StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
Ok, I've been meaning to start a thread about this for a while, basically, I watch a fair bit of cricket but one thing I still get hazey on is order teams send their batsmen out in. I've heard comments like "but he plays like a number 3." and to be honest, I'm not entirely sure what that means.
Although, a lot of the time it seems to make a difference, Dilshan found moving into the openers slot totally re-ignited his career, ian bell has had success at 5 but struggled whenever moved upto 3. Similarly there seems to be cases of players sticking as openers for almost no reason other than that's what they are.
So, what in your opinion should determine where players are placed in the line up, and why do some players thrive in certain spots and struggle in others?
the best I can manage is dividing the top 6 into 3 pairs of players.
1 & 2, openers - it seems right now the fashion is to go with an attacking opener and a more solid one that can see off the new ball. They obviously do not need to be excellent players of spin so a strong back foot game is more important than good footwork, although those two things don't always go hand in hand, sehwag has poor footwork but is still more confident against spin than pace. there also seems to be a preference to have right and left handers opening, to mess with the new bowlers line a bit.
3 & 4, top order - Usually the best batsmen in the team, with the exceptions that an opener has become the key batsman and has stuck to that position. Seems again a lot of teams like to have a flashier one and a more solid builder (dravid and tendulkar, ponting and hussey, amla and kallis, trott and KP, sanga and jayawardena) though the attacking player is never as care free as the opening one.
I did think one of the things that marked the aussies of the 2000s out was that they were willing to have ponting play 3 and not 4, it's an attacking move. still, to be honest whether you play 3 or 4 all seems a bit arbitrary to me, ok a moved down opener will often play 3, but sri lanka for example, jayawardena opens in ODIs on occassion but plays after sangakkara who never does, KP's also opened in ODIs for england but sticks to the 4 spot in tests.
5 & 6, middle order - this is where things get muddy. what the hell makes a number 5, a lot of the time it just seems to be the most established of the two. the number 6 is either where you stick the guy that can bowl a bit or it's the trainee spot for the newest batsman in.
the all-rounder convention doesn't always make sense, why stick the guy that's going to be bowling next in later than everyone else, surely putting him in earlier gives him a chance to relax a bit rather than forcing him into situations where he's going to be batting with the tail a lot?
the thing that troubles me is that when doing run chases or setting a big score the line up is almost always totally unchangeable, surely if you have picked a no. 5 that's good at playing spin, and you're losing wickets to spin bringing him in earlier makes sense? ian bell is meant to be the best player of spin in england but never came up the order when ajmal or rehman were bowling through england (not that he would have helped given his performance) australia used clarke similarly despite his reputation.
Also, is it really a good idea to always stick the trainee in the no.6, always coming in 4 down when sometimes the runs needed can be crucial and put more pressure on the player given the tail is a wicket away. And on the occassions the no.6 is the slugger in the team (symonds' stint for australia) why do they never come up the order when there's a healthy lead on the board and perhaps a quick 50 would keep things ticking along?
It seems to me batting order is sometimes linked too much with status in the team and that players are unwilling to think outside the box when it comes to their implication for fear of upsetting someone. Although the countrer-point to that is a lot of teams put their best player at 4 rather than 3 (tendulkar, kallis, jayawardena, who was much quicker established than sangakkara) probably because they're hiding them in case a quick wicket falls against the new ball. Or maybe it's just the mental preperation needed to get ready to go in is so great that to constantly muck the order about would cause a lot of problems.
I just don't know basically, it seems so contradictory at times. The opener part is particularly baffling, why is phil hughes an opener? why is sehwag, a confident bludgeoner of spin, one?
Although, a lot of the time it seems to make a difference, Dilshan found moving into the openers slot totally re-ignited his career, ian bell has had success at 5 but struggled whenever moved upto 3. Similarly there seems to be cases of players sticking as openers for almost no reason other than that's what they are.
So, what in your opinion should determine where players are placed in the line up, and why do some players thrive in certain spots and struggle in others?
the best I can manage is dividing the top 6 into 3 pairs of players.
1 & 2, openers - it seems right now the fashion is to go with an attacking opener and a more solid one that can see off the new ball. They obviously do not need to be excellent players of spin so a strong back foot game is more important than good footwork, although those two things don't always go hand in hand, sehwag has poor footwork but is still more confident against spin than pace. there also seems to be a preference to have right and left handers opening, to mess with the new bowlers line a bit.
3 & 4, top order - Usually the best batsmen in the team, with the exceptions that an opener has become the key batsman and has stuck to that position. Seems again a lot of teams like to have a flashier one and a more solid builder (dravid and tendulkar, ponting and hussey, amla and kallis, trott and KP, sanga and jayawardena) though the attacking player is never as care free as the opening one.
I did think one of the things that marked the aussies of the 2000s out was that they were willing to have ponting play 3 and not 4, it's an attacking move. still, to be honest whether you play 3 or 4 all seems a bit arbitrary to me, ok a moved down opener will often play 3, but sri lanka for example, jayawardena opens in ODIs on occassion but plays after sangakkara who never does, KP's also opened in ODIs for england but sticks to the 4 spot in tests.
5 & 6, middle order - this is where things get muddy. what the hell makes a number 5, a lot of the time it just seems to be the most established of the two. the number 6 is either where you stick the guy that can bowl a bit or it's the trainee spot for the newest batsman in.
the all-rounder convention doesn't always make sense, why stick the guy that's going to be bowling next in later than everyone else, surely putting him in earlier gives him a chance to relax a bit rather than forcing him into situations where he's going to be batting with the tail a lot?
the thing that troubles me is that when doing run chases or setting a big score the line up is almost always totally unchangeable, surely if you have picked a no. 5 that's good at playing spin, and you're losing wickets to spin bringing him in earlier makes sense? ian bell is meant to be the best player of spin in england but never came up the order when ajmal or rehman were bowling through england (not that he would have helped given his performance) australia used clarke similarly despite his reputation.
Also, is it really a good idea to always stick the trainee in the no.6, always coming in 4 down when sometimes the runs needed can be crucial and put more pressure on the player given the tail is a wicket away. And on the occassions the no.6 is the slugger in the team (symonds' stint for australia) why do they never come up the order when there's a healthy lead on the board and perhaps a quick 50 would keep things ticking along?
It seems to me batting order is sometimes linked too much with status in the team and that players are unwilling to think outside the box when it comes to their implication for fear of upsetting someone. Although the countrer-point to that is a lot of teams put their best player at 4 rather than 3 (tendulkar, kallis, jayawardena, who was much quicker established than sangakkara) probably because they're hiding them in case a quick wicket falls against the new ball. Or maybe it's just the mental preperation needed to get ready to go in is so great that to constantly muck the order about would cause a lot of problems.
I just don't know basically, it seems so contradictory at times. The opener part is particularly baffling, why is phil hughes an opener? why is sehwag, a confident bludgeoner of spin, one?
