The folly of shielding the tail

[The Outsider]

Laxman was heavily criticized here and even branded as being selfish and playing for his average because he did not shield the likes of Harbhajan and Zaheer, both competent batsmen. I am glad that the folly of doing so was so cruelly exposed by Misbah today in his partnership with Sami. They shared a partnership of 14 runs over 10 overs and refused 8 runs during their stand. It not only denied them the runs, it allowed the bowlers to choke off the runs resulting in the wild slog by Misbah and the collapse that ensued. Long live Steve Waugh.

[Mr. Wicket]

Top post. Shielding the tail works if you're able to run fast enough, place the ball well enough and bat with enough skill to deal in boundaries, twos and the odd one near the end of the over. Otherwise you just rob yourself of runs. Cricket with the tail in can be some of the most depressingly negative stuff out there at times. Batsmen will refuse singles that could be turned into twos with some better placement or some hard running, and bowlers will offer free singles to batsmen, opting to bowl at the tailender rather than backing themselves to remove the acknowledged batsman.

[bharat297]

Also ... shielding the tail makes sense when u need an extra 10 or so runs ... India needed about another 100-150 runs on top of their current score ... LOL ...so it doesnt make sense to shield the tail when you need a significant amount more.

[Dhondy]

Still doesn't excuse taking singles of the first delivery with the field spread out for at least the first 4 balls. Neither does it make any more explicable, a settled batsman contributing 15 of 48 runs scored by the tail.

[novpj]

Absolutely agree with Dhondy. Also look at Bhajji's dismissal - he was beaten by Kaneria on the last ball and they took a single. two issues here - a) they could have taken a couple but Laxman's running between the wickets is next only to gangs and b) the useless single exposed Harbhajan to Tanvir who got him. I would rather go the Misbah approach - whom should one back to hit and score fast a well settled batsmen or a tailender. If LAxman cant step it up when required then thats a flaw that should be acknowledged not defended.

[bharat297]

^ The thing is we needed an extra 100+ runs to reach our desired 1st innings total ... we wouldnt have been able to get that unless the tail could block out the odd over here and there ... if all it took was the one odd good ball here and there then shielding wouldnt have worked for long. Had Laxman got the extra 2's and so on here and there we would have reached say what ... 290, 295 maybe ... If you look at most cases where the tail has wagged then it is because the tail has been able to block out the odd over here and there ... even if they cant score. If we were to reach 350-400, then we would need Bhajji, and Zaheer to be able to block out the odd over here and there. Very few cricket experts actually agree with the idea of shielding the tail except in rare situations ... like say in a situation where we need like 10 runs with 1 or 2 wickets in hand. In any case ... Laxman really shouldnt be in this situation as he should be batting at 3 not 6 anyway.

[Yuvraj4Captaincy]

I will still go with misbah approach anyday. Yes, he was unfortunate he got out. You don't just take a single of the very first ball when your tailender is just new at the crease. Thats exposing him to the remaining 5 balls. Maybe when he gets set, and is scoring /defending properly then yeah ..go for it..otherwise its just brainless or selfish to keep yourself not out at very worst

[novpj]

Agree that he should bat at 3 but given where he was batting he needed to modify his approach to what was required. Even if you look at Sami Misbah p'ship in the first innings it began with Misbah shielding Sami till Sami started gaining confidence (and bowlers got a bit furstrated)

[kabira]

the best approach is bit of both. As a batsman you should know what bowler will be difficult to handle for tailenders. Obviously Leggie is always tough for tailenders.. Laxman should have taken most of his strike against Kaneria..

[Anakin]

Laxman simply doesn't know how to bat with tailenders. And even if you forgive him for that, he should've tried to make some quick runs, but of course he didn't.

[Bumper]

Shwetabh, how do you justify lack of even one aggressive attempt from Laxman, when Zaheer Khan was taking risks at the other end (and justifiably so ?) I can live with singles off the first ball, if he had mixed them with some boundaries in between. 15 off 48 is pathetic even for a tailender set batsman. He should have scored 60% of the runs minimally. May be a lesson or two from Inzy & Jayasuriya would help. And if you recall, Misbah-Sami partnership earned Pak well over 80 runs in the 1st innings. So Misbah took Sami's (just as Laxy treated Kumble) batting for granted. Its after Kumble's departure, Laxy should have taken the initiative

[The Outsider]

Shwetabh, how do you justify lack of even one aggressive attempt from Laxman, when Zaheer Khan was taking risks at the other end (and justifiably so ?)

This was not a pitch where you could get away with throwing your bat at deliveries. If Zaheer did something stupid, does not mean Laxman has to follow suit. Do you guys remember the '01 Calcutta test, when in a difficult situation in the first innings, Steve Waugh immediately took a single off the first ball to expose Gillespie to Harbhajan. They went on to add 150 runs. Or how Katich took a single immediately to expose the tail at Sydney and went on to add 100+ runs. Or closer home how Laxman added 60 odd in South Africa with Zaheer and also 50+ with Sreesanth using the same strategy only because his partners played sensibly. Unless you have a situation as Salil/Bharat described or are playing to draw a Test, shielding the tail makes zero sense IMO and the successs of the opposite strategy over the last few years points out to the folly of doing so.

[Anakin]

If not mistaken Jumbo scored at least half the runs in their partnership as well, IIRC he even outscored Laxman, which doesn't make any sense either.

[The Outsider]

Just a simple question - haven't Steve Waugh in particular and Australia in general done exactly the same thing you are criticizing Laxman and the Indian team for with superb success over the past few years?

[kabira]

Steve Waugh used to take chances as well. Steve Waugh would shield them from potential most dangerous bowler. The approach should be something in between.

[The Outsider]

And Kaneria is supposed to be some kind of a dangerous bowler? Indians, even tailenders, are the best players of leg spin around and even Warne has been played out well by our tail in the past. If Laxman was exposing the tail to Akhtar in the middle of a fiery spell, it would have been different.

[Sachinism]

Laxman didnt get much chance to shield the tail, they all come in and try to play big shots instead of just trying to rotate the strike

[Mr. Wicket]

Just a simple question - haven't Steve Waugh in particular and Australia in general done exactly the same thing you are criticizing Laxman and the Indian team for with superb success over the past few years?

Not the past few years. A fair bit longer. Waugh got a lot of flak for his approach at one point, as he'd give strike to McGrath and Gillespie when both were very poor batsmen. Eventually though they started putting work in. McGrath's average shot up from 2 to about 7 and he became capable of holding one end up at times, Gillespie turned into someone who could be trusted on strike with his sturdy defense (that effectively won and saved them a couple of series against India), and Warne also started applying himself a great deal more to his batting. End result was that Australia's tail became a lot more formidable, and a genuine thorn in other teams' sides. I would love to see Zaheer, Sreesanth and Harbhajan take that same approach, work relentlessly on their batting (as McGrath kept doing even towards the end of his career), and become players who can be at least trusted by bats like VVS and Dhoni, rather than rabbits who need to be shielded. Laxman's recognized that they all have the talent. You don't slam 75 in a test or smash Andre Nel for a straight six in the Wanderers without not having any ability with the bat. Hopefully by treating them as proper batsmen, they will be forced to develop more in that area which can only be very good for the team.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Laxman was criticised for failing to show the intent of scoring fast..

[fineleg]

I would love to see Zaheer' date= Sreesanth and Harbhajan take that same approach, work relentlessly on their batting (as McGrath kept doing even towards the end of his career), and become players who can be at least trusted by bats like VVS and Dhoni, rather than rabbits who need to be shielded. Laxman's recognized that they all have the talent.

Good point, but since when have our players shown commitment to develop secondary skills!:sad_smile: