The folly of shielding the tail

[Ram]

MM, what you have described, " the definition of a good batsmen batting with the novice batsmen is a one who acts as though nothing’s changed, bats perfectly normally, rotates the strike when he can, scores a boundary when presented with the opportunity etc" is exactly what Waugh used to do. I've given examples of it earlier in the thread. Is he or is he not considered one of the best batsmen playing with the tail?

Your whole ‘Is Steve Waugh not one of the best batsmen when playing with the tail’ doesn’t lend itself to absolute black-and-white arguments like the one you’re seeking, so I am not even sure how to respond to that statement. We have gone through this a lot of times before so I shall make my case just one more time – In my opinion, if a top-order batsmen who has even reasonable ability to play some shots and has at least an element of power-game in his batting armory, then when he’s batting with tail-enders who are also absolute novice batsmen (example; Kaneria, Asif, Ojha etc..), then it is incumbent upon him to not just shield the novice batsmen from the strike, but also score the runs that the team needs. If you’re acting as though nothing’s changed and simply keep handing the novice tail-ender the strike, you’re essentially leaving all your fate to chance. Sure, the tail-ender could get some edges away to the boundary, but he could also be bowled first ball, which means the specialist batsmen is left undismissed, standing at the other end. I am not sure how that’s a good thing.

[The Outsider]

If you’re acting as though nothing’s changed and simply keep handing the novice tail-ender the strike, you’re essentially leaving all your fate to chance. Sure, the tail-ender could get some edges away to the boundary, but he could also be bowled first ball, which means the specialist batsmen is left undismissed, standing at the other end. I am not sure how that’s a good thing.

If this is leaving 'fate to chance' then this strategy would have backfired more often than not. On the other hand, Laxman and Waugh have one of the best records in the history of cricket with this approach over a collective sample of nearly 300 test matches - one sixth of the total test matches played in history. You can have the odd anomaly, but arguing that such a consistently successful strategy is a freakish event is like saying 'Ponting is mediocre' despite having 12000 test runs behind him.

[Ram]

If this is leaving 'fate to chance' then this strategy would have backfired more often than not. On the other hand' date=' Laxman and Waugh have one of the best records in the history of cricket with this approach over a collective sample of nearly 300 test matches - one sixth of the total test matches played in history. You can have the odd anomaly, but arguing that such a consistently successful strategy is a freakish event is like saying 'Ponting is mediocre' despite having 12000 test runs behind him.[/quote'] So according to you, if the receipe to successful batting partnerships with the tail is to essentially do nothing, then why isn’t the cricketing record books teeming with stats of batsmen - tail ender and tail ender – tail ender partnerships? You mean to say that Steve Waugh and VVS Laxman are the only two batsmen who have figured it out and the rest are simply ignorant? And that’s why I keep repeating that this discussion does not lend itself to stat based analysis, which you keep putting forward as proof for your theory. Different batsmen have tried approaches and have had varying success. In fact, the same batsmen has tried the exact opposite approach and had similar success as well (Ishant-Sachin p’ship in Sydney and the Sachin-Ishant p’ship in B’desh). So if you’re really want to be fair, the most claim is that the jury is still out on this issue and we’re not really sure whats the correct way to go about it. But to claim with surety that the best way to bat with the tail is bat normally, based on stats of 2 particular batsmen, stats whose very nature itself is hazy, is I think really premature. Trust me Shwetabh, VVS doesn’t hog the strike and go over the infield because he wants to play in that manner, but because he cannot do so even if he wants to. That’s exactly why he has been a failure in ODIs and T20s. His strategy of simply standing at the other end let the tail ender have the fun under the sun is more accidental than incidental. You’re giving him way too much more credit than he deserves.

[The Outsider]

So according to you, if the receipe to successful batting partnerships with the tail is to essentially do nothing, then why isn’t the cricketing record books teeming with stats of batsmen - tail ender and tail ender – tail ender partnerships? You mean to say that Steve Waugh and VVS Laxman are the only two batsmen who have figured it out and the rest are simply ignorant? Trust me Shwetabh, VVS doesn’t hog the strike and go over the infield because he wants to play in that manner, but because he cannot do so even if he wants to. That’s exactly why he has been a failure in ODIs and T20s. His strategy of simply standing at the other end let the tail ender have the fun under the sun is more accidental than incidental. You’re giving him way too much more credit than he deserves.

I suppose Tendulkar also cannot go over the top because he did not shield the tail at Sydney? Is he also a failure in ODIs and T20? Was Waugh also a failure in ODIs? And yes I am saying that the entire concept of not shielding the tail, and bat normally around them was introduced in a big way by Steve Waugh. It has been adopted by the Indian team to a large extent by now. One only has to look at the manner in which the batting of Gillespie, McGrath, Zaheer etc. has developed after adopting this concept that the tail needs to bat and should not be shielded.

[Ram]

I suppose Tendulkar also cannot go over the top because he did not shield the tail at Sydney? Is he also a failure in ODIs and T20? Was Waugh also a failure in ODIs?

Yet the same Sachin, batting with the very same Ishant, against a significantly inferior Bangladeshi bowling attack, adopted the exact opposite approach (shielded Ishant from the strike, went over the top when Shakib brought the field in towards the end of the over) and had similar success. What do you think happened in between that made him change his mind?

[asterix]

Must say, one of the koooolest concept, made to order, for lazy, lethargic, selfish players like Laxman..Laxman has taken it to another level of somehow leaving the whole overs for tailender to fend off..Laxman doesn't have to do much except relax at the non-strikers end..He doesn't have to face bowlers like Murali, Malinga much and have a nice time out there too..

[The Outsider]

Yet the same Sachin' date=' batting with the very same Ishant, against a significantly inferior Bangladeshi bowling attack, adopted the exact opposite approach (shielded Ishant from the strike, went over the top when Shakib brought the field in towards the end of the over) and had similar success. What do you think happened in between that made him change his mind?[/quote'] Similar success? He managed to add 30 runs with Ishant and Sreesanth against a Bangladesh attack of Hussains and Hassans and added 60 runs with Ishant and RP Singh against an Australian attack of Lee and Clark in the form of their lives along with Johnson and Hogg. In fact, against a similar Bangladesh attack he added more than a 100 runs with a number 11 Zaheer, who was no where the batsman he is today, by not shielding him.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Jersey #10]

The folly of tail shielding Laxman!

[gaurav92]

The folly of tail shielding Laxman!

Exactly. :cantstop:

[Ram]

Pitch conditions. He made a judgement call that IS wouldnt survive on that pitch for long .... whereas the SCG pitch was perfect for batting. Even then if you look closely SRT added about 93 runs with nos 8-11 of which about 30+ came thru the tailenders + extras.

Boss, please tell me you’re kidding, PLEAAAASSEEEEEEEE..:omg: Consider this – When Ishant joined Sachin in Sydney that day he had a) sum total of 4 FC runs. Yes not 400, not even 40, but just 4 FC runs. So there’s nothing even in his domestic career to suggest he’s someone with reasonable batting credentials b) He had NEVER batted in an international game till then, not even ODIs or T20s and 3) He was going to face Brett Lee, then the world’s no.1 ranked bowler, Stuart Clarke (one of the premier seamers of the world during that time) and Brad Hogg, Australia’s then premier spinner. When Ishant joined Sachin in B’desh, a) He was already a veteran of one and half international seasons b) He had, by then, shown himself to be as someone who can at least hold a bat and c) The bowling attack consisted of Shahadat Hussein, Rubel Hossain, Abdul Razzak and Shakib Al Hassan. You’re telling me Sachin ignored all of that and let Ishant bat in Sydeny because he thought the pitch was better? I’ll tell you exactly what happened. When Ishant joined Sachin in Sydney, he had already crossed his 100 and our total was already past 400. So Sachin didn’t see any merit in trying to go over the top, risking his dismissal. Besides, he probably also felt that the bowling was probably a little too good to try to clear the infield. But in B’desh, our team was in a much more precarious situation (200 for 8)., Sachin was nearing his 100 and the attack was a lot more friendlier. So he obviously felt the urgency to score runs.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[observer1]

Yes going by conventional wisdom SRT should have hogged strike at SCG ... but he didnt ... to suggest that this was done so that he could remain not out and pad up his avg by a huge margin of 0.1 ( I dunno if thats the reasoning being made cant be bothered to read the entire thread ) needs some fine caliber Hashish in generous quantities present in the brains of whoever is making that assertion.

The frailities of the human psyche BB - you know he wanted the 100 in Bangladesh and that was why he 'went for it', thus 'shielding' Sharma. I am not criticising what he did - and see no wrong in going for a 100 in Bangladesh, while staying back for a not out in his favourite ground the other occasion. To quote pitch conditions etc. as the reason why he did so would be to try to impart a false sense of objectivity to simple human desire.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

KEep things in perspective. Laxman and Waugh have batted with very strong tailenders. to put the success of those partnerships down to them alone is discrediting the tailenders for hanging in there and batting well, although credit rightfully goes to Laxman and waugh for trusting the tailenders' batting ability. needless to say, the strategy of giving strike to the tail only works when the tailender has a shot or two to rely on and can block. if the tailender cant hold a bat properly, then you cant expect this strategy to work. and luckily india hasnt had too many tailenders of this sort. for example, putting together a partnership with ajit agarkar is a lot easier than doing it with somebody like venkatesh prasad. i'm sure there is no folly in shielding the tail when the tailender in question is a guy who cant hold a bat, i.e. prasad. anyone suggesting otherwise is talking out of the *** u could probably prove this point with stats. look at records of every 50+ partnership with tailenders laxman has had and tell me what the averages of those tailenders were at the time of the partnership. you will see i'm right

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

KEep things in perspective. Laxman and Waugh have batted with very strong tailenders. to put the success of those partnerships down to them alone is discrediting the tailenders for hanging in there and batting well, although credit rightfully goes to Laxman and waugh for trusting the tailenders' batting ability. needless to say, the strategy of giving strike to the tail only works when the tailender has a shot or two to rely on and can block. if the tailender cant hold a bat properly, then you cant expect this strategy to work. and luckily india hasnt had too many tailenders of this sort. for example, putting together a partnership with ajit agarkar is a lot easier than doing it with somebody like venkatesh prasad. i'm sure there is no folly in shielding the tail when the tailender in question is a guy who cant hold a bat, i.e. prasad. anyone suggesting otherwise is talking out of the ** u could probably prove this point with stats. look at records of every 50+ partnership with tailenders laxman has had and tell me what the averages of those tailenders were at the time of the partnership. you will see i'm right

The point is that these tailenders were not really that good when they came into the team. But by setting expectations that the tail is there not only to make up the numbers and play out the second last and last ball of the over, when batting with a proper batsman they improved. All of them. Right from Gillespie, McGrath to Zaheer, Harbhajan, and now Ishant. If you follow the Paki or old Indian approach of shielding the tail you will end up with the likes of Prasad and Asif who could not score even in a brothel. Heck with the shielding the tail approach and not putting responsibility on the tail, Srinath who was a pretty good tailender when he started descended into a complete mug with the bat.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

i dont know if you can attribute the improvement of tailenders to the tactic of exposing them to bowlers. cricket in general has come a long way and these tailenders are expected to bat reasonably well. i dont think bowlers had net sessions with the bat 10 years ago. i dont see the correlation between this and the strategy of exposing/shielding. the fact is, you can only expose the tail when the tailender is good enough and you HAVE TO SHIELD when the tailender sucks. end of story. you cant come out and say one strategy is better than the other without keepingthis in mind

[asterix]

I was trying to find out stats of Laxman's partnerships with batsmen from 7-10, over 10 years. I've got the following link but I'm not sure if I've selected the correct criterias: http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=1;home_or_away=2;home_or_away=3;innings_number=1;innings_number=2;innings_number=3;innings_number=4;orderby=fow_score;partnership_wicketmin1=7;partnership_wicketval1=partnership_wicket;player_involve=3317;result=1;result=2;result=3;result=4;spanmax1=22+Jul+2010;spanmin1=22+Jul+2000;spanval1=span;team=6;template=results;tournament_type=2;type=fow;view=innings

[Bumper]

I dont have the time to research this, but if any one can do the below that would shed light on Laxman's true prowess to bat with the tail. What is the proportion of runs Laxman has scored in his partnerships with the tail ? If Laxman has scored less than 60% then there is no merit to any stat that may imply that he is good at batting with the tail. A quick glance at yesterday's score card suggests that Laxman scored 60 runs while the tail scored 25+31+13+8=77 runs. Basically the tail outscored Laxman. This does not tell me anything about Laxman's prowess to bat with the tail. To the contrary, it tells me that the tail has found a way to bat with Laxman. Its almost as if the tail knows that the onus is on them to score runs & dominate the attack as Laxman is not going to do that. I believe this is typical of most Laxman's innings where he amassed partnerships with the tail. There may be one or two exceptions, but this is the story in general.

[The Outsider]

i dont know if you can attribute the improvement of tailenders to the tactic of exposing them to bowlers. cricket in general has come a long way and these tailenders are expected to bat reasonably well. i dont think bowlers had net sessions with the bat 10 years ago. i dont see the correlation between this and the strategy of exposing/shielding. the fact is, you can only expose the tail when the tailender is good enough and you HAVE TO SHIELD when the tailender sucks. end of story. you cant come out and say one strategy is better than the other without keepingthis in mind

Yes, tailenders are expected to contribute more with the bat and they practice more in the nets. But nets are nets and the only way they will be tested and score actual runs is in the middle. In earlier days there were two kinds of tailenders - those who had some ability with the bat would go out and have a swing and those who were completely inept and walking wickets. Now the tail is expected to play according to the situation and contribute with the bat. And the more confidence they are given that they can actually make meaningful contributions, the better they will become. Of course, there will be the odd legendary exceptions like Chris Martin, but by and large they are going to improve their run scoring with this strategy as opposed to where all they are expected to do is block out 2 balls in an over. There are other reasons as well why this strategy works : 1. A close in field gives the tailender, with even limited ability, to find the gaps and score boundaries. 2. The main batsman does not have any pressure on him to look for big shots and get out taking the risk. He can continue to play a more balanced and uncluttered innings.