Australia A & NZ A Tour of India
- Thread starter aussie1st
- Start date
The one extra batter provides another guy that can handle the bat. If that wasn't the case then more teams would play 6 batters and 5 bowlers but that clearly isn't the case especially in Test cricket where we more times than not we only play the 4 bowlers.
sohum
Executive member
Every specialist batsman matters. That one extra batsman may end up starting a comeback with the tail, something that a tailender could not do with one more his kin.
TruSachFan
Club Cricketer
tait ripping through indian lineup
india a 23-3 badri gone
consistently touching 145-150kph. Breathtaking stuff
india a 23-3 badri gone
consistently touching 145-150kph. Breathtaking stuff
angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
Sure, but asking an extra 130 runs of number 7 (or 170 from the last 5 wickets as was the case) is a bit much.
sohum
Executive member
But in the history of cricket there have been several cases where this has been achieved. It is a fallacy to claim that adding one more batsman will not do anything, since he is still a batsman. With number 7 you get double padding. When the 5th wicket falls down, there's an extra specialist-batsman partnership. When the 6th wicket falls down, there's a higher probability that a specialist batsman will still be there.
I have always disagreed with the argument that 7 batsmen is not any better than 6.
And proof comes in the form of the match that was being discussed. India A were 53/5 and Yusuf Pathan (a batting all-rounder) walked in. Took the score to 160 when he fell, and the tail later thwacked their way to 207. If India A had been playing 5 specialist bowlers, it would have been Asnodkar and a specialist bowler batting, and who knows how many they would have scored then?
Last edited:
Good all round performance by Aus A today. It's taken a while but it looks like they are finally hitting their stride. White came back well after being hammered while Doherty looked to be in a more containing role.
Ronchi is starting to get more consistent with his knocks, he had a decent start last game and now hes converted it. Hughes is also looking more comfortable, just missing out on a well deserved 50.
Ronchi is starting to get more consistent with his knocks, he had a decent start last game and now hes converted it. Hughes is also looking more comfortable, just missing out on a well deserved 50.
angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
Sure, about 30 cases of a team making 130 with 5 wickets in hand out of about 2700 odd ODIs, I'm sure there are a few more among an even greater number of List A games, but the fact is that it's not happening a lot. To say this is an important figure is to disrespect the importance of bowling in limited overs.
Like you said, in yesterday's game the all-rounders brought the score up to something respectable, but the game was lost comprehensively. When the time came for those all-rounders to bowl, they were punished with impunity. You can scarcely cram any more batsmen into that side either, they bat right down the order. However, if they want to defend 200 more often, they will need to bowl a lot better.
It highlights that a good team needs both good batting and good bowling at the same time; a player who both bats well and bowls well is not common. If your 5th best bowler has an average of around 45, you know without having to think about it that you're going in with weak bowling and that's as much a risk as any.
My original point though, was just about common sense. I wasn't saying that all-rounders and number sevens have no role in the game. I was saying simply that you can't overlook the importance of the six batsmen who have to bat before the seventh. In the event of such a batting collapse as on Monday, it is not the number seven's failure if the game is lost. He has less chance of nursing a team through a hundred runs to victory than a bowler has of taking 6 wickets. It would be very specious reasoning to say that Australia A won the second game because they had seven batsmen. It was just a good performance (I hesitate to say "all round"), the specialist bowlers bowled better, the openers fired and not even a middle order performance was required.
One game in fifty might be winnable through an enormous rear guard score and fair enough if you have a team that can pull that one out, but you can't structure your team solely around winning 1 game in 50. The conventional way to win is with those upper order batsmen making runs. 7 batsmen aren't always necessary (and importantly, ideally not necessary) to bat out 50 overs, but you do always need 5 bowlers for that.
Yes bowlers are important but do you really need 5 pure bowlers to win an ODI match? If this was the winning formula it would have been used more often by teams. But through out the history of ODI cricket no winning World cup side has played a team that has 5 pure bowlers. Each and every winning world cup side had a batter at 7.
Through 4 bowlers and an all rounder/part timer you have enough bowlers to roll a team. History has shown this and it's not just 1, 2 or 3 world cups, it's every single world cup. So clearly that is your winning formula.
What Aus A had on Monday was 5 bowlers, Noffke is no where near what I would class an all rounder. Maybe a bowling one but his FC record speaks for itself.
Through 4 bowlers and an all rounder/part timer you have enough bowlers to roll a team. History has shown this and it's not just 1, 2 or 3 world cups, it's every single world cup. So clearly that is your winning formula.
What Aus A had on Monday was 5 bowlers, Noffke is no where near what I would class an all rounder. Maybe a bowling one but his FC record speaks for itself.
RoboRocks
Chairman of Selectors
England are having great success at the moment due to a 5 bowler attack. Although the South Africans haven't played Samit Patel very well through out the ODI series. Now we seem to see side chase down big scores, so you can't get runs on the board and think you've won with just 4 bowlers and a "fill in" in your attack. If one of your front liners gets smashed around then you have only a part timer to replace him and he could go even further.
That is why I think its best to have a 5 man attack in ODI's if you can so you'll always somebody avalible to replace a bowler who goes the distance.
England are lucky to have 4 bowlers of the calibur of Anderson, Broad, Flintoff and Harmison and then someone like Patel who can get through 10 overs, plus Collingwood and Wright to bowl overs if needed.
I'll get off England since it's a little off-topic.
angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
Well obviously you don't need 5 specialists to win an ODI and I certainly think an ideal team has more than 5 players capable of bowling consistently. I've often admired New Zealand's ability to create ODI teams that are so versatile. However, you also can't stack the batting without consequence. It's a matter of balance and also a matter of practicality. Aus A don't have many all-rounders with them. If White broke a finger in the slips, they'd either have to go with 5 bowlers or ship in someone; and someone pretty good; quickly.
It's a very messy topic.
It's a very messy topic.
RoboRocks
Chairman of Selectors
My point is that when your bowling 2nd and the batting side is chasing a big score we are now seeing more and more targets being chased down and when a front line bowler or many become expensive, then the fielding captain has a problem.
England have 5 bowlers but Flintoff could get in on his batting alone so it's basically 4 bowlers and the all rounder. And Patel I would class as a batter so you could even go as far as saying 3 bowlers and 2 all rounder. What I was talking about is having 5 specialist bowlers that can't bat.
As good as Noffke season with the bat was his List A average is just 14 and his FC average at 27 is alright but you wouldn't have him in the side as a batter only. So ideally you want that batting all rounder or genuine all rounder in the side. Looking at the A side, would that extra batter change the result against NZ A? Perhaps as having that extra batter can give the whole batting lineup a boost but we will never know now.
I agree NZ has a number of capable all rounders that fill in the bowling role nicely. Even their A side has it. We certainly are lacking an all rounder even White isn't really classed as one. For us the 4 bowlers and some part timers has taken us to 3 world cups in a row so if it works for us no point in changing it unless we have an all rounder capable of doing the job. North has a List A bowling average of 30 so hes more than capable of helping White out with the bowling for this tour.
In the future we could see the likes of Steven Smith, Hill, Doropoulos and Henriques become capable batting all rounders that could play the role that the Kiwis have.
I have no problem playing 5 bowlers for this tour if White got injured but until that happens if we want to win matches we should stick with a side that is similar in makeup to the 2nd match.
Similar threads
