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

[Ram]

I think it is best for me to not post any more pointers in this thread. Obviously, there are some fundamental differences in the way people view the role of a top-order batsman in a partnership with the tail. Though, I will definitely bump this thread in the future when I see instances of batsman following a more attacking approach when batting with a no.11 and ask for people’s opinion.

[fineleg]

The strategy worked in that innings. But that is not to say it will work every time. Saying that SRT watched IS in the nets, and hence he gave more strike to IS is laughable. SRT has a far higher chance of getting shots right, than IS. Even if fielders are close in to IS, he can make basic mistakes and get out. I'm sure we will come across these scenarios over time in other Tests going forward. Lets see how strategies pan out in those.

[umpire]

>Though, I will definitely bump this thread in the future when I see instances of batsman following a more attacking approach when batting with a no.11 and ask for people’s opinion. well and you will see people bump threads when they do what Sachin did and it will never end. Actuallly I bet we all will bump more than you do. Recent Test series, Jesse Ryder tried your approach, he got out quickly. But I think it was right approach, Martin is mugger with the bat

[Ram]

I still cannot reconcile with the fact that some people feel that its actually safer for Ishant to go after the bowling and score runs while the field was in, while its not 'percentage cricket' for Sachin for to improvise and play some attacking cricket. What they conveniently ignore is the fact had Sachin not taken a single of the first or second ball of the over without fail, the Australians would have definitely bought the field up for him in the 4th and 5th ball of the over.

[Ram]

well and you will see people bump threads when they do what Sachin did and it will never end. Actuallly I bet we all will bump more than you do. Recent Test series, Jesse Ryder tried your approach, he got out quickly. But I think it was right approach, Martin is mugger with the bat

I am talking specifically about top-order batsman batting with a no.11 tailender. Let me make myself clear - I agree with Sachin's approach when he was batting with Kumble and Bhajji. Then, there was no need to take risks. But it simply does not make sense to play routine cricket with a no.11 batsman, especially if he is playing his FIRST international innings and has a sum total of 15 FC runs under his name. And reg. Jesse Ryder's approach - He did the right thing, and it did not work. I can always accept player failure, knowing that he did what he had to do. It was too bad it did not work, but thats perfectly fine.

[Ram]

And no denying that Sachin is an absolute genius, but he does not have to get EVERYTHING right. So, I am simply not willing to buy the ‘Sachin knows what he is doing…’ premise. After all, this is just cricket, not Metaphysics. Surely, we can speculate on what the possible reasons could be, for following a particular strategy.

[umpire]

>I still cannot reconcile with the fact that some people feel that its actually safer for Ishant to go after the bowling and score runs while the field was in, while its not 'percentage cricket' for Sachin for to improvise and play some attacking cricket. What they conveniently ignore is the fact had Sachin not taken a single of the first or second ball of the over without fail, the Australians would have definitely bought the field up for him in the 4th and 5th ball of the over. and they would ball bouncers that were not reachable, I have seen fast bowlers do that. I agree he should have tried that too. Thing is it worked well, and it has worked with many times with other batsman. I used to get pissed when Sachin in absolutely ruthless form, just never trusted our tailender as soon as Kumble and Srinath were gone, he used to improvise, slog and that never yielded runs. I used to envy S Waugh and the way he got runs out of tailenders.

[umpire]

>After all, this is just cricket, not Metaphysics Good that you know this. Its cricket, you never know what will happen next delivery and thats why we love the game. Who knows if Sachin had followed your advice, he could have reached in double hundred, who knws Ishant would have been out first ball, who knows Sachin's method could have backfired. Who knows....who knows...

[Ram]

and they would ball bouncers that were not reachable, I have seen fast bowlers do that. I agree he should have tried that too. Thing is it worked well, and it has worked with many times with other batsman. I used to get pissed when Sachin in absolutely ruthless form, just never trusted our tailender as soon as Kumble and Srinath were gone, he used to improvise, slog and that never yielded runs. I used to envy S Waugh and the way he got runs out of tailenders.

Fine, I agree there is a risk. But I'd like you to weigh these two risks and give an honest opinion of what you think carries a higher failure quotient Risk 1: Sachin (19 years of international cricket, 25,000 runs, premier batsman of the country) stays on the strike for the first 4 balls, Australia bring the field up. Sachin tries to nullify blatant defensive bowling by Australians (short and really wide) and wants to score runs. Risk 2: Ishant Sharma (Rookie no.11, playing his first international innings, less than 15 FC runs under his belt) is on strike. Brett Lee (world's best bowler and one of the quickest bowlers in the history of the game) and Stuart Clark (One of the most talented swing bowlers the game has ever seen) bowl to him with 3 slips and 2 gullies and its Sharma's responsibility to not only survive, but also score. Do you really think Risk 1> Risk 2? And there's a good reason I keep repeating this 'Sachin, 19 years, 15,00 runs.. Ishant, rookie no.11, first international innings, less than 15 FC runs' like a broken record. Coz, its all about the context of that particular innings. Had Zaheer Khan been on our no.11 for that match, I'd have been far more accepting of Sachin's tactics, coz Zak has a proven ability of being able to score against good bowling. If anything, If Sachin followed the same tactics against Ishant now, I'd probably be more accepting of his tactics because we know Ishant can handle himself with the bat. But, on what basis Sachin decided to show so much faith in Ishant, playing his first innings is just simply beyond me. And I dont want people to go 'Oh he saw him bat at the nets...'... Gimme a break!

[graphic23]

Fine, I agree there is a risk. But I'd like you to weigh these two risks and give an honest opinion of what you think carries a higher failure quotient Risk 1: Sachin (19 years of international cricket, 25,000 runs, premier batsman of the country) stays on the strike for the first 4 balls, Australia bring the field up. Sachin tries to nullify blatant defensive bowling by Australians (short and really wide) and wants to score runs. Risk 2: Ishant Sharma (Rookie no.11, playing his first international innings, less than 15 FC runs under his belt) is on strike. Brett Lee (world's best bowler and one of the quickest bowlers in the history of the game) and Stuart Clark (One of the most talented swing bowlers the game has ever seen) bowl to him with 3 slips and 2 gullies and its Sharma's responsibility to not only survive, but also score. Do you really think Risk 1> Risk 2? And there's a good reason I keep repeating this 'Sachin, 19 years, 15,00 runs.. Ishant, rookie no.11, first international innings, less than 15 FC runs' like a broken record. Coz, its all about the context of that particular innings.

And I also answered your query regarding these numbers. The record of having played 19 years and scoring 11000+ runs doesn't automatically get you runs. Whether Sachin is the premier batsman or not also does not matter because the simple fact was that he was unable to up the scoring at the time. He tried paddle sweeping, slog sweeping Hogg and was unable to do so on quite a few occasions. He tried taking the single off the last ball several times and also showed his frustration at it. Sachin is smart, and because the bowlers were unable to get the previous tailenders out quickly, he thought it would be a better idea to let Ishant score the runs he was unable to. Who knows - had Ishant stayed there a bit longer, and Sachin was able score again on that day, he might've hogged more of the strike. Oh, and, Stuart Clark is not known to be a swing bowler. He can move it off the seam but he is more known because of his stringent line/length. And there was NO way anything was going to seam on that pitch that day.

Had Zaheer Khan been on our no.11 for that match, I'd have been far more accepting of Sachin's tactics, coz Zak has a proven ability of being able to score against good bowling. If anything, If Sachin followed the same tactics against Ishant now, I'd probably be more accepting of his tactics because we know Ishant can handle himself with the bat. But, on what basis Sachin decided to show so much faith in Ishant, playing his first innings is just simply beyond me.

Zaheer has developed into a decent lower order batsman because Sachin and other batsmen showed trust in him, and let him get some scoring opportunities in prior matches. I don't see your point because what if Ishant could also develop into a similar batsman ?

And I dont want people to go 'Oh he saw him bat at the nets...'... Gimme a break!

And why not? How else do you judge whether he's a good bat or not when you don't judge him off nets? You want to wait until a match comes where he doesn't have a top order batsman to protect him so he'll have to face all the bowlers .. to judge him as a batsman ?

[umpire]

>Do you really think Risk 1> Risk 2? well you can never say in cricket. What was the goal. To score as many as possible with the Ishant (mind you keep repeating 15 FC, how many games had he played, he has decent defense, better than Aggy :winky:) I see my number 11 and I ask him how you feel. I see he is able to defend quick bowlers on totally flat wicket, I see only problem with him is he can't pick spinner. So I think let me not waste any run, I would play ball by ball, not manufacture anything and get as many as possible.

[Ram]

Sorry for not replying to your original post. It isnt that I did not read it anything, I just felt this discussion was going nowhere. But now, I can resist myself. :D

And I also answered your query regarding these numbers. The record of having played 19 years and scoring 11000+ runs doesn't automatically get you runs. Whether Sachin is the premier batsman or not also does not matter because the simple fact was that he was unable to up the scoring at the time. He tried paddle sweeping' date=' slog sweeping Hogg and was unable to do so on quite a few occasions. He tried taking the single off the last ball several times and also showed his frustration at it. Sachin is smart, and because the bowlers were unable to get the previous tailenders out quickly, [b']he thought it would be a better idea to let Ishant score the runs he was unable to. Who knows - had Ishant stayed there a bit longer, and Sachin was able score again on that day, he might've hogged more of the strike.

Now, why would he do that? How can a country’s premier batsman, with all that experience and runs behind him, back an absolute novice to score runs over himself? And where were those slog-sleeps and paddle sweeps? Sachin’s attemps to take the initiative during the partnership were meek and had no serious intent at all. So please spare me the ‘He tried to score, but couldn’t’…

Oh, and, Stuart Clark is not known to be a swing bowler. He can move it off the seam but he is more known because of his stringent line/length. And there was NO way anything was going to seam on that pitch that day.

Fine, but lets not get caught up in the technicalities. In Dec of 2007, Brett Lee and Stuart Clark would EASILY qualify amongst the top 5-6 bowlers of the world and that is what I am getting at. And the reason why I keep insisting on this is that had it been some mediocre B’deshi bowling line-up, you could at least say Ishant had a much better shot at survival.. But 4,5 balls every over against Lee and Clark…! Come on…

Zaheer has developed into a decent lower order batsman because Sachin and other batsmen showed trust in him, and let him get some scoring opportunities in prior matches. I don't see your point because what if Ishant could also develop into a similar batsman ?

I am tired of repeating, what was the basis of Sachin’s ‘trust’ for Ishant? Then Ishant had: 1)No FC experience or runs to show. 2)He had not even batted in an international match prior to that. That was his first innings. So, how come Sachin trust him to not only survive Lee and Clark, but also put the onus to score on him? I am O.K with the survival part, but simply cannot reconcile with the scoring part.

And why not? How else do you judge whether he's a good bat or not when you don't judge him off nets? You want to wait until a match comes where he doesn't have a top order batsman to protect him so he'll have to face all the bowlers .. to judge him as a batsman ?

Read Above.

[graphic23]

I don't understand this. Sachin's played cricket for 19 years (as you have repeated yourself innumerable times already) - he knows cricket. He backed Ishant to score because the bowlers were NOT making him play as often. Bhajji threw his bat at everything and was able to score a 50. The onus was on Ishant to score because if Sachin occupied the crease and kept Ishant from scoring, but was unable to score himself - there is no point to batting - at that stage anyways. So, when you're unable to score - for whatever reason, you make the other guy score. And I still can't comprehend why you are doing away with the statement "he saw him bat in the nets" ?

[umpire]

What Sachin saw from Ishant was, the guy had solid defense and also knew where his off stump was. Thats enough to trust him.

[Anakin]

It's just sad on too many levels when people still think SRT plays for averages after all these years. One of those factors is the wasted time watching something they clearly have very little idea about.

[Ram]

*BUMP. Wanted to re-kindle this whole discussion reg. the question of how a top-order/specialist batsmen should bat with the tail. Kumar Sangakkara showed us how to do it, when he batted outstandingly with the tail against Australia at Hobart in the summer of 2007 and now, I believe Mahmadullah Riyadh gave one and all an excellent lesson as to how to go about it today, batting with Shafiul Islam and putting on 68 runs for the 9th with him. I hope people did not miss the ease with which the two put on those runs, while Dhoni helplessly watched on. This is how a top-order batsmen should play with the tail - Shielding them from strike for the most parts and scoring during the times you have it All this talk of 'Oh, you have to give tail-enders confidence and allow them to have a good share of the strike' is just BS, especially when the tail-ender in question is not known to have any decent batting capabilities. After all, a tail-ender is a tail-ender, irrespective of what you want him to believe. If you give him the strike often enough, its just a matter of time before one his technique or his temperament are going to give way (and that is what happened today also.. Islam edged what was essentially a straight delivery to slips..) If the tail-ender in question is someone like Nathan Hauritz or Grame Swann or Stuart Broad (guys who can actually play pretty decently themselves) fine, go ahead and give them the strike. But, a top-order bat is playing with guys like Sreesanth, Ishant, Ojha, Kaneria, Asif, Gul, Islam or Rubel etc, it is upto to batsmen to farm the strike and score the runs. Sometimes, people fail to realize how a top-order bat could so easily score some valuable runs, especially when the opposition captain spreads the field in the initial parts of the over and brings it in, in the latter part. If the specialist batsmen has his wits about him, he could, without much ado whatsoever, manipulate the strike and run-scoring. Is this a better way to go about it or, simply hand over the strike to the tail-ender in the 2nd or the 3rd ball of the over and just pray that he survives? P.S; Oh btw, I cant wait for some of the usual suspects (like the one above), infer this as me questioning Sachin's intentions (during that partnership he had with Ishant in Sydney). I am not questioning his intentions, but his strategy. I hope people understand one can question the latter without doubting the former.

[CSK Fan]

*BUMP. Wanted to re-kindle this whole discussion reg. the question of how a top-order/specialist batsmen should bat with the tail. Kumar Sangakkara showed us how to do it, when he batted outstandingly with the tail against Australia at Hobart in the summer of 2007 and now, I believe Mahmadullah Riyadh gave one and all an excellent lesson as to how to go about it today, batting with Shafiul Islam and putting on 68 runs for the 9th with him. I hope people did not miss the ease with which the two put on those runs, while Dhoni helplessly watched on. This is how a top-order batsmen should play with the tail - Shielding them from strike for the most parts and scoring during the times you have it All this talk of 'Oh, you have to give tail-enders confidence and allow them to have a good share of the strike' is just BS, especially when the tail-ender in question is not known to have any decent batting capabilities. After all, a tail-ender is a tail-ender, irrespective of what you want him to believe. If you give him the strike often enough, its just a matter of time before one his technique or his temperament are going to give way (and that is what happened today also.. Islam edged what was essentially a straight delivery to slips..) If the tail-ender in question is someone like Nathan Hauritz or Grame Swann or Stuart Broad (guys who can actually play pretty decently themselves) fine, go ahead and give them the strike. But, a top-order bat is playing with guys like Sreesanth, Ishant, Ojha, Kaneria, Asif, Gul, Islam or Rubel etc, it is upto to batsmen to farm the strike and score the runs. Sometimes, people fail to realize how a top-order bat could so easily score some valuable runs, especially when the opposition captain spreads the field in the initial parts of the over and brings it in, in the latter part. If the specialist batsmen has his wits about him, he could, without much ado whatsoever, manipulate the strike and run-scoring. Is this a better way to go about it or, simply hand over the strike to the tail-ender in the 2nd or the 3rd ball of the over and just pray that he survives? P.S; Oh btw, I cant wait for some of the usual suspects (like the one above), infer this as me questioning Sachin's intentions (during that partnership he had with Ishant in Sydney). I am not questioning his intentions, but his strategy. I hope people understand one can question the latter without doubting the former.

And Dhoni.s strategy of having bowlers out till FIVE deliveries and Indian bolwers giving some, hit me balls way outside off stump didnt have anything to do with it I suppose? And BTW, did you see Sachin bat in the first test? He was doing the same thing

[Mr. Wicket]

This is how a top-order batsmen should play with the tail - Shielding them from strike for the most parts and scoring during the times you have it (snip) P.S; Oh btw, I cant wait for some of the usual suspects (like the one above), infer this as me questioning Sachin's intentions (during that partnership he had with Ishant in Sydney). I am not questioning his intentions, but his strategy.

And yet Tendulkar had pretty much the same strategy in the first test as he did in Sydney. Some quick examples: Partnership with Zaheer- Over 54, single on the 2nd ball Over 55, didn't take a single at all to retain strike, but hit a six off Shakib to take advantage of a field brought in to protect a single Over 58, single off the 3rd ball Partnership with Ishant: Over 60, single off the 3rd ball Over 62, single off the first (!) ball... Note that the partnership with Ishant lasted 9 overs, Ishant faced almost half of that in facing 24 balls (but making just one run). Tendulkar's methods took us from 150/6 to 243, increased our total by 93 runs in a period of just over 30 overs with the tail though the last four batsmen between them added only 27. (Out of around 30-31 overs bowled to the last 4 wicket partnerships, the tailenders faced 95 balls - so roughly half the strike then.) So yes, proof yet again that it's not essential to shield the tail and hide them from the strike in order to boost your total with the tail. Tendulkar's strategy produces runs. Sydney 2008 was not a one off. He's done it before, and just did it again last week. (The converse strategy of shielding the tail and swinging the bat, as you've suggested, has had success but also backfired on plenty of occasions, most notable the '99 Chennai test.)

[thevortex]

Sachin did not bat in the last Test as he would have in the 90s. But then he is not the same man now as he was then. We can dress it up with a lot more preambles and finish it with a lot of hemming and hawing. But basically that is it. And like a few others have pointed out, batting strategy with tail enders has changed. Trust given unto them has been seen to pay off more than shielding them in recent times. Laxman is a prime example. Time and time again he does that. Successfully. ________ Vaporizers Info

[Mr. Wicket]

Indeed vortex. The days are gone when tailenders actually *needed* to be protected - 15ish years ago we had plenty of guys like Courtney Walsh, Venkatesh Prasad, Danny Morrison (the one epic against England aside), Glenn McGrath of old (rather than the fifty-scoring and Ashes-test saving phenomenon he became in his last few years) and others who needed an instruction manual every time they got a bat in hand. These days most of the bottom 4 can at least hold an end up, play some shots if there's no batsman around and chip in with some handy runs. We saw Gul and Aamer doing decently in Australia, Mishra impressive with the willow in the last test and Harbhajan and Zaheer regularly chipping in for us at various times in tests or ODIs. The idea that tailenders need to be protected is generally antiquated, and players like Steve Waugh and Tendulkar have shown it's not an essential tactic to make runs with the lower order.