the real reason is known only to those who were in the team at that time.

[Ram]

You will never know the answer unless someday Sachin answers that directly. But we can believe that there was good reason to do so. May be it was live coaching for Ishant where he was guiding him giving him valuable match experience. In that case he would leave the stage to him. May be he just wanted to get on the nerves of the opposition and frustrate them to no end. May be he wanted to tire the bowlers out. There could be several reasons and the real reason is known only to those who were in the team at that time.

Well, we can speculate on what the ‘answer’ could be coz all of us have seen and played enough cricket matches to at least make sense of what is happening on a cricket field. And this isn’t quantum mechanics for us to simply scratch our heads and wonder. And that is why I keep insisting; whichever way you look at it, Sachin’s tactics did NOT make sense. And please spare me the ‘live coaching’ bit. A test match against Australia is not a place for coaching a no.11 about the fundamentals of batting. This is serious, professional cricket and you have to play according to the situation. And unfortunately, on that say, Sachin did NOT do that. His methods were bewildering to say the least.

[The Outsider]

And by how many minutes did we lose the Sydney test? Imagine if Sachin had accelerated and score a good 15-20 runs more, so Australia would have had to declare later and who knows what might have happened. Bottom line is not whether the tactics worked in this specific case or not, Bottom line is that the tactics did not make any cricketing sense at all, vis-à-vis the complete lack of any effort to accelerate the scoring. And I don’t buy the ‘what if he had gotten out’ theory. If a batsman in his 19th year of international cricket and 25,000 runs behind him cannot back himself to improvise and score a few quick runs, who can? Mind you, I am not even saying he should have slogged every ball across the line. Just mere nudges and chips shots for 2s and 3s would have done. But what did we get? Just Business-as-Usual push to long-on and long-off in the first 2,3 balls of the over, as though nothing’s different.

I think your memories of the match have dimmed a bit - Tendulkar did try to push through for 2 on at least a couple of occasions but then decided against it. Tendulkar also tried to play a couple of cut shots but ended up mistiming those and I clearly remember him trying to sweep Hogg but missing the ball.

[Ram]

I think your memories of the match have dimmed a bit - Tendulkar did try to push through for 2 on at least a couple of occasions but then decided against it. Tendulkar also tried to play a couple of cut shots but ended up mistiming those and I clearly remember him trying to sweep Hogg but missing the ball.

Apparently Shwetabh, it looks like its your memory that needs a bit refreshing. Here, I have copy pasted cricinfo's commentary of that partnership from the 131st over onwards. RP Singh was disimissed in the 3rd ball of the 130th. 131st Over;

The field is spread far and wide for Tendulkar, apart from a slip and a gully. 130.1 Johnson to Tendulkar, no run, short ball outside the off stump, Tendulkar cuts but mis-times it 130.2 Johnson to Tendulkar, 1 run, Tendulkar flicks the ball off his hips and takes the single, he isn't farming the strike then, Ishant has four balls to face ( Second ball single that leaves Sharma to face Brett Lee, arguably the world's best bowler then, no attempt to increase scoring) The flied comes in, the slip cordon is populated once again. 130.3 Johnson to Sharma, no run, left alone outside the off stump, Johnson needs to make Ishant play 130.4 Johnson to Sharma, no run, another one is wide outside off stump, Ishant comfortably lets it go Johnson goes round the wicket. 130.5 Johnson to Sharma, no run, pitches short and wide outside off stump, what is Johnson thinking? Ishant lets it go again 130.6 Johnson to Sharma, no run, the fuller ball which is angled into the stumps finds the outside edge of Ishant's bat as he gets squared up in defence, the edge doesn't carry to Hayden at first sl

132nd over;

131.1 Clark to Tendulkar, 1 run, full ball on off and middle stump, Tendulkar drives down the ground and takes the single once again (First ball single that leaves Sharma to face 5 balls of Clark , again no attempt at any attacking shot) Ishant has five balls to face, I don't fancy his chances. 131.2 Clark to Sharma, 1 run, he's made me take that back, Ishant fends a short-of-a-length ball off his hips behind square leg to get off the mark 131.3 Clark to Tendulkar, no run, Tendulkar flicks off his pads towards midwicket 131.4 Clark to Tendulkar, no run, good length delivery on off stump, Tendulkar moves across and nudges the ball towards the leg side The field comes in to stop the single, will Tendulkar look for the boundary? 131.5 Clark to Tendulkar, 1 run, he moves across towards the off side and flicks the ball to the right of the fielder at midwicket for a single Clark has one shot at Ishant. 131.6 Clark to Sharma, no run, he pitches it short and angles the ball down leg side, back to Tendulkar now

133rd over;

Tendulkar's on 149. Brett Lee's into the attack. 132.1 Lee to Tendulkar, 1 run, he brings up 150 by steering Lee through point for a single, he gets another standing ovation from the SCG (First ball single again, leaving Sharma to face to 5 balls of Lee.) Is Lee's going to look for that fast searing yorker? 132.2 Lee to Sharma, FOUR, no he isn't, it's a length ball outside off stump, Ishant lofts it uppishly but he clears mid-off and the ball rolls to the boundary 132.3 Lee to Sharma, FOUR, this time Lee looks for the yorker but over-pitches it, Ishant gets on to the front foot and drives past Symonds at mid-off for four, he takes everyone by surprise 132.4 Lee to Sharma, no run, full ball in the blockhole but the line is outside off stump 132.5 Lee to Sharma, no run, another full delivery on middle stump, Ishant pushes the ball towards cover One ball to go. 132.6 Lee to Sharma, no run, Ishant gets on to the back foot and defends with a straight bat, loud cheers from the Indian fans at the SCG

134th over;

Brydon Coverdale tells me that this is Ishant's highest first-class score. 133.1 Clark to Tendulkar, no run, defended towards to mid-on 133.2 Clark to Tendulkar, no run, Clark bowls a short ball which Tendulkar ducks under 133.3 Clark to Tendulkar, 1 run, low full toss on middle stump, Tendulkar flicks behind square for a single (3rd ball single this time, still no sign of attacking or improvised strokeplay) 133.4 Clark to Sharma, no run, Clark tests Ishant with a short ball, he sways awkwardly out of the way 133.5 Clark to Sharma, no run, another short ball outside off stump, Ishant lets it go again, is Clark setting him up for the yorker off the last ball? 133.6 Clark to Sharma, no run, no, it's another short ball which Ishant defends towards the vacant short leg region, why doesn't Ponting have a man catching there?

135th over;

134.1 Lee to Tendulkar, 1 run, Tendulkar flicks the ball towards midwicket and sets off for two, he has to settle for one because the fielder in the deep covered ground quickly to get to the ball (First ball single agaimn possibly first real attempt to retain strike) 134.2 Lee to Sharma, no run, defended on the back foot towards point 134.3 Lee to Sharma, FOUR, how about that? Ishant stands on the back foot and opens the face of the bat to run the ball past the slip cordon, he wasn't in complete control but he did his bit to keep the ball down 134.4 Lee to Sharma, no run, defended once again towards gully off the back foot 134.5 Lee to Sharma, FOUR, and another one runs down to third man, Sharma drives off the front foot but gets the outside edge once again, Lee can't believe it 134.6 Lee to Sharma, no run, Ishant begins to feel at a short of a length ball outside off but pulls his bat out of the way in time

136th over;

135.1 Clark to Tendulkar, 1 run, the yorker on off stump, Tendulkar pushes it off the front foot towards cover and takes the single (Sigh, isnt this getting boring? First ball single AGAIN.) Here's another banner which says "SCG - Sachin's Cricket Ground". There's a short leg in place for Ishant now. 135.2 Clark to Sharma, no run, defended watchfully off the back foot to the off side 135.3 Clark to Sharma, no run, Clark bangs it in short down leg side, Ishant fends at it but gets beaten 135.4 Clark to Sharma, FOUR, another short ball on leg stump, there's a short leg and a leg gully but Ishant somehow manages to pull it away in the gap to the fine leg boundary 135.5 Clark to Sharma, no run, now he does splendidly to dig the yorker out to the fielder at short leg 135.6 Clark to Sharma, 2 runs, the length is full and the line is on middle and leg, Ishant flicks confidently towards the vacant space at deep square leg, Lee runs around from long leg to field

136th over;

136.1 Lee to Tendulkar, 1 run, Tendulkar defends a good length ball towards the off side and takes the single off the first ball once again, well the ploy has paid off so far so you can't really complain (Surprise, Surprise!) 136.2 Lee to Sharma, no run, Ishant plays an ambitious drive off the front foot at a good length ball outside off stump, he misses Siddhartha Vaidyanathan tells me that Ishant had 17 runs from his 15 first class games. He's more than doubled his tally in one innings. 136.3 Lee to Sharma, no run, beaten outside the off stump 136.4 Lee to Sharma, no run, Ishant drives a full ball angling into off stump, he's hit that firmly towards mid-off 136.5 Lee to Sharma, no run, good length ball on middle stump, Ishant jumps on to the back foot and defends with a straight bat 136.6 Lee to Sharma, no run, left alone outside the off stump, Ishant hands the strike back to Tendulkar, you get the feeling that Ishant will get it back soon enough

138th over;

Or will Tendulkar change tactics because the chinaman bowler Brad Hogg has been brought on by Ponting? 137.1 Hogg to Tendulkar, no run, Tendulkar leans forward to a tossed up delivery and pushes it to midwicket 137.2 Hogg to Tendulkar, no run, defended watchfully off the front foot 137.3 Hogg to Tendulkar, no run, Tendulkar stretches forward once again and blocks 137.4 Hogg to Tendulkar, no run, full delivery on off and middle stump, Tendulkar pushes the ball to long-on and, yes, he does refuse the single (Refuses single of the 4th ball? ) 137.5 Hogg to Tendulkar, no run, Tendulkar doesn't read the wrong one and gets hit on the pad while trying to defend on the front foot, lovely delivery but it was missing off 137.6 Hogg to Tendulkar, no run, the quicker one to end the over, Tendulkar tries to paddle sweep but misses, he's a little upset with himself (first real attempt at improvised strokeplay)

139th over;

Lee is looking for his fifth wicket. 138.1 Lee to Sharma, no run, Ishant gets behind the line of a short ball, takes the bottom hand off the bat, and defends to the off side 138.2 Lee to Sharma, OUT, Lee gets his fifth! He bowls another short ball right at Ishant's body, he fends at it with the bat well in front of the body, the ball hits the face of the bat and lobs up towards Lee who takes a comfortable catch I Sharma c & b Lee 23 (44m 34b 5x4 0x6) SR: 67.64

So, lets get this straight, in a partnership that lasted 9 overs (54 balls), Sachin had a cumulative count of one attempt at an improvised stroke (paddle sweep to Hogg) and one attempt at taking a two and you’re saying it’s a’right? And amazingly, we actually had an instance when the rookie no.11 batsman actually ended up outscoring the top order batsman 23-9 in this partnership. Simply does not make sense at all.

[Holysmoke]

And amazingly, we actually had an instance when the rookie no.11 batsman actually ended up outscoring the top order batsman 23-9 in this partnership. Simply does not make sense at all. Ishant said after the game that he had no problems facing the fast bowler but he was not confident of facing the spinner..

[Ram]

Ishant said after the game that he had no problems facing the fast bowler but he was not confident of facing the spinner..

O.K, but that only explains why Sachin gave Ishant the strike so regularly. Why did he not try to increase the scoring rate himself? Whi knows, maybe if he did, we could have gotten 25 runs more. Or are we supposed to assume that a batsman with 25,000 international runs decided to place the onus on scoring on a rookie no.11 who till then, did not even score 20 runs at the FC level?.

[The Outsider]

Apparently Shwetabh, it looks like its your memory that needs a bit refreshing. Here, I have copy pasted cricinfo's commentary of that partnership from the 131st over onwards. RP Singh was disimissed in the 3rd ball of the 130th. So, lets get this straight, in a partnership that lasted 9 overs (54 balls), Sachin had a cumulative count of one attempt at an improvised stroke (paddle sweep to Hogg) and one attempt at taking a two and you’re saying it’s a’right? And amazingly, we actually had an instance when the rookie no.11 batsman actually ended up outscoring the top order batsman 23-9 in this partnership. Simply does not make sense at all.

Tendulkar played only 13 deliveries if you exclude the Hogg over in which he clearly wanted to avoid Sharma facing up.All the fielders were at the boundary and his first preference would have been to take 2, but if was not able to get the placement right he was not refusing the single - simple. If you think his aim was to improve his average from 55.56 to 55.66 by staying not out then more power to you.

[The Outsider]

Boy ' date='had it been VVS instead of Sachin , the usual suspects would have come out with guns blazing against him. :--D I still remember the flak he got and rightly so...[/quote'] I defended even Laxman - I just don't like this hogwash of shielding the tail unless you are playing out for a draw. As it has been shown time and again, tailenders of today can more than bat and can get useful runs with the field up for them and I've also seen how the main batsman has perished going for a big stroke when batting with a tailender many times.