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

[umpire]

>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? swinging Yorker?? Brett Lee?? Is It??

[umpire]

So lets say Tendulkar Shields Ishant, and gives him strike on 5th and 6th balls. Your so called world's BEST bowler will knock him off then too. So even your theory does not work.

[umpire]

Sriram brought Sanga innings, so lets compare Usually field is spread for Sanga until 4th delivery, and for 5th and 6th they want to deny him single. 84.1 Clark to Fernando, 2 runs, OUT, Would you believe it? Now there is a run out. SL are slipping rapidly out of the radar. The substitute Lockyear joins in the fun. Full pitched, on the middle and leg and driven through midwicket. Fernando turns for the third run, Lockyear swoops on the ball, swivels around and fires in a flat,fast and a accurate throw. Lee is waiting there, the ball is in his right hand and he breaks the stumps. Did he break the stumps with the left hand first? Or did he manage to do it correctly. Close. Perhaps it could have been refered upstairs. May be, the ump never had any doubt in first place. CRD Fernando run out 2 (5m 1b 0x4 0x6) SR: 200.00 84.2 Clark to Sangakkara, no run, leans forward to defend on the front foot 84.3 Clark to Sangakkara, no run, driven to covers 84.4 Clark to Sangakkara, 1 run, on a length, outside off stump, steered to backward point 84.5 Clark to Malinga, no run, full and outside off, left alone 84.6 Clark to Malinga, no run, leans forward to defend. So Sanga takes single off 4th bowl. He is not attempting to slog/calculated risks yet. 85.1 MacGill to Sangakkara, no run 85.2 MacGill to Sangakkara, no run, flighted delivery, defended on the front foot. 85.3 MacGill to Sangakkara, 2 runs, short and Sanga pulls it to deep backward square leg 85.4 MacGill to Sangakkara, 1 run, googly on the leg stump line, punched through midwicket 85.5 MacGill to Malinga, no run 85.6 MacGill to Malinga, no run, turns in from just outside leg stump, tickled to short leg again same strategy, single off fourth ball, Malinga could have been goner, he has faced 4 deliveries 86.1 Clark to Sangakkara, no run, full in length, on the off and middle, defended down the track 86.2 Clark to Sangakkara, no run, Appeal for a catch behind, Gilly didn't appeal, though. The bat hit the ground. Full and outside off stump, Sangakkara stepped down the track and tried to thrash it through covers. 86.3 Clark to Sangakkara, no run, on the off stump line, defended to covers 86.4 Clark to Sangakkara, no run, banged in short, Sangakkara ducks to evade it 86.5 Clark to Sangakkara, FOUR, a touch short in length, outside off, forced away through point. 86.6 Clark to Sangakkara, FOUR, Sanga is going for his shots. He moved outside leg stump and sliced a full length delivery on the middle and off through backward point. Now Sanga changes strategy, 2nd bowl of the over he is trying to take chances, does not succeed, nearly got himself out. he is not able to take single off 4th delivery and then he thinks let me hit over the field for 5th and 6th as field will be up. Good choice, so next over Malinga will be on strike. Why is he not shiedling him 87.1 MacGill to Malinga, no run, full toss, well outside off stump, mistimes a drive to mid-off 87.2 MacGill to Malinga, no run, lands outside off, spins away, left alone 87.3 MacGill to Malinga, no run, loopy flighted delivery on the leg stump line, pushed to mid-on 87.4 MacGill to Malinga, no run, googly, but starts too wide outside off and doesn't turn in enough to trouble Malinga 87.5 MacGill to Malinga, no run, much better wrong'un this time. It turned in from just outside off, Malinga pushed at it, got a inside-edge on to his pad and it bobbed away to the right of short leg 87.6 MacGill to Malinga, no run, threepeat. Yet another googly, Malinga goes back to defend Wow Malinga survices, read description of 5th bowl, nearly got himself out. New Ball is taken now New ball taken 88.1 Clark to Sangakkara, no run, length delivery outside off stump, driven to cover 88.2 Clark to Sangakkara, 2 runs, length delivery, on the stumps and Sangakkara drives on the up, through the line over the umpire's head 88.3 Clark to Sangakkara, no run, on the middle stump line, shaping away late, steered to backward point 88.4 Clark to Sangakkara, no run, outside off, Sangakkara moves outside leg, tries to run it down to third man and misses. 88.5 Clark to Sangakkara, no run, full in length, on the leg stump, moved down leg side, inside-edges a drive on to the pad. Sangakkara goes down the track, looking for a non-existent run and Ponting swoops in from covers and has a shy, Had he hit, Sangakkara would have been out 88.6 Clark to Sangakkara, FOUR, Smokin! Full in length, around the off stump and Sangakkara backs away a touch to kill it over cover Look at 5th ball, he almost committed suicide. Was trying to shield Malinga from New ball, but he could not. What Sanga you loser Next over is bowled by Johnson 89.1 Johnson to Malinga, no run, short in length, outside off stump, Malinga has a cut and a miss 89.2 Johnson to Malinga, no run, swings in towards the pad and runs off to square leg. 89.3 Johnson to Malinga, no run, again, another inswinger, Malinga shuffles outside leg, tries to flick it away and is struck on the knee roll 89.4 Johnson to Malinga, FOUR, moves outside leg stump, Mitchell follows him with a short-of-length delivery and Malinga glances it to the boundary! Ponting screams out, 'Cmon!" 89.5 Johnson to Malinga, no run, full and swinging in, rapped on the pad but it was going down leg side 89.6 Johnson to Malinga, no run, short of length, on the off and middle, tapped to the off side Malinga survives somehow. I really do not understand Srirams point of bringing Sanga here. Two different match situations, SL were out of it and no chance. India had to get maximum runs on the board

[Ram]

Umpire, do you want me to highlight those instances when Ishant Sharma looked perilously close to getting out to either Lee or Clark? There’s a good reason for why I drew a comparison to the Sangakkara’s innings, coz I think that innings is a good example of how a top order batsman should play with the tail. I don’t think doling out singles in the first couple of balls of the over like as though nothing’s new is the way to go for top-order batsman. You say the field was out for Sachin which is why he couldn’t take risks. Well, there was a good reason for why the field was out and it was because Sachin was never in the strike during the latter half of the over, which would have meant the Aussies would have brought the field-up, just like they did for Sangakkara. And what did Sangakkara do? Take calculated risks, went over the top and scored some valuable runs. And you guys say I am totally off base for comparing these two innings because they were totally different match situations. Well, let me just say that one of the main reasons why that Sangakkara’s innings is regarded so highly is BECAUSE of the way he played with the tail. I think he scored his last 100 runs with the tail, mixing attacking strokeplay and managing the strike. Till that partnership with Malinga, that Sangakkara’s innings was just another futile 100 in an impossible chase. But the way he took to the bowlers and scored those runs in the end was what made that 100 special. Who knows, had Sachin followed a similar approach and scored a lot in that partnership with Ishant, his innings too would have been considered great.

[CSK Fan]

Umpire, do you want me to highlight those instances when Ishant Sharma looked perilously close to getting out to either Lee or Clark? There’s a good reason for why I drew a comparison to the Sangakkara’s innings, coz I think that innings is a good example of how a top order batsman should play with the tail. I don’t think doling out singles in the first couple of balls of the over like as though nothing’s new is the way to go for top-order batsman. You say the field was out for Sachin which is why he couldn’t take risks. Well, there was a good reason for why the field was out and it was because Sachin was never in the strike during the latter half of the over, which would have meant the Aussies would have brought the field-up, just like they did for Sangakkara. And what did Sangakkara do? Take calculated risks, went over the top and scored some valuable runs. And you guys say I am totally off base for comparing these two innings because they were totally different match situations. Well, let me just say that one of the main reasons why that Sangakkara’s innings is regarded so highly is BECAUSE of the way he played with the tail. I think he scored his last 100 runs with the tail, mixing attacking strokeplay and managing the strike. Till that partnership with Malinga, that Sangakkara’s innings was just another futile 100 in an impossible chase. But the way he took to the bowlers and scored those runs in the end was what made that 100 special. Who knows, had Sachin followed a similar approach and scored a lot in that partnership with Ishant, his innings too would have been considered great.

Doesnt work that way in the mordern era at all. Top test teams like SA, Aus and India all make their tail enders play more and a godd % of their runs is made by them. Yes no 11 too. Shielding the tail is an obsolute practise from an era when teams used to play for time and not victory and when 200 was par for a day

[Ram]

Doesnt work that way in the mordern era at all. Top test teams like SA, Aus and India all make their tail enders play more and a godd % of their runs is made by them. Yes no 11 too. Shielding the tail is an obsolute practise from an era when teams used to play for time and not victory and when 200 was par for a day

Please understand man, I never asked for Sachin to shield the tail AT ALL. I am perfectly fine with him giving the strike to Ishant, coz obvioulsy, he believed Ishant could bat. What I do have a problem is with the fact he made no attempts whatsoever to score some runs himself and left all the all onus to score on the rookie no.11, which I think makes no sense at all. If you're the senior partner, and especially if you have weight of 25,000 international runs behind you, its your job to score and the partnership meanningful. To this day, I cannot make head or tail of Sachin's tactics, when he repeatedly gave the strike over to Ishant in the first couple of balls of the over? What was he thinking? If he did not intend to score at all, then what was the point of having the partnership? There's no point in having a partnership just for the sake of survivng. So obviously, he the only other logical conclusion was that Ishant is the one who would do the run-making, which he duly proceeded to do so, outscoring Sachin 23-9. Then, did Sachin seriously think a rookie no.11 playing 3rd or 4th test match with less than 20 FC runs under his name was better equipped to score against the likes of Lee and Clark? That to me, is just poor tactics.

[coffee_rules]

7-345 (Kumble, 92.5 ov), 8-474 (Harbhajan Singh, 122.1 ov), 9-501 (Singh, 129.3 ov), 10-532 (Sharma, 138.2 ov) Sachin scored close to 200 runs with Bhajji, RP singh and ISharma. Aus were targetting the tail with a lot of close-in fielders. When Sachin came in, obviosuly they would spread the field around. So, he couldn't have taken more risks. When the bowling targets the tail, they fell they have more chance to wipe the tail, than get the established batsmen.

[Ram]

7-345 (Kumble, 92.5 ov), 8-474 (Harbhajan Singh, 122.1 ov), 9-501 (Singh, 129.3 ov), 10-532 (Sharma, 138.2 ov) Sachin scored close to 200 runs with Bhajji, RP singh and ISharma. Aus were targetting the tail with a lot of close-in fielders. When Sachin came in, obviosuly they would spread the field around. So, he couldn't have taken more risks. When the bowling targets the tail, they fell they have more chance to wipe the tail, than get the established batsmen.

The field was spread far and wide for Sachin because he never lasted in strike beyond the first couple of balls of the over. And let me also say this. Sachin’s tactics of playing normally with guys Kumble and Bhajji makes reasonable sense because a) They were decent batsmen themselves and b) Even if the guys got out, they were other batsman to come after them. So, Sachin could give them the strike knowing that even if they got out, he had the cushion of two more batsmen to follow. But, to just hand over the strike to Ishant Sharma on a platter with Brett Lee bowling is confounding because a) That obviously means you’re washing your hands off scoring, which is the actual point of a having a partnership in the first place and b) If Ishant had gotten out, there was none to come after him. That was it. So, did Sachin seriously think that the rookie no.11 could not only comfortably survive the bowling of Lee and Clark, but also could score off them? If he didn’t think so, then why have the partnership at all? Why occupy the crease just for the sake of it?

[coffee_rules]

The field was spread far and wide for Sachin because he never lasted in strike beyond the first couple of balls of the over.

What makes you think that the field would have come inside the field in the next 2/3 balls? Teams only attack the tail and not established batsmen. In the Lords match in 2002, Laxman was batting with Agarkar to save the match. The field would come in for Agarkar who used his lofted shot and made a 100 too! (Eat that Salil!). If the field was in and SRT had made no attempt ti score, then we can critiicise him. The partnership lasted 31 runs for the last wicket! With some luck it could have passed 50 runs too.

[Mr. Wicket]

What makes you think that the field would have come inside the field in the next 2/3 balls? Teams only attack the tail and not established batsmen. In the Lords match in 2002' date=' Laxman was batting with Agarkar to save the match. The field would come in for Agarkar who used his lofted short and made a 100 too! (Eat than Salil!). [/quote'] Aggy Aggy Aggy! Oi Oi Oi! Salil (Who wonders if Laxman should have shielded Agarkar from the strike that day :P)

[umpire]

Please understand man, I never asked for Sachin to shield the tail AT ALL. I am perfectly fine with him giving the strike to Ishant, coz obvioulsy, he believed Ishant could bat. What I do have a problem is with the fact he made no attempts whatsoever to score some runs himself and left all the all onus to score on the rookie no.11, which I think makes no sense at all. If you're the senior partner, and especially if you have weight of 25,000 international runs behind you, its your job to score and the partnership meanningful. To this day, I cannot make head or tail of Sachin's tactics, when he repeatedly gave the strike over to Ishant in the first couple of balls of the over? What was he thinking? If he did not intend to score at all, then what was the point of having the partnership? There's no point in having a partnership just for the sake of survivng. So obviously, he the only other logical conclusion was that Ishant is the one who would do the run-making, which he duly proceeded to do so, outscoring Sachin 23-9. Then, did Sachin seriously think a rookie no.11 playing 3rd or 4th test match with less than 20 FC runs under his name was better equipped to score against the likes of Lee and Clark? That to me, is just poor tactics.

Huh, Check how Symonds played with S. Clarke in same game. Symonds is supposed to be big hitter, why dint he try anything silly?? You play percentage cricket. We needed runs to get any sort of lead. Sachin did try few things, he walked accross stumps and tried for twos, I remembered couple such instances. In the end, you got to see the match situation. what should be done in that situation. Sachin was on crease for long long time. He needed to play percentage cricket and at that time we need any sort runs.

[umpire]

"Umpire, do you want me to highlight those instances when Ishant Sharma looked perilously close to getting out to either Lee or Clark? There’s a good reason for why I drew a comparison to the Sangakkara’s innings, coz I think that innings is a good example of how a top order batsman should play with the tail. I don’t think doling out singles in the first couple of balls of the over like as though nothing’s new is the way to go for top-order batsman. You say the field was out for Sachin which is why he couldn’t take risks. Well, there was a good reason for why the field was out and it was because Sachin was never in the strike during the latter half of the over, which would have meant the Aussies would have brought the field-up, just like they did for Sangakkara. And what did Sangakkara do? Take calculated risks, went over the top and scored some valuable runs." You keep missing the damn point. You are confused dude. What are you suggesting is not percentage cricket. It can work and it can't. Sanga's case it worked and frankly sanga had no choice and I am damn sure if Sachin was in his shoes, he would have done the same. The answer is "Percentage Cricket" Even Symonds in same test match did not shield Clarke and took single of 2nd ball. He did not take any calculated risks.

[Ram]

The answer is "Percentage Cricket" Even Symonds in same test match did not shield Clarke and took single of 2nd ball. He did not take any calculated risks.

If your take on 'percentage cricket' is to allow your rookie no.11 batsmen with less than 15 FC runs, probably playing his first international innings, to face the then world's best and fastest bowler (Brett Lee) and one of the best swing bowlers of all time (Stuart Clark), then I think you should really be re-visiting your definition of 'Percentage cricket'. And then again, there is a clear contradiction in what you say. According to you, Sachin going after the bowling wasnt an option because it wasnt 'percentage cricket'. So, asking Ishant Sharma to do something that even Sachin found too risky to do was 'safe cricket'?

In the end, you got to see the match situation. what should be done in that situation. Sachin was on crease for long long time. He needed to play percentage cricket and at that time we need any sort runs.

If you guys think Sachin trying to play attacking or improvised strokes is NOT percentage cricket, I think that’s really a big insult on Sachin. If you cant back your premier batsman of all time, someone with 19 years of international cricket and 25,000 runs behind him cannot take on the Aussie bowlers to score some runs, then who would you back then?

[graphic23]

MM, I don't quite understand quoting 19 years and 25000 runs in every single post - just because a person has 25000 runs under his belt, the 25001th run doesn't automatically come. You have to earn every run - and each situation is different. Statistically, at the moment, you have to decide what strategy will get you more runs. Practically speaking, whether Sachin had gone for most balls, or gave strike to Ishant, the 10th wicket would've fallen in approximately the same time. If your argument is that Sachin would've scored more runs in this duration, then he can equally argue that had he gone for it (and he did a couple of times, and completely missed), and gotten out we'd have been 20 runs short. Studying how long it took the Australian bowlers (even the world's best bowler at the time) to bowl out the previous tailenders (not just because Harbhajan and RP were blocking very well - it was because they were being peppered with short balls), he would've thought that Ishant could handle this better than had Brett Lee bowled 6 yorkers at Harbhajan or RP Singh. Whether he had 25000 runs or 2 runs to his name, he was unable to score runs freely at that point of time - and it was a wiser strategy to get Ishant on strike because even without much technique the others were able to get away with short balls at them. Does this vindicate Sachin's strategy? I don't know - the last time he had a record partnership with a #11 batsman, and he's our #8 or #9 batsman who has scored very important fifties/thirties in the past season. I won't say Ishant is in the same mould as Zaheer but if you're not going to trust a man with "19 years of experience on his back" to back a youngster, then you're not going to trust anything by anybody.

[umpire]

>And then again, there is a clear contradiction in what you say. According to you, Sachin going after the bowling wasnt an option because it wasnt 'percentage cricket'. So, asking Ishant Sharma to do something that even Sachin found too risky to do was 'safe cricket'? where is the contradiction??? 7 to 9 fielders patrolling boundary on big SCG, is more risky than Ishant going for his shots by picking right delivery. In the end even Sachin tried couple of times. So I don't know where you problem lies. In same test match Symonds used same approach. He did not shield S Clarke nor he went for his shots. In the end Sachin knew Ishant's capability and he did shield him against Hogg, if you can remember it. He knew who was dangerous bowler.

[umpire]

>If you guys think Sachin trying to play attacking or improvised strokes is NOT percentage cricket, I think that’s really a big insult on Sachin. If you cant back your premier batsman of all time, someone with 19 years of international cricket and 25,000 runs behind him cannot take on the Aussie bowlers to score some runs, then who would you back then? Ofcourse not, remember 7 to 9 fielders were on boundary. He tried improvising and placing the balls in the gap for twos. I remember atleast 2-3 occasions. I am not sure if you have followed Sachin over the years. In first half of his career he had no clue how to play with tailenders, as soon as 6th wicket used to fell, he would start slogging and not play percentage cricket. I remember he did that in Chennai, Joberg, in England, in Newzealand. He never trusted our tailenders after Srinath and Kumble. Now when he does that and learned how to play with them, we are criticising him.

[veer]

never doubt SRT's cricket brain.. somehow sooner or later, you will realize he was right...

[riya]

^^ No one have doubt about his cricketing brain .Thats quite evident in his incredible innovative shots and more evident in his bowling.Mixing up deliveries and variety .Sharp cricketing brain he has .But some how that doesn't feel so in that last part innings in Sydney .

[Shehezaada]

I've followed India enough to know that to never question Tendulkar. He usually has a great reason. My take on the Sydney test? Being a huge Tendulkar fan I was thrilled that he made a potentially match saving/winning hundred. His tactics with the tail were OK too. Would I personally have done it that way? Not exactly. But did his tactics work? Yes. He got half our score with the tail, not to mention that confidence the lower order would have gained from it. I would have looked for opportunities to score from balls 1-4. Not too many improvisations, but timing and placement. Not trying to go over the top or in demolition mode, just percentage cricket. Then letting the tail face maybe balls 5 and 6. If he grew in confidence, then I would gradually let him face more deliveries. Tendulkar thought differently and figured if the field was up for even Ishant Sharma, then he had a better chance of getting some quick runs then Tendulkar did. This attitude should be complimented as it really shows that he has no ego and is always looking out for the benefit of the team. Could his plan work? Yes, and it did. Could my plan work? Yes, and it has when I have batted with the tail. At times it's failed miserably. And so could have Tendulkar's. It's pointless to say well "what if Sharma got out", or what if "Tendulkar perished trying to up the rate". These things are variable and are present in every arguement. Tendulkar's strategy was a good one in my opinion, but not the way I would have played it. But as Veer said above, never doubt this man.

[veer]

^^ No one have doubt about his cricketing brain .Thats quite evident in his incredible innovative shots and more evident in his bowling.Mixing up deliveries and variety .Sharp cricketing brain he has .But some how that doesn't feel so in that last part innings in Sydney .

so you are indeed doubting it.. may be he did it cuz he knew something that we didnt..