Why don't teams reverse the batting order when batting on green tops?

[msb314]

I was just reading that Don Bradman reversed his teams batting order during the 2nd innings of the 3rd Test of the 1936-37 Ashes after being sent in to bat on a rain-affected pitch - presumably to protect his top order batsman from unplayable conditions.

I wonder why aren't such tactics employed today on green tops?

Send in Junaid/Yasir to open on a green top. If they fail then so be it - if they can stick around atleast they blunt the new ball and the pitch flattens out after a session or two and when the main batsman come to bat - conditions will be so much easier.

There is the psychological disadvantage of presumably being 30-5 or 40-6 if such a tactic backfires but atleast you will have your main batsman coming in at the tail end.

Discuss!

 

[Bilal7]

Because this sends the message that your batsmen are rubbish and cannot bat in tough conditions. Also because it is more likely that a Hashim Amla or Joe Root will successfully see off the new ball rather than a Morkel or Anderson.

 

[msb314]

Because this sends the message that your batsmen are rubbish and cannot bat in tough conditions. Also because it is more likely that a Hashim Amla or Joe Root will successfully see off the new ball rather than a Morkel or Anderson.

Message or no message wouldn't it it mitigate the risk if a lower order batsman opens the innings? If he fails - then no worries as he is not a primary batsman. However, if he succeeds in playing out the new ball - the platform would be set for the specialist batsman to cash in later in the innings.

 

[Slog]

Because this sends the message that your batsmen are rubbish and cannot bat in tough conditions. Also because it is more likely that a Hashim Amla or Joe Root will successfully see off the new ball rather than a Morkel or Anderson.

However on a green pitch with the new ball the first 20 overs are VERY crucial.

And if those can be seen off then the conditions become much easier for batting

I think a team which sent its lower order batsmen up and is 45-3 after 20 overs of the new ball on a green pitch, is arguably in a better position than a team which is 60-2 after 20 overs, having lost its 2 main batsmen

 

[Black Zero]

Don Bradman did once.

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

I used to do this in EA cricket all the time although I am not too entirely sure how effective this would be in a real match scenario. That said, if it were came down to me I'd probably not send the #11 and #10 as opener(s) but instead #8 and #7 so that atleast they might have a chance to negate the threat rather than being absolute sitting ducks for the next 120 deliveries.

If they somehow manage 80% of the above task then even no matter if my team is a couple of wickets down I'll still consider the session as belonging to my team. As I said I am not too sure if how this would work in a real match scenario but I believe it's worth a go if the management is really trying to thing out of the box.

P.S. I wouldn't totally reverse the batting order but just plug in #8 and #7 as openers

7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
11

 

[R0H1T]

I used to do this in EA cricket all the time although I am not too entirely sure how effective this would be in a real match scenario. That said, if it were came down to me I'd probably not send the #11 and #10 as opener(s) but instead #8 and #7 so that atleast they might have a chance to negate the threat rather than being absolute sitting ducks for the next 120 deliveries.

If they somehow manage 80% of the above task then even no matter if my team is a couple of wickets down I'll still consider the session as belonging to my team. As I said I am not too sure if how this would work in a real match scenario but I believe it's worth a go if the management is really trying to thing out of the box.

P.S. I wouldn't totally reverse the batting order but just plug in #8 and #7 as openers

7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
11

This is similar to what the Don did, I think, he didn;t go full on reversal mode AFAIK in that famous test.

 

[TQ89]

Bowlers are breaking down too much nowadays especially the faster ones due to the frequency of test/odi/T20 cricket. It wouldnt make sense to ask them to bat too.

It would already overburden them and not serve too much strategic purpose. Todayd bowlers may not possess the wicket taking capabilities of their predecessors, hence they have to rely on other means to take wickets. They have to rely on fielding and this has made them very good at field setting and attacking with the field.

I don't think a bowler coming up is gonna do much damage to the opposition. Of course it isn't a hard rule and you have seen t20 cricket challenging thia notion as narine as opener in this years ipl. But in other format of cricket, it won't add much value and is self detrimental. Although that is what anybody said before somebody brought any type of innovation in cricket, so i would loved to be proved wrong in the future

 

[AlizeeFan]

Because this sends the message that your batsmen are rubbish and cannot bat in tough conditions. Also because it is more likely that a Hashim Amla or Joe Root will successfully see off the new ball rather than a Morkel or Anderson.

This.

You want your main batsman to do the tough job and make most of the condition later. Those are the skills you are valued for and if you don't have those skills, you are going to lose your place for those who can.

 

[AlizeeFan]

However on a green pitch with the new ball the first 20 overs are VERY crucial.

And if those can be seen off then the conditions become much easier for batting

I think a team which sent its lower order batsmen up and is 45-3 after 20 overs of the new ball on a green pitch, is arguably in a better position than a team which is 60-2 after 20 overs, having lost its 2 main batsmen

Problem is with tailenders are less likely to survive in such conditions. How many times we have tail being wrapped up for 2 digits or less on difficult track. You don't want to be 15-5 in 10 overs in dififcult conditons with main batsman not being able to play freely because of lack of batsmen to follow.

 

[Robert]

Don Bradman did once.

It was on a wet wicket. Hutton did it once in the fifties.

The idea was to send the lower order in and use up time while the sun dried the wicket. There are no wet wickets now.

Top order batsmen should be able to cope with a green seamer.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

It was on a wet wicket. Hutton did it once in the fifties.

The idea was to send the lower order in and use up time while the sun dried the wicket. There are no wet wickets now.

Top order batsmen should be able to cope with a green seamer.

Quite right. Wet wickets were weird in that if they dried out (which could happen very quickly if there was a hot baking sun), they'd get far better to bat on quite soon. In that case, it simply didn't make sense most of the time to send the best batsmen in early if you knew conditions were going to improve drastically in a short while.

Greentops don't get easier to bat on anywhere near as quickly. Wet wickets could go from unplayable to road in a matter of a couple of hours while greentops take the better part of a day in ideal conditions to go from difficult to decent.

 

[hadi123]

If you have to hide your batsmen from conditions like those, what hope do the tail enders really have? This would be a very negative tactic

 

[The Googly]

If Bradman did this, then it was a cowardly act to avoind facing the music himself!

The only cricketing reason for doing this if there were players lower down who could see off the new ball without scoring many runs OR if there were players lower down who could pinch hit effectively.

 

[wrongun]

I don't think any of the posters here understand the difference between a green pitch and an uncovered pitch and how each might play and for how long.

An uncovered pitch - the literal "sticky wicket" would turn as much or more than it would seam. And once the sun hardened it just a bit, it would remain a green, soft, seamer ala the trickiest England or NZ first morning pitch before finally just becoming a soft, slow one.

Perfect strategy in those days to reverse the batting order if caught on a true sticky wicket in order to hope your lower order could survive/delay until the next day when your batters could have half a chance on the seamer or cash in on the slow pitch if lucky. The sticky wicket was a real lottery, it would swing, seam and make cutters most difficult.

The medium pace cut bowler ala Bedser + the finger spinners used to thrive on such days and most teams had an equivalent. Covered pitches changed all that.

 

[TQ89]

It wasn't a cowardly act. Kindly do read up on 1936 ashes. You will be impressed by the Aussie team after that

It was a masterstroke by the great man. That move is still heralded as one of the best captain maneuveres in cricket.

 

[TQ89]

This explanation makes sense. Thanks for clearing it up

 

[Tusker]

If Bradman did this, then it was a cowardly act to avoind facing the music himself!

He most certainly did and scored a double hundred batting at #7 ... I mentioned this just yesterday on the Bradman thread. But it got ranked as the #1 innings by a Certain statto on Cricinfo and he did not like it at all when facts were presented to him. Essentially by the time the Aussie inngs started and by the time Bradman came out to bat at #7 there was a difference of more than 36 hours due to Rest Day . So by that time the pitch had completely dried out and was a batting beauty.

And I suspect it wont make a difference here too amongst the Bradman fanatics. It tells you the power of systematic propaganda.

 

[Robert]

No, it tells us that Sir Donald applied radical yet correct tactics for unusual conditions. There was a match to win after all.

 

[subshakerz]

I think you can argue that having one specialist bat on one end and a number 7/8/9 at the other end to block is worth considering. Basically you keep switching to have one specialist and one tailender as the innings moves on.

Of course, many, including your own specialist team batsmen, would interpret this as cowardice, an extreme form of nightwatchmanism.

 

[Jabo]

If you have to hide your batsmen from conditions like those, what hope do the tail enders really have? This would be a very negative tactic

Might get lucky.

 

[Jabo]

Anyway I remember in the CT, SA vs Ind (i think) sent in Robin Peterson in at 3 or something which I found weird, but he made a decent knock too (i think)

 

[Hasan123]

It's the batsmens job to see off difficult batting conditions. They are expected to have a technique and find a way to score runs. Obviously can't always expect batsmen to score on bowling friendly pitches but they should be able to more times at least once a series.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

I was just reading that Don Bradman reversed his teams batting order during the 2nd innings of the 3rd Test of the 1936-37 Ashes after being sent in to bat on a rain-affected pitch - presumably to protect his top order batsman from unplayable conditions.

I wonder why aren't such tactics employed today on green tops?

Send in Junaid/Yasir to open on a green top. If they fail then so be it - if they can stick around atleast they blunt the new ball and the pitch flattens out after a session or two and when the main batsman come to bat - conditions will be so much easier.

There is the psychological disadvantage of presumably being 30-5 or 40-6 if such a tactic backfires but atleast you will have your main batsman coming in at the tail end.

Discuss!

1. conditions rarely are that bad anymore: these were the days when pitches were uncovered and a rain shower meant doom and gloom. now such things don't happen.

2. modern day bowlers being clinical and realizing the shortcomings of each batsmen. stuart broad for example was a decent batsman and punished us badly but one injury later he has been found out and barely scores anymore as bowlers know where to target him.

3. protecting tail-enders from injuries. imagine being a captain and reversing your batting line up only to find out that your premium spin bowler is hit in the hands and has a broken hand and won't bowl for six months. captaincy level genius and probably your last test as a captain too.

i've listed only three, there are some other reasons as well to not practice that.

 

[msb314]

1. conditions rarely are that bad anymore: these were the days when pitches were uncovered and a rain shower meant doom and gloom. now such things don't happen.

2. modern day bowlers being clinical and realizing the shortcomings of each batsmen. stuart broad for example was a decent batsman and punished us badly but one injury later he has been found out and barely scores anymore as bowlers know where to target him.

3. protecting tail-enders from injuries. imagine being a captain and reversing your batting line up only to find out that your premium spin bowler is hit in the hands and has a broken hand and won't bowl for six months. captaincy level genius and probably your last test as a captain too.

i've listed only three, there are some other reasons as well to not practice that.

Point no. 3 can happen to anyone at any stage of the innings e.g. on a 5th day dustbowl or if the ball starts reverse swinging just before the new ball is due. So batting lineup will not reduce the chances of unfortunate injuries

Point no. 2 actually works in favor of altering the batting lineup. The bowling unit will be caught off guard if lower order batsman bat up the order and will be unsure of a bowling plan to bowl to them and will have to make something up on the fly - which may backfire.

 

[Mueez]

This was quite intelligent from Bradman!

 

[Cric1234]

Even if the pitch is flat scoring a double century is no mean feat however it wouldn't have been unplayable Bradman didn't do well on such wickets.
Thus he couldn't average 120 instead of 100 bringing standards more down from Swiss Village level to Local Park level. )

 

[Markhor]

Yasir and Amir have decent techniques - Amir's batting especially has potential. He scored an important 38 at the Oval Test last year vs England allowing Younis Khan to extend that 1st innings lead, a fifty in Brisbane against Starc/Hazlewood and co and that knock against Sri Lanka in the CT.

Yasir batted at 3 last year at in that same Oval Test and blunted the new ball enough so Shafiq and Younis could benefit from the easier batting conditions after.

Maybe its something to consider in a day-night Test if the pitch is quite green.

 

[backfootpunch]

To add to some of the points above you don't want the bowling side to build momentum by taking tail end wickets

 

[hitthestump]

You don't need to reverse the order but someone stodgy could do a job for sure. Yasir Shah springs to mind.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Can be tried if the pitch is extra ordinarily bad.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

Point no. 3 can happen to anyone at any stage of the innings e.g. on a 5th day dustbowl or if the ball starts reverse swinging just before the new ball is due. So batting lineup will not reduce the chances of unfortunate injuries

Point no. 2 actually works in favor of altering the batting lineup. The bowling unit will be caught off guard if lower order batsman bat up the order and will be unsure of a bowling plan to bowl to them and will have to make something up on the fly - which may backfire.

yes. junaid khan vs. mitchell starc is exactly the same as azhar ali vs. mitchell starc.

just because you are very much sold out to the idea of reversing the batting order, it doesn't in any form or way for most circumstances make any sense but for ur sake, yes, let's reverse the batting orders and open with junaid khan and muhammad abbas in south africa.

 

[Bilal7]

However on a green pitch with the new ball the first 20 overs are VERY crucial.

And if those can be seen off then the conditions become much easier for batting

I think a team which sent its lower order batsmen up and is 45-3 after 20 overs of the new ball on a green pitch, is arguably in a better position than a team which is 60-2 after 20 overs, having lost its 2 main batsmen

Message or no message wouldn't it it mitigate the risk if a lower order batsman opens the innings? If he fails - then no worries as he is not a primary batsman. However, if he succeeds in playing out the new ball - the platform would be set for the specialist batsman to cash in later in the innings.

Your openers must be far more equipped to deal with the new ball in those first 20 overs than your tail-enders. If they are not, then they should be replaced by openers that can.

Hashim Amla tried this once on the tour of India, where Vernon Philander opened the batting but the plan failed. And those were some impossibly tough pitches. There is a reason why this tactic isn't common and it's not because team captains and coaches are not as bright as fans.

If you have tail-enders that are superb at seeing off the new ball, then they won't remain tail-enders for long, as was the case with Azhar Ali.

 

[msb314]

yes. junaid khan vs. mitchell starc is exactly the same as azhar ali vs. mitchell starc.

just because you are very much sold out to the idea of reversing the batting order, it doesn't in any form or way for most circumstances make any sense but for ur sake, yes, let's reverse the batting orders and open with junaid khan and muhammad abbas in south africa.

Provide specific reason as to why addressing my points.

 

[Usman]

Don't we do this already when we send Shan Masood and Ahmed Shehzad out to bat as our 'openers'

 

[big_gamer007]

Simple the probability of tailenders surviving and contributing when ball is a bit old is much more than the probability of them being able to survive the new ball..
No point reversing the team order when there is a very high probability on green tops that after 5 overs your best batsmen will still be at the crease with scoreboard reason 10/6 or something..

 

[Rana]

There is no point really

 

[Rana]

I would rather be 40-3 after 20 instead of 20-4 after 20.

The tailenders wont score a run, there only hope is the nicks that fly away from the slips

 

[SM1989]

Why aren't tailenders sent to bat up the order?

They are walking wickets anyway. Could just send them up the order with instructions to bludgeon the ball. If they hit a valuable 20-30 that would be useful. If they get out, then their wickets aren't valuable.

 

[Abdul]

Shan Masood already opens.

 

[SM1989]

Shan Masood already opens.

Why does everything have to be about Shan Masood?

My question has nothing to do with Shan Masood.

 

[Abdul]

Why does everything have to be about Shan Masood?

My question has nothing to do with Shan Masood.

You were asking "why don't tailenders bat up the order" so I was just answering your question?

 

[shariqnoor]

This is because by reversing the batting order on a green top, more often than not, you'll be 20-5. Your best batsmen go in first because they would be the most capable to negotiate the green top wicket and it also allows your tailenders to get into the game as batsmen because they would, in the worst case scenario, be facing a 40 over ball rather than a brand new cherry. Gives them a better chance to score. Would be absolutely stupid to put your number 10 and 11 as openers on a green top.