Shielding the tail - Why?

[Mr. Wicket]

We have a lead of over 250. 277 right now. 6 wickets are down, Bangladesh have been in the field well over a day and are being ground down. Ishant Sharma has played a couple of lovely shots at one end (including a better pull than Ponting), and India should be looking to declare soon and swell the lead as much as possible. Yet, MS Dhoni is hitting the ball to fielders in the deep on the first few balls of an over, then not bothering to run to shield Ishant from the strike. Runs and valuable time being lost, even though Ishant has barely been troubled by the bowling and is scoring decently himself, and Bangladesh are looking as if they just want to go off the field. Really, why the need to defend Ishant so carefully now? Is Dhoni afraid that losing him (and going 7 down with a first innings lead nearing 300) will suddenly destroy India's chances of a strong total? Or perhaps [sarchasm mode on] he's being selfish and playing for a milestone, even though there's absolutely no way of reading his mind and intentions there, but such wild assumption is reasonable based on some available stats [/sarchasm]?

[champ]

^ we should look to bat as much as possible .. there are chances that dravid , UV all may not bat again .. so to be safe getting a big score is better ..

[cowboysfan]

no worries at all.one way or the other this match is over by tea tomorrow.

[Cricketics]

Bad stuff from Chennai super kings captain I must say

[Zap_Brannigan]

Its the 7th session. Still 8 more after this one to go.

[vvvslaxman]

Bad stuff from Chennai super kings captain I must say

okay man. They have lots and lots of time. I do not want India to bat again.

[observer1]

We have a lead of over 250. 277 right now. Is Dhoni afraid that losing him (and going 7 down with a first innings lead nearing 300) will suddenly destroy India's chances of a strong total? Or perhaps [realism mode on] he's being selfish and playing for a milestone, even though there's absolutely no way of reading his mind and intentions there, but such wild assumption is reasonable based on some available stats [/realism]?

Insert appropriate emoticon

[Ram]

What has the match situation got anything to do with how a specialist batsmen should dictate his approach, while playing with a genuine tail-ender? The only brief of a top-order batsmen while he is on the ground batting with lower-order batsmen is to make sure he gets as many runs as he can, full stop. It does not matter if he's nearing a milestone or not nearing a milestone, or the team is in a commanding position or in a not-so commanding position. Unless of course the team is hard-pressed for time or looking for a quick declaration, it is incumbent upon the batsmen to make sure he takes it upon himself to not just protect genuine tail-enders, but also score the bulk of the runs while he's still out there. This lunatic approach of 'Oh, did you not know the new-age approach of handling tail-end partnerships? You just treat the tail-ender like a genuine batsmen, give as much as the strike as possible and voila! Look at him score all the runs' simply wont cut. A genuine tail-ender will not magically transform into a decent batsmen, just because he's constantly been given the strike. Its like saying if I keep giving a part-time bowler a lot of overs in the middle, at some point he will start bowling like a specialist bowler. The more you give the tail-ender the strike, the more the probability of him getting out. How can that been good for the team? The way Dhoni handled his p'ship with Ishant is exactly the way to go. They batted together for 17 overs, managed to put on close to 60 runs and Ishant faced only 30% of all the deliveries and scored 20% of all the runs. Dhoni, being the recognized batsmen, not only faced a big majority of the balls, but also scored most of the runs. Is this the way to go, or is it better for the top-order batsmen to simply hand over the strike to the tail-ender during the early part of the over, when the field is spread out far and wide?

[Guest Gunner]

What has the match situation got anything to do with how a specialist batsmen should dictate his approach, while playing with a genuine tail-ender? The only brief of a top-order batsmen while he is on the ground batting with lower-order batsmen is to make sure he gets as many runs as he can, full stop. It does not matter if he's nearing a milestone or not nearing a milestone, or the team is in a commanding position or in a not-so commanding position. Unless of course the team is hard-pressed for time or looking for a quick declaration, it is incumbent upon the batsmen to make sure he takes it upon himself to not just protect genuine tail-enders, but also score the bulk of the runs while he's still out there. This lunatic approach of 'Oh, did you not know the new-age approach of handling tail-end partnerships? You just treat the tail-ender like a genuine batsmen, give as much as the strike as possible and voila! Look at him score all the runs' simply wont cut. A genuine tail-ender will not magically transform into a decent batsmen, just because he's constantly been given the strike. Its like saying if I keep giving a part-time bowler a lot of overs in the middle, at some point he will start bowling like a specialist bowler. The more you give the tail-ender the strike, the more the probability of him getting out. How can that been good for the team? The way Dhoni handled his p'ship with Ishant is exactly the way to go. They batted together for 17 overs, managed to put on close to 60 runs and Ishant faced only 30% of all the deliveries and scored 20% of all the runs. Dhoni, being the recognized batsmen, not only faced a big majority of the balls, but also scored most of the runs. Is this the way to go, or is it better for the top-order batsmen to simply hand over the strike to the tail-ender during the early part of the over, when the field is spread out far and wide?

But but when SRT takes the new age approach its understandable. :dontknow:

[Ram]

But but when SRT takes the new age approach its understandable. :dontknow:

Only that, one two separate occasions, when being confronted with the challenge of batting along with the SAME tail-ender, Sachin chose two polar opposite approaches in terms of how he wants to manage the strike and regulate the run-scoring.

[Anakin]

Only that' date=' one two separate occasions, when being confronted with the challenge of batting along with the SAME tail-ender, Sachin chose two polar opposite approaches in terms of how he wants to manage the strike and regulate the run-scoring.[/quote'] Exactly, specially given how similar the situations, pitches, bowling, scores, opposition and 100s other factors that we don't know watching from home were in those two scenarios. But given how they really don't matter, why am I even saying this.

[hari504504]

And why were the tail enders like Zaheer and Ishant going hell for leather... Stonewalling the bowling and handing the strike over to Dhoni as long as possible should've been the way to go... WE should've batted till near the end of today and hopefully bowl at exhausted bdesh batsmen...

[The Outsider]

This kind of idiotic batting is only going to set Indian cricket back. Don't wallow and whine the next time two tailenders are stuck in the middle in some crucial situation and appear like the novices and throw away matches they did in Chennai '99 or Barbados '97 or Sabina Park '02. Who is going to shield them then? Kaptaan Dhoni from the dressing room? If you cannot trust your tailenders to develop their batting to tackle the likes of Ashraful and Mahmoodullah when the opposition is counting wickets for a declaration on a shirtfront, the negative mentality is never going to go away from Indian cricket. Look at how Waugh transformed the Aussie tail or heck even how even a bunny like Anderson has become a competent enough batsman to become a regular nightwatchman with good success.

[coffee_rules]

The only reason I can think of is they were biding time. It was still D3 and India were minus 2 MO bats. If we have to survive or bat for day (as it happens now if Ashtrayful gets a 200), then BD will not enough time to get all 10 wkts.

[Ram]

Lol, Indian cricket 'goes backward' because specialist batsmen dont give tail-enders the strike? Tail-enders get out in pressure situations simply because of the fact that they're tail-enders with mediocre batting capabilities. Giving them the strike in other high-scoring matches is not going to convince them otherwise. Even if we were to address the question of how batsmen have to bat with genuine tail-enders in those 4th innings efforts where the team is fighting for a draw, the answer is pretty much the same, except that now, he doesnt have to score. He just has to face as many balls as he can. Proof for this? Would you like to know how Paul Collingwood batted in the last one hour of 1st test in the recently concluded test series between England and South Africa? Whenever he got the strike, he just absolutely STONEWALLED. The South Africans left empty spaces all around the field tempting him to take the single and expose the tail-ender, but does anybody want to know how many singles Paul Collingwood took in the last one hour, batting with Swan, Broad and Onions? Yes, you guessed it - NONE or Zero or Shoonya (whichever way wanna call it). The only time he actually even tried to take a single was during the last ball of some of the overs, so that he could face the next over also. Now, who here thinks the result would have been the same (a superb fighting draw), had Paul Collingwood simply 'trusted' the tail-enders and routinely gave them the strike whenever he could? Bottomline - you cannot magically infuse batting abilities into guys like Sreesanth, Ojha, Gul, Kaneria, Ishant by simply handing them the strike. They're sh!tty batsmen and its only a matter of time before they get out, pressure or no pressure. Ref; http://www.cricinfo.com/rsaveng09/engine/match/387570.html?innings=4;page=2;view=commentary

[The Outsider]

Sriram, maybe you should read some of my posts again on the topic where I have already identified the draw situation as an exceptional case for shielding the tail. You might not agree with my ideas but at least don't cook up half truths to prove a supposed point. Anyhow, your argument that tailenders cannot improve their batting as their career progresses has nothing to do with reality. You can continue to live in your age old notions of having bunnies down the order like the current Pakistan line up has, but I sure hope for the sake of Indian cricket what happened yesterday was an exception.

[Sooda]

To be fair our lower order isnt bad at all. Ishant is the only bowler who is not a semi decent batsman even. Zaheer and more so Harbhajan are more than able for bowlers. Not sure about Prags, but Mishra showed us what he can do last match, even Santh can slog it and is handyish thought he probably cant 'stonewall'.

[Mr. Wicket]

Lol, Indian cricket 'goes backward' because specialist batsmen dont give tail-enders the strike? Tail-enders get out in pressure situations simply because of the fact that they're tail-enders with mediocre batting capabilities. Giving them the strike in other high-scoring matches is not going to convince them otherwise. (snip) Bottomline - you cannot magically infuse batting abilities into guys like Sreesanth, Ojha, Gul, Kaneria, Ishant by simply handing them the strike. They're sh!tty batsmen and its only a matter of time before they get out, pressure or no pressure.

You obviously have forgotten a lot about certain aspects of cricket in the mid 1990s. Glenn McGrath was a total bunny and a walking wicket whose batting at number 11 was the subject of many jokes (to the point that I believe Mark Waugh even made dressing room bets on his failures). Jason Gillespie was not much better either, a tailender who could chip in with a few runs but never anything more. By the time they retired, McGrath had a test fifty against New Zealand, had played a brief but pivotal role in the 2005 Ashes test at Old Trafford to save it with 9 wickets down, and Gillespie had multiple scores over 50 to his name, including a double hundred against Bangladesh, not to forget his role in both the 2004 Sydney test partnering with Simon Katich and the Chennai test later that year with Damien Martyn, ensuring India couldn't win either game. Players can develop and improve. Nobody's talking about Jayasuriya-like improvement from a lower order bat to a brutal opener, but certainly if a McGrath and Gillespie could turn from useless bat carriers at 10 and 11 to real thorns with the bat who could save matches (especially Gillespie), then that should offer every incentive to other players to improve. The Outsider's post above sums it up perfectly. You're looking at it from a very antiquated view where numbers 9 through 11 still bat like Venkatesh Prasad or Courtney Walsh and lower order batsmen must be shielded.

[Guest Hiten.]

I think MSD should be excused for taking 2 steps a back when India were leading and in comfortable position. Let's not forget India do not have the luxury of RSD and UV in the middle order for the 2nd innings and Dhoni was/might have been circumspect about the pitch (which in hindsight was up to the mark). MSD tried to score as many runs as possible and tried to ensure India batted BD out of the game, but it did not happen thanks to Tamim's brilliant counterattacking cricket. MSD's decision to shield the tailenders looks even more prudent than we thought of it before. Thanks to tamim, BD can now actually think about setting a target for India to chase it, with taking a consideration that we will be missing 2 front line batsman. But I do agree with Outsider and Thal, if India are ever going to be in similar situation in future, they really need to put more confidence in our bowlers when it comes to batting. Mishra for all we now know is very handy with the bat (remember GG never tried to shield him and allowed AM to play his game (whatever it might be)) and we can actually invest faith in him if we're looking to get some runs or drawing a game. How else do you think Bhajji got his "batting abilities" ? He was given more space to test out his abilities and can manage to score quick 20-30 valuable runs. Batting in nets can mean jack all. Remember how we all ridiculed Fletcher's claim that "Michael Vaughan is really getting it right in the nets" but he did jacksh*t in the middle to ensure his continuity with the English side.

[achilles]

I think MSD should be excused for taking 2 steps a back when India were leading and in comfortable position. Let's not forget India do not have the luxury of RSD and UV in the middle order for the 2nd innings and Dhoni was/might have been circumspect about the pitch (which in hindsight was up to the mark). MSD tried to score as many runs as possible and tried to ensure India batted BD out of the game, but it did not happen thanks to Tamim's brilliant counterattacking cricket. MSD's decision to shield the tailenders looks even more prudent than we thought of it before. Thanks to tamim, BD can now actually think about setting a target for India to chase it, with taking a consideration that we will be missing 2 front line batsman. But I do agree with Outsider and Thal, if India are ever going to be in similar situation in future, they really need to put more confidence in our bowlers when it comes to batting. Mishra for all we now know is very handy with the bat (remember GG never tried to shield him and allowed AM to play his game (whatever it might be)) and we can actually invest faith in him if we're looking to get some runs or drawing a game. How else do you think Bhajji got his "batting abilities" ? He was given more space to test out his abilities and can manage to score quick 20-30 valuable runs. Batting in nets can mean jack all. Remember how we all ridiculed Fletcher's claim that "Michael Vaughan is really getting it right in the nets" but he did jacksh*t in the middle to ensure his continuity with the English side.

Legendary reply :hatsoff: