Is it acceptable for Test teams to have bowlers who can't bat?

[InziFans]

India going in with 4 No.11s in the Perth Test has got me thinking about how tail-enders adding valuable runs at the end can change games, as seen in the England-India series. The Aussies adding 36 runs at the end of the 2nd innings undoubtedly had an impact, with Kohli saying they'd have preferred a target that was lower by 30-40 runs. Yet, a lot of people, such as Manjrekar, would still prefer a really good bowler who averages less than 10 or even 5 with the bat than a slightly worse bowler, or bowling all-rounder, who can bat and add a solid 15-25 runs at the end.

Since many matches are decided by close margins, is it time that teams emphasised on finding a XI that can bat all the way through the order? If having a low bowling average is so important because it can prevent maybe 20-30 extra runs being scored per innings, then surely having tail-enders who can add up to 50 runs to the total should also be considered important?

 

[Varun]

Ideally we'd like them to bat but since our bowlers have historically been utter gash this current scenario where they can rattle teams out with the ball isn't too bad.

Not picking Ashwin/Jadeja this test has accentuated their feebleness with the willow.

 

[Ab Fan]

I would say no, it is not acceptable.

Runs from tail play huge role in team's overall contribution. At minimum, your no. 8 should be a capable batsmen, averaging 25+. For no. 9,10 &11, you shouldn't play with your main bowlers even if they can't hold bat and should go with bowling option completely but a no. 8 must be a capable batsmen.

 

[InziFans]

I would say no, it is not acceptable.

Runs from tail play huge role in team's overall contribution. At minimum, your no. 8 should be a capable batsmen, averaging 25+. For no. 9,10 &11, you shouldn't play with your main bowlers even if they can't hold bat and should go with bowling option completely but a no. 8 must be a capable batsmen.

Right. But a little more pressure should be put on them to improve their batting. Maybe not Bumrah, because he seems hopeless and seems to be trying hard to improve anyway, but somebody should have a word with Shami about not trying to slog every other ball.

 

[Robert]

One, maybe. But he has to be able to field well.

 

[Bilal7]

Yes. Totally acceptable to have a tail of, say, Waqar, Donald, McGrath and Murali. The tail only ever becomes a problem when either the bowlers are not good enough (Umesh, Ishant) or the batsmen are not good enough (Rahul, Vijay, Vihari).

It is insane to blame numbers 8-11 for not scoring enough runs. Just like it is insane to blame numbers 1-5 for not picking up enough wickets. It is the batsmen's job to score runs, not the bowlers'.

A bowler who can bat is an enormous luxury, just like a batsman who can bowl. This is why genuinely great all-rounders are the best kind of cricket player (Imran, Sobers, Kallis) and why lesser players who have a secondary skill have become fixtures of their national teams over the years (Hafeez, Moeen, Stokes).

Asking Bumrah to become an international level batsman is like asking a random joe off the street to become an international level batsman. It is extremely difficult and takes a lot of time and practice, resources that a bowler should spend on his bowling. Fans tend to forget that just because someone is talented at bowling does not mean that he will be talented at batting. These are completely different activities and is not like soccer or basketball where a player can easily change his role in the team and most players are equally capable at multiple positions and roles

 

[Bilal7]

I would say no, it is not acceptable.

Runs from tail play huge role in team's overall contribution. At minimum, your no. 8 should be a capable batsmen, averaging 25+. For no. 9,10 &11, you shouldn't play with your main bowlers even if they can't hold bat and should go with bowling option completely but a no. 8 must be a capable batsmen.

You say this but then I wonder if you will be able to provide a small list of successful teams who have had a number 8 that averaged at least 25 with the ball. Wicket-keepers do not count.

 

[kingusama92]

Before anything else, you pick the best four bowlers.

Like Bilal7 said, you don't ignore Murali, Waqar, Mcgrath, or Donald because they can't bat. You pick all four.

Of course, no team has that type of quality at their disposal. However, the rule still applies. You pick the top four bowlers in your country (depending on the pitch) whether they bat like Don Bradman or Chris Martin.

The same applies to batting. You pick the best batsmen instead of bringing in "batting allrounders" because they can bowl a bit.

Yes, there's nothing wrong with all-rounders but their main specialization should be strong enough to merit a spot on its own (i.e. Imran Khan as a bowler or Kallis as a batsman).

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Gotta be flexible.

Hardcore principles may not work.

Modern cricket has changed.

It all depends on a team's strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Ab Fan]

Right. But a little more pressure should be put on them to improve their batting. Maybe not Bumrah, because he seems hopeless and seems to be trying hard to improve anyway, but somebody should have a word with Shami about not trying to slog every other ball.

If you are a capable batsmen, then surely. I feel Shami can improve his batting (or rather just play more sensibly) given there is Ishant and Bumrah at 10 & 11 but his priorities should be bowling firstly.

 

[reversehook]

Teams like eng, sa, aus, nz the tail tries to bat it out and get those extra few runs... our tail is like awesome pehli pe cheeka, dosri pe chouka teesri pe.... and when they get in middle pehli ya doosri pe out on duck...

 

[KP From India]

If the four are likes of Mcgrath, Murali, Wasim, Donald, then they need not bat.
However the four are Shrinath, Kumble, Zaheer, Starc then they should contribute atleast 15 runs individually.

 

[Ab Fan]

You say this but then I wonder if you will be able to provide a small list of successful teams who have had a number 8 that averaged at least 25 with the ball. Wicket-keepers do not count.

The examples are always tough to give because for a highly successful team, there are many things that need to work in your way- batting, bowling, all-rounder, wkt-keeping, fielding etc. There is no pattern to it.

But it is always important to have a no. 8 who can bat properly. The runs by lower order are frustrating always and if a 150-5 can be taken to 275, then we have put up a good total on board if the pitch was helping seamers initially with new ball,in particular. The conditions for batting dont remain same and once pitch flattens up after say, a couple of hours of overcast conditions and hostlile bowling,then no.7 and no.8 can still make up for the early collapses.

SA and England won the series against India at home because of the runs added by tail. Most of their batsmen were out of form or ineffective but it is the tail runs that frustrated them.

To conclude my point, we should not sacrifice the bowling options but need to also concentrate on runs coming from tail as they play major role too.

 

[ILcricket]

Best bowlers should be in 11 . Their batting ability if any is a bonus .

 

[Swashbuckler]

We can carry only one bowler in the team who doesn't know how to bat, Bumrah is our candidate. Remaining 3-4 must be able to bat. Our number 8 must be a 25-30 averaging player (Ashwin/Jadeja/Bhuvi) and numbers 9 and 10 must do better. I don't want them (9, 10) to score much but if they are able to play 30-35 deliveries per innings even if they add only 10-12 runs I will take it. Shami has some ability but is showing zero responsibility, Ishant has the tools to stay at the crease but I hope he works harder. Number 8 is key, can't repeat the mistake we did here. Batsmen need that extra cushion otherwise they will feel serious pressure at the fall of 5th wicket. If the tail (last 4) can collectively give confidence that it can deliver 50 runs on an average consuming 110 deliveries our batters will play more freely. Just like how in ODIs Indian top 3 has extra burden to compensate for weak middle order, in test cricket our middle order has that pressing worry which can cloud shot selection/tempo.

Now I hope Indian bros on PP appreciate Ashwin's contribution in Adelaide (day 1). We were 127/6 with Aussie tails up on a surface which was helping their quicks. It could have easily resulted in a 145 a.o situation with us conceding a 100+ runs 1st innings lead, a game clincher for the opposition. But Ashwin-Pujara took the score to 190/7 batting 25 overs in the process, adding to frustration in the Aussie camp when they were in a position of closing us out. It also helped Pujara's confidence who started scoring more freely and without any sense of urgency. By the time Ash got out not only were we better placed but also our specialist batsman had played 200 balls and was seeing the ball like a football against 70 year old seam-less Kookaburra and tiring fast bowlers, even the juice in the pitch had evaporated under the baking hot sun. This is what I expect from a number 8 batsman, Ash scored only 25 (76) but his stay at the crease was impressive. An Asian team recovering from 40/4, 86/5, 127/6 on day 1 to win a test match in Australia, don't underplay the significance of such a win.

 

[jeetu]

Current Indian team is unlucky to have bowlers who are terrible batsman. Injury to Hardik Pandya and Ashwin makes Indian lower order extremely weak.

 

[AFM]

It depends on the team. If yo have a solid and reliable Top 6, who can be relied to alteast score 300-350 between them consistently, then 8-11 can be picked purely on bowling ability.

 

[Hasan123]

Anyday I'll pick specialist bowlers over fake all rounders. There is no certainty that an all rounder will score the runs you are looking for. Also their bowling could go for double the runs and put his team behind in the game.

India's bowling is what has kept them in this game. The batsmen have to step up for India.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

It depends on the team. If yo have a solid and reliable Top 6, who can be relied to alteast score 300-350 between them consistently, then 8-11 can be picked purely on bowling ability.

Exactly.

Its not an open and shut case.

Plus rarely will you hav 4 bowlers who are so clearly better than the rest but all dunces with the bat.

 

[Justcrazy]

You need to play your four best bowlers . That is important.

There is no point in playing bits and pieces players just because they can bat. Otherwise opposition may be scoring 500 every innings.

 

[iPakistani]

It really shocked me how the Indian tail + Pant gave up the 2nd test match so easily. They came out with their full kit but had no idea how to bat. If they could have atleast survived midway through second session and gone down with a fight it gives a huge impression to the Australian team.

 

[MMHS]

3 bowlers make the XI on bowling merit and they kept IND in the game. For the 4th one (Umesh), it was actually a selection blunder - IND didn't pick a spinner on a track where an Aussie spinner has won MoM!!!! Ashwin would have made a perfect balanced XI, if not they should have gone with Jadeja.

Ishant, Shami has regressed as batsmen otherwise they were not that poor. Normally, tail contribution doesn't happen if both ends are open, and it doesn't happen much batting 2nd. Probably today they knew that target was too far and no specialist batsman at other end, decided not to try a fight, otherwise Ishant definitely and Shami as well has put some valuable partnerships in past. Last J'burg Test,IND tail indeed put valuable runs on a difficult wicket.

But, tail-enders definitely should try to improve their batting. Ishant doesn't play ODI/T20 and he is almost like a Test specialist; yet averages <8 with which is absolutely unacceptable. Shami's average is also like 11 , and he is also like a Test specialist.

Modern cricket or not, at least 3 bowlers has to be on absolute bowling merit - I prefer 4, but may be the 4th one can be a compromise choice. Fast bowling all-rounders are the MVP of the game - it doesn't happen that every generation there'll be a Wasim Akram. Don't think IND lost this Test for the tail batting - if Top 3 leaves for a combined team score of less than 50 after both innings, 15-20 from tail hardly matters.

 

[The Viper]

Jadeja should have played over Umesh to bolster the batting and i don't think he would have done that bad with the ball. The openers are the big worry. India's openers got 22 runs in this Test which is pathetic. Look at that contribution compared to Aus openers- 165 runs. Huge difference and doesn't help the middle order bats.

 

[hadi123]

Having 4 number 11's was a big problem for India