The folly of shielding the tail

[ludhianvi]

The fact that Laxman was not out at the end of the innings shows you that he should have played with the tail better. I mean the tail enders have averages of below 20 for a reason and that reason is that they do not have the capability or the temperament of a top order batsman. You cannot take a single off the first delivery. That would be exposing the tail. You have to give the tail a role as well and the batsman should be taking most of the strike. Initially, when the tail comes in, they have to shielded, and you can relax a bit after they've spent some time in the middle.

[Chandan]

Good point' date=' but since when have our players shown commitment to develop secondary skills!:sad_smile:[/quote'] Your allegations on our players are just inexplicable Fineleg. So is bowling the primary skill of Ganguly? If not, what did he do at Kotla with the ball----please remind me! Is batting the primary skill of Kumble? If not, what was he doing so long batting with Laxman in the first inning? And just last month, who took us to victory vs the Aussies at Mumbai? And what ever they did, was that their primary skill? Anyway, I think I'll concentrate on the topic of the thread: The folly of shielding the tail Today I read an interesting comment by Prem-Panicker on his blog: A Test match that I only saw in patches put me in mind of that quote—in the final analysis, the difference between the two teams was neither batting strength nor bowling balance; to my mind it was about two teams, one of which managed to do the basics just that bit better, and keep it going just that bit longer, than the other team. When you do that, “luckâ€â€”that portmanteau word we use to describe every happening we could not anticipate (try the wild hoik by Misbah at Sourav on the fourth morning, when there was no apparent reason for the shot)—follows; every move you make seems inspired (the taking of the new ball out of the blue, in the middle of a Sourav over no less). Admittedly, I caught most of this Test in brief, disjointed glimpses, supplementing the few occasions when I could watch live with the ‘Active’ component of the Tata Sky package, which gives you access to the highlights packages and such, and of course the reports in the different media. Given that, there is precious little sense in attempting any sort of analysis—but one aspect of the game did baffle me when I watched it unwind, and despite the fact that the team came out on the right side of the equation, it still bugs me. And this aspect refers to the Misbah-Sami partnership in the Pakistan first innings. You’ve got to budget for the odd moments of resistance, just when everything seems to be going swimmingly for the bowling team (Sangakkara and Malinga gave Australia’s bowling lineup cause for panic just the other day, for instance). So the fact that the two put together a partnership didn’t bug me—what did, was the way we facilitated that partnership. It is something I have never been able to understand: our bowling lineup knocks the stuffing out of the opposition; the intensity is high, the fielders are buzzing, the attack is sharp, and the best of batsmen seem at sea. And then we see the first glimpse of the tail—and for some reason I have never been able to understand, everything changes. The field spreads, the one remaining batsman is allowed to bat free from pressure, he is actively encouraged to take singles, and next thing you know, the pressure is off and the recovery is well under way. Chronic, this. It used to bug me during the captaincy of Azhar, Sachin, Sourav, Rahul; when Kumble took over, I figured we finally have a bowling captain, maybe this will change. But no. Why is “spare the last batsman, attack the tailender†so firmly enshrined in our mindsets? Why do we never attack at both ends? We do it with such unfailing regularity, I sometimes wonder if this is one of those things we learn at our mother’s knee. ‘Never hit a lady, beta, no matter what. And haan, jab thum bade hokar India ka kaptaan banoge na, tho kabhi bhi last recognized batsman ko attack mat karna; achche bachche aise nahin karte.. No, seriously—why do we do this, over and over again? On occasions—like on the first evening—we even do it when the batsman is not at his most fluent; Misbah till that point in time was eking out a living out there, which is why it bugged me when we pulled in our horns and began treating him as though he were batting on 200. ------------------------------------------------------- Interesting! Why don't we attack the established batsman too, instead of just attacking the tailened at the other end?

[putrevus]

the problem with Laxman was not shielding tailenders but looking for singles instead or trying to increase the pace and look for boundaries. There is no excuse on what laxman did ,the argument that he doesnt know how to bat with tail is bunch of crap.How in world can he take single on first ball of the over, moreover he never looked like he was going for his shots or increase the tempo of his innings.

[The Outsider]

Man!!! Some of you guys are harping about the same taking single off first ball, not upping the tempo theme even after I have told you how Waugh and other Aussies do exactly the same and the approach transformed Warne and Lee from sloggers to genuine lower order batsman, Gillespie into one of the best stonewallers in cricket, and McGrath into someone who blocked out the last 4 overs of an Ashes test under pressure and ended up with a Test 50. Now was that approach wrong despite the success it brought. If so, how?

[Lurker]

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' date=' 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.[/quote'] VVS Lakshman is easily the worst mainstream batsman when it comes to farming the tail enders. The brilliance of most of his innings down the order(including the first innings gem at Delhi) was overshadowed by his inability to farm the tail. There is no ifs and buts about this unless of course like most Indian fans you go on a rant about how others performed. So yes Misbah failed to do this and so thats justified. Aint that the sanest logic!! VVS would do well to realize that he is not gonna bat at #3. That slot is taken in by the mafia of RD-SRT. Throw in Ganguly and the obvious slot for VVS is either 5 or 6. To ensure India puts a good score he definitely needs to work his way with tail and score runs. That would be good news for India as well as VVS. A good unbeaten 50 should not cut it for a well-set middle order bat. xxx

[ludhianvi]

Man!!! Some of you guys are harping about the same taking single off first ball, not upping the tempo theme even after I have told you how Waugh and other Aussies do exactly the same and the approach transformed Warne and Lee from sloggers to genuine lower order batsman, Gillespie into one of the best stonewallers in cricket, and McGrath into someone who blocked out the last 4 overs of an Ashes test under pressure and ended up with a Test 50. Now was that approach wrong despite the success it brought. If so, how?

When a tail batsmen has just come to the crease, you need to shield that bowler. As he spends time in the middle, his confidence will grow and would feel more comfortable. You can start letting the tail have a bit more strike when he has been there for a while. Its a gradual process, not just exposing the tail when the new batsman has just come.

[Lurker]

Man!!! Some of you guys are harping about the same taking single off first ball, not upping the tempo theme even after I have told you how Waugh and other Aussies do exactly the same and the approach transformed Warne and Lee from sloggers to genuine lower order batsman, Gillespie into one of the best stonewallers in cricket, and McGrath into someone who blocked out the last 4 overs of an Ashes test under pressure and ended up with a Test 50. Now was that approach wrong despite the success it brought. If so, how?

You have got to be kidding me :hysterical: Waugh made Gillespie into a world class tail end batsman? Whats next - Alan Border made Warne the greatest leg spinner? Ponting made Brett Lee the pace ace? The reason why Gillespie became what he did was because he is an Aussie and he did his homework. Good and hard. Munaf Patel would never be able to become an Aussie. It would not matter if Munaf bats with a Steve Waugh or a Sachin Tendulkar, he just wont. So instead of living in a lala land where every player accepts his responsibility why not be prudent and know before hand how certain players are gonna react? An Afridi will always slog, a Munaf shall always suck! xxx

[The Outsider]

When a tail batsmen has just come to the crease' date=' you need to shield that bowler. As he spends time in the middle, his confidence will grow and would feel more comfortable. You can start letting the tail have a bit more strike when he has been there for a while. Its a gradual process, not just exposing the tail when the new batsman has just come.[/quote'] Did Steve Waugh ever shield a tailender when he just came in? In the crucial Calcutta test of '01 he immediately exposed Gillespie to a Harbhajan on rampage in the first innings.

[The Outsider]

Waugh made Gillespie into a world class tail end batsman?

Please quote where I said that. And do you deny that Warne, Lee, Gillespie, and McGrath all improved their batting considerably after Waugh made it clear that they would not be shielded?

[Lurker]

Please quote where I said that. And do you deny that Warne' date=' Lee, Gillespie, and McGrath all improved their batting considerably after Waugh made it clear that they would not be shielded?[/quote'] Your words: even after I have told you how Waugh and other Aussies do exactly the same and the approach transformed Warne and Lee from sloggers to genuine lower order batsman As for your example of Aussie players that is basically plain wrong. Shane Warne fancies himself as an all-rounder, not a Kapil Dev variety but Malcolm Marshall kind, someone who is good for 20 odd runs. And he is no stone waller by the way, he is a stroke making slogger. Same with Brett Lee, he has always been a decent bat. The only pertinent example are those of Gillespie and Mcgrath. Now Gillespie again is no Munaf Patel. His batting average in 65(out of 67 tests) did NOT dip under 10. For the bulk of his career he averaged 15 or thereabouts and thats where it pretty much stayed, till he hit that 200* against BD. He clearly was no mug with the bat and unless you could show how his batting went from say average of 5 runs per innings(Munaf Patel's average) to about 18 in a matter of series "inspired" by Steve Waugh's approach you are plain wrong. xxxx

[The Outsider]

As for your example of Aussie players that is basically plain wrong. Shane Warne fancies himself as an all-rounder, not a Kapil Dev variety but Malcolm Marshall kind, someone who is good for 20 odd runs. And he is no stone waller by the way, he is a stroke making slogger. Same with Brett Lee, he has always been a decent bat.

Warne and Lee have improved considerably as batsmen throughout their careers. Warne had a batting average of 14 when Waugh became captain and ended his career with an average close to 18 meaning in the latter half of his career he was averaging 20+ comfortably. You'll see similar numbers for Gillespie and McGrath.

[Lurker]

Warne and Lee have improved considerably as batsmen throughout their careers. Warne had a batting average of 14 when Waugh became captain and ended his career with an average close to 18 meaning in the latter half of his career he was averaging 20+ comfortably. You'll see similar numbers for Gillespie and McGrath.

A batting average of 14 itself should tell you that the person is hardly the tail-ender you are making him to be. Just for the kicks I checked out Warne's average when he first played under Steve Waugh and then overall career average. It went up from 14.83 to 17.32. I dont see a differential of 2.5 over 80 Tests as anything siginificant.Plus of course it can very well be attributed to Warne becoming a better bat over the years as any other cricketer does, or the decline of world bowling which obviously has happened. xxx

[DesiChap]

Harbhajan has a batting average of 15.91 and Zaheer 12.09. There is no point shielding them. Munaf on the other hand should be kept away from the strike. It was not Laxman's fault that Bhajji and Zak decided to slog and get out. Laxman should also have shown an intent of scoring runs. he was playing too slow and content with singles.

[Lurker]

Harbhajan has a batting average of 15.91 and Zaheer 12.09. There is no point shielding them. Munaf on the other hand should be kept away from the strike. It was not Laxman's fault that Bhajji and Zak decided to slog and get out. Laxman should also have shown an intent of scoring runs. he was playing too slow and content with singles.

That is the key. There is little point in chastising tail-end batsmen when the fault effectively lies with VVS. Lets take the example or Kumble-VVS partnetship in first innings. Kumble arrived at the crease at Dhoni's dismissal. At this time India was 208-6 in 56.2 overs. At Kumble's dismissal the score was 262-7 in 74.2 overs. In other words Kumble-VVS were together for 18 overs and 54 runs were scored. Out of these 18 overs Kumble faced about 12(69 deliveries)! That in plain language is cr@p. A mainstream batsman should play atleast 2/3 rd of the overs with tail-ender supporting him. In this case it was just the opposite. Harbhajn-VVS partnership lasted 5 delivries of which Bhajji played 3. Zaheer-VVS partnership lasted 20 deliveries of which Zaheer played 14. Doesnt it look completely absrud that bowlers played more than the lead batsman of the innings? xxx

[Bumper]

Did Steve Waugh ever shield a tailender when he just came in? In the crucial Calcutta test of '01 he immediately exposed Gillespie to a Harbhajan on rampage in the first innings.

And exactly how is that a good defense of Laxman ? When did Steve Waugh become an example for us to emulate ? Did Steve not lose the Kolkatta test that you mention ? Its clear Laxman either was putting himself ahead of the team or simply does not try hard enough to force a change in momentum

[Lurker]

And exactly how is that a good defense of Laxman ? When did Steve Waugh become an example for us to emulate ? Did Steve not lose the Kolkatta test that you mention ? Its clear Laxman either was putting himself ahead of the team or simply does not try hard enough to force a change in momentum

Simply because it is easy to throw in an Aussie name. It is a different idea altogether to show why an idea that would work for Australia would work in India as well. As an example the Indian team of 80s was very strong when it came to tailender batting. I remember distinctly Richie Benaud commenting in 1985 WSC that every single player in Indian XI had a first class century to his name! When Kapil Dev scored that 175* he received ample support from Kirmani, Madan Lal and Binny. In his very first Test innings Balwinder Sandhu hammered sixes off Imran, Sarfaraz and Qadir and notched up 70 plus or so. But it is foolish to compare a Bhajji with a Madan Lal or a Munaf with a Sandhu. VVS should realize how good the tailenders really are and try to make them play as little as possible. How prudent is it to play 6 overs and let Anil Kumble face twice that number? xxx

[The Outsider]

Just for the kicks I checked out Warne's average when he first played under Steve Waugh and then overall career average. It went up from 14.83 to 17.32.

Math question : If someone averages 14.83 for the first half of his career and ends up with 17.32 overall, what was his average in the second half? Do a similar exercise for Gillespie and McGrath.

And exactly how is that a good defense of Laxman ? When did Steve Waugh become an example for us to emulate ? Did Steve not lose the Kolkatta test that you mention ?

Waugh is widely regarded as one of the best captains in cricket. And if you are implying Australia lost at Calcutta because of the 150 run stand between Waugh and Gillespie, I really don't know what to say.

[Bumper]

Waugh is widely regarded as one of the best captains in cricket. And if you are implying Australia lost at Calcutta because of the 150 run stand between Waugh and Gillespie, I really don't know what to say.

I am not implying they lost because of Waugh-Gillespie partnership, rather questioning your claim that Waugh is some kinda God that we need to emulate. I was simply pointing out the irony in your example, which incidentally was one of Waugh's worst test as captain. Why or how did Waugh become an example all of a sudden ? If we wanna do a Waugh, lets follow his example all the way. Starting with sending the senior folks home, when they are on a high!

[The Outsider]

I am not implying they lost because of Waugh-Gillespie partnership, rather questioning your claim that Waugh is some kinda God that we need to emulate. I was simply pointing out the irony in your example, which incidentally was one of Waugh's worst test as captain. Why or how did Waugh become an example all of a sudden ?

If we wanna do a Waugh, lets follow his example all the way. Starting with sending the senior folks home, when they are on a high!

Waugh played till 38, so did McGrath and Warne. The Australian side is the oldest in the world and was even older till last year. There are several more examples. I can give you a more complete list later on if you wish. And no, I am not saying Waugh is some kind of a God but this particular strategy of his ie. strengthening the batting of the tail to the extent that a bunny like McGrath held on for 4 overs in a tense Ashes test, scored a test 50 and in the latter half of his career used to face 20+ deliveries between dismissal was a huge success.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --