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

[Ram]

Tendulkar played only 13 deliveries if you exclude the Hogg over in which he clearly wanted to avoid Sharma facing up.

Well, if he had not diligently taken singles in the first and second balls of every over, maybe he would have faced more deliveries.

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.

I’ve shown with documentary evidence that in 9 overs, Tendulkar had a solitary attempted two and single paddle sweep. That’s it. The way you put it, it seems like its impossible for top-order batsman to score boundaries or take 2s if the fielders are on the boundary. Of course its not the case.

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.

I never said that. Np one in his right mind will ever accuse Sachin of being 'selfish'. All I want is for people to accept that Sachin’s tactics were wrong. That’s it. Why do you continue to defend the indefensible?

[The Outsider]

^ How exactly were his tactics wrong when the last wicket lasted 9 overs and contributed 31 runs? Just because they don't conform to your thinking? As for the "documentary evidence" I don't need it. I watched the match and remember everyone was at the boundary except 2 fielders. It is not possible to score boundaries in such a scenario without taking risks. I have seen many batsmen get out trying to take risks in such situations. Obviously Tendulkar and Ishant thought it's a better option for Ishant to have a go when the field is up for him.

[Mr. Wicket]

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' date=' 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.[/quote'] Yup, and the Waugh/SRT approach has played a big role in that too Prof. Remember back in the early 90s when McDermott and Hughes or McGrath basically rounded off a fairly pathetic tail? Under SRW the mentality changed and tailenders were expected to learn batting with the batsmen starting to treat them as equals more and more. As a result you got Gillespie evolving into a solid player who ended up saving some key matches (and series) for Australia, and tailenders turning into very competent lower order rungetters who could really frustrate the opposition w/ even McGrath getting a test 50. The same's happened in India. We've gone from rounding things off with Srinath, Prasad and Kuruvilla to having Zaheer and Harbhajan become more than useful in clouting some valuable runs (look at how we got from 200-ish/6 to almost 400 in the Wellington test) and Ishant becoming a pretty handy Gillespie-esque blocker down the order. The whole 'shield the tail' still leads to archaic lineups like Sri Lanka has now, where the bottom 3 can barely hold a bat and NEED to be protected. Fortunately thanks to this change in mentality, the work put in by the lower order and batsmen like Tendulkar working with the tailenders means there's no need to refuse runs that are available and hide lower order players. Instead they're able to take advantage of attacking fields (as SRT himself said in the interview following that innings where he complimented Bhajji for his attacking play there) and add a lot more depth to the order.

[Ram]

^ How exactly were his tactics wrong when the last wicket lasted 9 overs and contributed 31 runs? Just because they don't conform to your thinking?

And just because something worked does not imply its right. Ishant Sharma could have been easily bowled the first ball he faced off Lee. Then what? And its not just ‘my thinking’ here. I am willing eat humble pie and accept I am wrong if someone here can convince me otherwise. Till now, no one has.

As for the "documentary evidence" I don't need it. I watched the match and remember everyone was at the boundary except 2 fielders. It is not possible to score boundaries in such a scenario without taking risks. I have seen many batsmen get out trying to take risks in such situations. Obviously Tendulkar and Ishant thought it's a better option for Ishant to have a go when the field is up for him.

That is mind-boggling! Again, to think a batsman with 25,000 international runs did not back himself to score some quick easy runs and instead placed the onus to score on a rookie no.11 with a sum total of less 20 FC runs is simply does not add up.

[Mr. Wicket]

And just because something worked does not imply its right. Ishant Sharma could have been easily bowled the first ball he faced off Lee. Then what?

And Sachin could have easily been out holing out off Saqlain when not trusting the tail holing out to the deep off Lee trying to clear the field. Then what?

[Ram]

And Sachin could have easily been out holing out off Saqlain when not trusting the tail holing out to the deep off Lee trying to clear the field. Then what?

Oh so you let the rookie no.11 with less than 20 FC runs do it for you and go for the attacking shots and hope HE does not hole out to some fielder then? And, what you’re also saying is from here on, no top-order batsman should ever go for some attacking shots if a tail-ender is at the other end? You’re saying that the tactics of Sangakkara when he scored that magnificent 192 against Australia were COMPLETELY wrong and he should prodded along slowly in that partnership with Malinga?

[The Outsider]

And just because something worked does not imply its right. Ishant Sharma could have been easily bowled the first ball he faced off Lee. Then what? And its not just ‘my thinking’ here. I am willing eat humble pie and accept I am wrong if someone here can convince me otherwise. Till now, no one has.

Tendulkar could have been out first ball taking a risk too. I can give you so many examples where the well set batsman has got out immediately he tries to take a risk in an effort to protect the other end. A recent one was Ganguly at Kanpur last year.

That is mind-boggling! Again, to think a batsman with 25,000 international runs did not back himself to score some quick easy runs and instead placed the onus to score on a rookie no.11 with a sum total of less 20 FC runs is simply does not add up.

It does if you think about it with an uncluttered mind - the tailender was comfortable facing the faster men according to his own admission and the field was up. That is the best opportunity to score rather than risking clearing the fence with 9 men patrolling it no matter how many international runs you have. BTW, Tendulkar had tried exactly that in South Africa in '96 and had holed out.

[CSK Fan]

If you guys have noticed, Things have changed in mordern day cricket More than 300 runs scored per day is an avergae Greater than 4 runs an over RR is usual Tail-enders scoring more runs is the norm. Johnson, Steyn, Zaheer, Bhajji etc can bat It is been proven time and again that trying to shield the tail leads to your downfall while putting the onus of the tail get yous runs Thats mordern cricke. Things have changed and SRT is clever enough to realise that

[Mr. Wicket]

Tendulkar could have been out first ball taking a risk too. I can give you so many examples where the well set batsman has got out immediately he tries to take a risk in an effort to protect the other end. A recent one was Ganguly at Kanpur last year. It does if you think about it with an uncluttered mind - the tailender was comfortable facing the faster men according to his own admission and the field was up. That is the best opportunity to score rather than risking clearing the fence with 9 men patrolling it no matter how many international runs you have. BTW, Tendulkar had tried exactly that in South Africa in '96 and had holed out.

Thank you!

[umpire]

Does any batsman has scored runs with no. 11 by shielding him. If you try to shield him, you are telling him, you are no good man, so basically even batsman refuses single, hits odd 2 or 4, gives strike to tailender he thinks other guy has no confident in me, so sooner or later he gets out. Sriram's scenario 1) Sachin waits for lose delivery, tries some shots for 2 or hits 4....don't know, he could very well be out trying something different, 7 men are patrolling the boundry. Tailender is shielded, most likely comes to the strike on 5th or 6th delivery. Sriram says' what if ishant got out first ball to Lee. Well he can get out now too. So whats the difference 2,4, 6 runs etc.. Other Scenario Sachin gives full confidence to Ishant, tells him son you can bat, and most likely you can score too. atleast keep blocking, pitch is good and flat. So Sachin takes every possible runs, scorecard moves, Ishant is happy and confident. He blocks or scores runs whenever possible. Well he could get out also? Sachin could get out also?? So whats big deal here. I prefer bit of both, Don't take single of first ball, wait for 3rd ball, you are moving the score, giving confidence to the tailender and letting him face and score runs. It will be some task to find out average score (last wicket partnership between batsman and tailender) in both cases. I would say Sachin's approach will win hands down.

[Sachinism]

I can't believe people are arguing the tactics even though that last partnership brought us runs. Agree with Shwetabh 100% With fielders all over the boundary, its very unlikely he'll be scoring a boundary, so it would be pointless to take a risk

[Ram]

This thread has made me lose a whole lot of respect for Sangakkara. His 192 against Australia must have been a completely rubbish innings. The tactics he employed in that partnership with Malinga , when the same Australian bowling attack employed the same tactics with fielders spread far and wide must have been completely wrong. He should have taken the single of the first ball of every over and allowed Malinga to go for the shots, when Sri Lanka was chasing a huge target. After all, Sangakkara could have easily holed out in the deep right? Surely, Lasith Malinga had a better chance of doing what even Kumar Sangakkara could not possibly do. How naïve Sangakkara is! However, isnt it completely strange that Bill Lawry, who was on commentary when Sangakkara played that innings, rated it as one of the best of the modern times, even though he employed the completely wrong tactics? Is it also not strange that Sachin's 154 hardly ever gets a mention amongst the list of the best innings of our times, even though he used perfectly legitamate tactics? Very queer indeed! And from here, ANY batsman who decides to attack while there is a tail-ender at the other is getting his tactics totally wrong.

[Kohum]

M&M - I agree with Shwetabh 100%. With No.11 you want to add runs and not "go for shots". In that process, if you try to shield 11, you increase your chance of getting out. I agree and fully believe Sachin made wisest choice.

[Kohum]

This thread has made me lose a whole lot of respect for Sangakkara. His 192 against Australia must have been a completely rubbish innings. The tactics he employed in that partnership with Malinga , when the same Australian bowling attack employed the same tactics with fielders spread far and wide must have been completely wrong. He should have taken the single of the first ball of every over and allowed Malinga to go for the shots, when Sri Lanka was chasing a huge target. After all, Sangakkara could have easily holed out in the deep right? Surely, Lasith Malinga had a better chance of doing what even Kumar Sangakkara could not possibly do. How naïve Sangakkara is! And from here, ANY batsman who decides to attack while there is a tail-ender at the other is getting his tactics totally wrong.

oh -- I didn't know Lasith had scored less than 20 in a FC. :--D ** Another FL in the making? **

[The Outsider]

LOL! Comparing the match situations of Tendulkar and Sangakkara's innings.

[Ram]

LOL! Comparing the match situations of Tendulkar and Sangakkara's innings.

The match situations may have been different, but the role and the briefing of the top-order batsman while in a partnership with a tail-ender NEVER changes, which is to score as many runs as possible.

[Ram]

You gotto to love the 'Well, If Sachin had gone for his shots, he would have holed out and gotten out' excuse though. Here's a batsman with 19 years of international cricket and 25,000 runs behind him and you dont back him to get a few away, with the spread-out field? And worse, what do you do? You actually give that role to an absolute rookie no.11 who had by then, scored a sum total of 15 runs in FC cricket and tell 'Well, the field is in for him, so he could go after the bowling and score runs'..

[umpire]

>You gotto to love the 'Well, If Sachin had gone for his shots, he would have holed out and gotten out' excuse though. You gotto to love the 'Well, what if Ishant got out first ball to Lee' excuse though

[Ram]

You gotto to love the 'Well, what if Ishant got out first ball to Lee' excuse though

When I see the world's BEST bowler(then) in the form of Brett Lee steaming into the bowling crease, bowling 90 mph swinging Yorkers to a no.11 batsman who had till then scored 15 runs in FC cricket and whose batting abilities were a complete unknown, it’s a VERY reasonable and fair thing to expect Ishant Sharma being bowled by Brett Lee at any moment. What else am I supposed to expect? That Ishant Sharma will go down on his knees and play a gorgeous cover drive of a 90 mph lee outswinger? What certainly is not reasonable though is to say ‘I don’t back my premier batsman to take some risks and score some quick runs, but will ask my no.11 to do the job because the field is up for him’. That’s just insanity!

[Mr. Wicket]

LOL! Comparing the match situations of Tendulkar and Sangakkara's innings.

Well, there's also the strange 'this or that' mentality that says that only ONE of them could take the right approach to scoring. Shielding tailenders and trying to score runs can work with some combinations. When you have lower order bats as weak and technique-less as Malinga, then sure it's a good option (albeit one that only works once in a while - how many other examples are there of Sangakkara playing blazing masterpieces and protecting the tail while scoring big?) That doesn't mean the alternate of letting tailenders take strike and face the bowling as equals is a BAD option then, mm. There are plenty of ways to go about scoring in test cricket. And FWIW, it's not as if the method's a shocking new one that's only now seeing some success. Consider some of the occasions (Martyn/Gillespie partnership in 04, Katich/Gillespie partnership in 04, both v. India) when other teams have used it to amazing effect with a solid tailender either scoring runs or frustrating the bowling while the batsman milks whatever runs are there for the taking with the fielding side offering free, riskless singles. Not a new concept, and one that's worked before. At the end of it - I still say look at the overall results over the long term, beyond just one odd innings here and there MM and see the results. How often have Fernando/Malinga/Murali/etc been able to produce some useful runs down the order for their side? Almost never - they need Sangakkara/Jayawardene/Dilshan to protect them and do the damage. When the batsmen fail, the bowlers are useless with the bat. Shielding tailenders doesn't ever let them improve, and it's a concept that basically rules out any contributions they can make with the bat and also doesn't give them reason to work on that aspect of their game. Look at the West Indies or Pakistan who also would employ such tactics on a frequent basis in the past decade - yes, guys like Lara, Youhana or Inzamam could often shield the tail very, very well but when they weren't around, the tail could barely ever take care of itself. With sides where more is expected of bowlers with the bat - how often have some of the lower order bowlers (not bowlers-who-bat, or all-rounders like Pollock/Symcox/Klusener FWIW) been able to stand up on their own? It's happened mostly in Australia where Gillespie, Warne and Lee have regularly produced knocks of value, and now it's starting to happen more and more in India where Harbhajan, Zaheer and even Ishant are becoming increasingly useful down the order. If a side like Sri Lanka were in a situation like India were at Wellington - it's unlikely that they'd make a competitive score. When Australia in the past were in such situations, people like Lee/Gillespie/Johnson/Warne would be able to chip in and add runs, and with India it's becoming more and more frequent. A BIG change from games in the 90s where tailenders weren't meant to bat, were just meant to be protected by the batsmen and as a result we'd get collapses like Chennai in '99 or a whole bunch of others where 6 or 7-out would mean all out very quickly.