How does having a strong batting depth give an advantage to a team in cricket?

ftbno1

Tape Ball Star
Joined
Nov 22, 2011
Runs
656
Many Asian analysts, such as Rashid Latif or Sunny Gavaskar, have repeatedly said that batting at no. 8 and 9 is overrated. However, I believe this thought process is archaic and gives too much reliance on bowlers’ credibility.

We must never forget that there are very few Bumrahs, Naseem Shahs, or Archers in the world who would contain the opposition irrespective of the situation. The difference between the fifth bowler and a part-time option is generally marginal.

Moreover, the main advantage of a long batting order is psychological rather than empirical. The freedom with which English or Australian openers bat is mostly related to having a deep batting lineup.

Obviously, we must not discount any strategy, but this perspective also has merit.​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because bowling strength is massively overrated in ODI cricket.

The deeper your batting lineup, the more it encourages top order batsmen to be aggressive and encourages them to take risks and bat for shorter periods instead of encouraging stat-padding.

On the other hand, there is no advantage to picking a lineup of 6 bowlers/bowling all-rounders because on a flat pitch, they'll all get hammered and you'll miss the extra batsman when you bat. On a helpful pitch, your 6 bowlers can still only bowl 50 overs and you will still miss the extra batsman to negotiate the tough pitch!

On the other hand , part of the reason the Aussies have had so much success in ODI World Cups is because they don't believe in the myth of bowling "allrounders". They would rather err on the side of extra batting and get overs finished with part timers/batting allrounders.

They are even comfortable with playing just 3 proper bowlers because they know that unless you can play extra "proven" wicket-taking bowlers , the extra batting depth is always preferable.

The batting lineup is freed up to be more aggressive and the captain will be forced to call on his main strike bowlers in crucial phases rather than resort to defensive options in order to stop runs.

Basically, it forces teams to play aggressive cricket throughout and that always works
 
I think that having a strong batting depth can help the team avoid collapses, handle the loss of early wickets, and have more confidence and resilience to rebuild the innings. if you have 7 to 8 good batters in your team on such flat wickets and in case your bowlers do get smashed, depth in batting will give you more chances to chase down huge totals.
 
Who wouldn’t want more batting depth. If it’s there great. However, it is more important to have 4-5 gun batsmen. If you can have that, you probably don’t need depth.
 
Yes, batting depth is extremely useful but it shouldn't come at the cost of actual bowling quality. First preference should always be to have atleast 3-4 gun bowlers. Their batting abilities are just a bonus.
 
I also wonder why 🤔.

It's almost as if scoring more than the opposition wins you a game of cricket.
 
In order to play 50 overs effectively, it is definitely helpful to have a strong batting lineup but one shouldn't only focus on having a strong batting lineup, the focus must be on having a well balanced team.
 
Almost all world cup winners required the services of lower order at some point. Akram made 33 in 22 balls in 1992 world cup. Probably played a crucial role. But his counter part Chris lewis registered a golden duck.
 
I think if ur top 6 are not performing, so ur tail can't win any matches for sure, so for me balance is more important than depth in batting.
 
I think if ur top 6 are not performing, so ur tail can't win any matches for sure, so for me balance is more important than depth in batting.
That is over-simplification. Longer tail means opposition just has to knock out just top 3.. boom you can force them into playing defensively for longer period. With added pressure you can pick up a wicket or two. Tail exposed. It is not always the case. You want an example? Australia could have potentially lost both.

 
Different mindsets.

1. The likes of England rely on their top order to attack, score quickly and not worry about the fall of wickets as they feel that if needed the numbers 7, 8, 9 can bat in such a way that they have the ability to score vital runs and contribute.

2. The likes of Pakistan have very little faith in their lower order and therefore you get the top order batters looking to bat carefully and cautiously and wanting to occupy the crease for the bulk of the 50 overs.

Option 1 for me, but that's only if you don't have a weak and long tail.
 
Cricket has changed a lot due to higher scoring pitches.

Putting huge runs on the board or able to chase down big scores, means you can have an avg day in the field and still win the game with ease.

England are a cut above others in this regard.
 
It's because of the 2 new balls rule and the new powerplay rules. It use to be mpre difficult to score in the past.

Now it isn't. Its become easier. In a world where 300 is the norm, you need strong batting.

England's strategy of outbatting the opposition is a strategy pakistan needs. We haven't adopted this approach yet and are happy with 1990 era players.
 
Having a strong batting depth means the team has genuine all-rounders, and all-rounders win the matches.
 
Always believed there should not be more than 2 No 11s. Also there should be 3 batsmen who could bowl as well. In short, dont be the Indian team of last 6-7 years.
 
Always believed there should not be more than 2 No 11s. Also there should be 3 batsmen who could bowl as well. In short, dont be the Indian team of last 6-7 years.
SOme of the Indian batsmen are not even no.11. They are more like no.12, no.13.
 
If that was the case , then teams would probably play all rounders from 8 - 11 . No one does that.

Suppose will India go with Chahar , Shivam Dube , Pandya , Jadeja and Washington sundar as last 5 ?
Will Pakistan go with faheem Ashraf , Anwar Ali , Nawaz , Imad abd shadab as last 5

Teams like all rounders , but they will not try to get depth by sacrificing too much on bowling front because if you do so , and score 350 - 380 runs , there is every chance opposition batters can get those runs easily .
 
It's because of the 2 new balls rule and the new powerplay rules. It use to be mpre difficult to score in the past.

Now it isn't. Its become easier. In a world where 300 is the norm, you need strong batting.

England's strategy of outbatting the opposition is a strategy pakistan needs. We haven't adopted this approach yet and are happy with 1990 era players.
England strategy is based around players they have , those batters are NOT so called pinch hitters , they have done well domestically , England batting does not have hitters like asif Ali and khushdil , they are proper batsmen who play positive cricket.
 
Numbers 8-10 are not required to score 50(60). Instead an innings 15(7) from them could decide the fate of the match.
 
SOme of the Indian batsmen are not even no.11. They are more like no.12, no.13.
You pick your best bowlers and batters. If your bowlers are quality you pick them . Cant weaken quality bowling for a few extra runs some bits and pieces cricketers can get. A good bowling unit can restrict opposite teams to lower totals. The great Aussie teams used to pick their 6 best batsmen 1 all rounder and 4 best bowlers. Aussie tail in 1999 had reifell McGrath Fleming warne - and only warne was a decent batter.

For india if it's shami siraj bumrah Kuldeep- shami can bat decently , bumrah can give a few runs. So if your 7 batsmen cant do the job your 8-10 wont get the runs for you but they can restrict teams to say 250+ vs 300+..
 
England strategy is based around players they have , those batters are NOT so called pinch hitters , they have done well domestically , England batting does not have hitters like asif Ali and khushdil , they are proper batsmen who play positive cricket.
England is different. They just have quality batters who bowl , quality allrounders and quality bowlers who can bat. No wonder they are a champion team. And as you say these are not pinch hitters but genuinely good proper batters who play with intent and aggression.

Other teams Can't compare to what they have. You play with whatever players you have. Or else they will get as you mentioned
India go with - Chahar , Shivam Dube , Pandya , Jadeja and Washington sundar as last 5 and Pakistan go with faheem Ashraf , Anwar Ali , Nawaz , Imad and shadab as last 5 - teams will score 400+ and these bits and pieces guys will get no where close to 400..
 
England is different. They just have quality batters who bowl , quality allrounders and quality bowlers who can bat. No wonder they are a champion team. And as you say these are not pinch hitters but genuinely good proper batters who play with intent and aggression.

Other teams Can't compare to what they have. You play with whatever players you have. Or else they will get as you mentioned
India go with - Chahar , Shivam Dube , Pandya , Jadeja and Washington sundar as last 5 and Pakistan go with faheem Ashraf , Anwar Ali , Nawaz , Imad and shadab as last 5 - teams will score 400+ and these bits and pieces guys will get no where close to 400..
Yes , England have changed there attitude and picked up players who can execute those plans made. They are not afraid to lose few games . They have coaches as well as scientific background people in the planning .

Pakistan on the other hand is afraid to lose to Nepal and play there full strength team !
 
It is all about the balance. However, in modern day cricket, the conditions are such that no matter how good of a bowler you are - you will get smashed for runs so bowling better deliveries doesn't give much reward.

England have the luxury of bowling allrounders (woakes, Willey) and bowlers who can bowl (jofra, rashid) and that gives the a huge amount of depth.

Bangladesh for example is going in 6 genuine bowling options and rather shallow batting depth. Those 6 bowling options wont really give you a huge edge but that extra batsman could give you massive benefit. It puts the existing batsmen under a bit of ease and also gives them freedom to bat aggressively. England knows Moien, Rashid and Woakes are going to give you handy runs.

India on the other hand usually fall apart when their top and middle order fails. How many matches have India won when their top 4/5 were dismissed cheaply? I can't remember much. Sure India doesn't have the luxury England has but I just want folks to wonder.
 
I find that there’s a few primary reasons:

1) Deep batting lineups help prevent collapses. You aren’t overly reliant on the top order firing.

2) Good late order batsmen can add 20-40 runs at the end which on some pitches can take you from a par score to nearly an unchaseble one. I’d back Pakistan to chase 280 on most occasions, but 310-320 seems much much harder.

3) Good late order batsmen also allow the primary batsmen at the top of the order to play much more free, knowing that there’s much more batting to come.
 
England strategy is based around players they have , those batters are NOT so called pinch hitters , they have done well domestically , England batting does not have hitters like asif Ali and khushdil , they are proper batsmen who play positive cricket.

Fair enough.
 
Today match exposed this myth .just play your pure wicket taking bowlers instead of bits and pieces players.
 
Today match exposed this myth .just play your pure wicket taking bowlers instead of bits and pieces players.
You need to have at least 4 proper bowlers , otherwise on this surfaces if couple of batters get going , they can destroy any bowling. Out of four one will have a bad day , that is why you need to make sure , you do not weaken the bowling too much.

India is likely to go with three spinners against Australia in Chennai.
 
You need to have at least 4 proper bowlers , otherwise on this surfaces if couple of batters get going , they can destroy any bowling. Out of four one will have a bad day , that is why you need to make sure , you do not weaken the bowling too much.

India is likely to go with three spinners against Australia in Chennai.
Yes three spinners along with Bumrah ,Siraj and Pandya. It's a good attack as most people's underrated Pandya bowling but he is a quality allrounder .
 
Yes three spinners along with Bumrah ,Siraj and Pandya. It's a good attack as most people's underrated Pandya bowling but he is a quality allrounder .
India has the option to pick XI according to pitch and opposition. The only issue will be whether to get extra batsman or bowler. If Pandya is at 7 , you can get in ishan Kishan or SKY at 6 .

If Pandya is at 6 , then you get jadeja at 7 etc . Then you need to drop the extra batter.

If Pandya can bowl 10 overs then you can take that chance , but I do not think India will take that. They will look for 10 overs split between Pandya and Jadeja.
 
India has the option to pick XI according to pitch and opposition. The only issue will be whether to get extra batsman or bowler. If Pandya is at 7 , you can get in ishan Kishan or SKY at 6 .

If Pandya is at 6 , then you get jadeja at 7 etc . Then you need to drop the extra batter.

If Pandya can bowl 10 overs then you can take that chance , but I do not think India will take that. They will look for 10 overs split between Pandya and Jadeja.
I don't think india just going with 5 bowling option because no batters can bowl part time bowling for 4-5 over if any main bowler has an off day .
Pandya+ 5 Proper bowlers is indian team management strategy from long time .
 
I don't think india just going with 5 bowling option because no batters can bowl part time bowling for 4-5 over if any main bowler has an off day .
Pandya+ 5 Proper bowlers is indian team management strategy from long time .
So Pandya has to bat at number 6 for that.
Now question is which 5 bowlers they pick .

India has 2 - 3 options there as well. jadeja and Ashwin coming at 7 and 8 .
This is probably the best one they can chose with kuldeep and two pacers to follow.

But Ashwin is good with bat in Test , not a hitter.
 
So Pandya has to bat at number 6 for that.
Now question is which 5 bowlers they pick .

India has 2 - 3 options there as well. jadeja and Ashwin coming at 7 and 8 .
This is probably the best one they can chose with kuldeep and two pacers to follow.

But Ashwin is good with bat in Test , not a hitter.
India need three spinner against Australia and England at Chennai and Lucknow respectively.
If they need only 2 spinners then kuldeep and Jadeja are going to be two spinner .
If india need 3 Pacers then siraj and bumrah are locked its choice between Thakur and shami .i Prefer Shami over thakur anyday
 
Different mindsets.

1. The likes of England rely on their top order to attack, score quickly and not worry about the fall of wickets as they feel that if needed the numbers 7, 8, 9 can bat in such a way that they have the ability to score vital runs and contribute.

2. The likes of Pakistan have very little faith in their lower order and therefore you get the top order batters looking to bat carefully and cautiously and wanting to occupy the crease for the bulk of the 50 overs.

Option 1 for me, but that's only if you don't have a weak and long tail.
Funnily enough, Pakistan has the deepest batting lineup in the tournament simply because the best available bowlers happen to be good at batting anyway. In fact, Pakistan is not using this strength efficiently, but it's still an advantage.
 
If that was the case , then teams would probably play all rounders from 8 - 11 . No one does that.

Suppose will India go with Chahar , Shivam Dube , Pandya , Jadeja and Washington sundar as last 5 ?
Will Pakistan go with faheem Ashraf , Anwar Ali , Nawaz , Imad abd shadab as last 5

Teams like all rounders , but they will not try to get depth by sacrificing too much on bowling front because if you do so , and score 350 - 380 runs , there is every chance opposition batters can get those runs easily .
In Pakistan's case, it makes no sense because even Hasan Ali, Shaheen Shah, Haris Rauf who are 9, 10, 11 are very capable of batting.
 
So Pandya has to bat at number 6 for that.
Now question is which 5 bowlers they pick .

India has 2 - 3 options there as well. jadeja and Ashwin coming at 7 and 8 .
This is probably the best one they can chose with kuldeep and two pacers to follow.

But Ashwin is good with bat in Test , not a hitter.
Ravi Ashwin's had quite a bit of success in IPL as a hitter. He's floated up the order as pinch-hitter and played crucial cameos at 7 as well for RR who generally have less batting depth.
 
Ravi Ashwin's had quite a bit of success in IPL as a hitter. He's floated up the order as pinch-hitter and played crucial cameos at 7 as well for RR who generally have less batting depth.
He is good test Batsman , in OD I a do not think so. His hitting is very awkward.
 
Back
Top