Lower-order players bat longer, look better, score more tons, but their averages haven’t really been improving

Alastair Smart01-Feb-2008

It is the second Test of the 1932-33 Bodyline series and Australia’s No.11, Bert Ironmonger, is trudging out to bat at the MCG. His wife phones the dressing room and is told she has just missed him: he is halfway to the crease. “That’s okay,” she replies. “I’ll hang on.”This story may be apocryphal but it is grounded in enough truth to be believable: Ironmonger averaged under 3 in Tests and played in an age when bowlers bowled, batsmen batted, and the lower order rarely troubled the scorers. The contrast with today appears stark, as anyone who witnessed the India tailender Anil Kumble bat for three-and-a-half hours for his unbeaten 110 at The Oval in 2007 will know. (Let us hope Mrs Kumble was not on the phone waiting.)Centuries from the lower order, like Kumble’s, are more common now than ever. Jason Gillespie even hit a double-hundred, against Bangladesh in 2006, albeit as nightwatchman. And as the first table below shows, a tailender reaches three figures every 88 innings in the 2000s, compared with every 134 in the 1990s and every 193 in the 1960s.”Gone are the days when you get the opposition six down and you’re already thinking about batting,” says the ECB’s new performance director, David Parsons. “You really have to work hard to roll over a tail in Test cricket nowadays.”Three reasons for this immediately spring to mind. First, cricket has grown ever more batsman-friendly over the years: the pitches are flatter and drier; the bats are chunkier, with bigger sweet-spots; the guards and helmets are sturdier; the front-foot rule and
limits on behind-square fielders make no-balling likelier. It is no wonder today’s tails are wagging; batsmen at all numbers score more easily.Secondly, there is the influence of one-day cricket, where with wickets regularly clattering, scoring down the order is a must. Tailenders in all forms of the game are thus more adept at hitting runs, especially quick runs. Even technically limited players, like
Steve Harmison and Shoaib Akhtar, have bashed their way to some decent Test scores.Thirdly, and most importantly for Parsons, there is the professionalism of the modern game. “It’s universally accepted now that one-dimensional cricketers are a luxury. A tailender is expected to contribute with the bat, just like a recognised batsman is
expected to be good in the field. At the top level you’re always trying to find an extra few per cent advantage over your opposition.”So how much time do England’s 9, 10 and Jack spend on finding these magical few per cent, and would they not be better off just spending it on their bowling? “In the days running up to a Test, guys like Monty Panesar and Jimmy Anderson train in three-hour
blocks — devoting an hour each to bowling, batting and fielding,” says Parsons. “With a Test match looming, we also don’t like to over-burden them bowling-wise, particularly the fast bowlers. Which means they’ve more time to spend with [batting coach] Andy Flower.”Will they be perfecting their cross-batted mow over midwicket? “No, they’ll be working on their technique, whether in the nets or studying on videos,” says Parsons. “Predominantly this’ll be on developing a sound defence, plus a few shots to get off
strike. Just by sticking around at the crease for 30 balls, that might allow your No. 6 to dominate the strike, face 90 balls himself and score 50 runs.”The career-long improvement in Glenn McGrath’s play is testament to this. By continual work on his batting not only did his average leap from 3.18 in his first 25 matches to 12.26 in his last 25; more significantly, the average number of balls he faced
per dismissal shot up too, from 10 to 26. Asterisks by McGrath’s name became a familiar sight on the Australian scorecard, and just by occupying the crease he would allow a free-scoring team-mate like Adam Gilchrist – or, memorably, Mike Hussey with whom he shared a 10th-wicket partnership of 107 in 2005-06, of which McGrath scored 11 from 56 of the 165 balls – to collect a bucketful of runs at the other end.McGrath’s stats may be misleading, though. One could assume from them that today’s tailenders are far handier with the bat than their predecessors, but the overall figures tell a surprising story: tails do not actually wag any more now than before. Numbers 7-11 average under 19 per head in the 2000s, less than the corresponding figure for the 1980s; and their contribution to total runs scored (20.72%) is less than in the 1980s and the 1950s. In fact, the cross-decade figures are remarkably similar: a tailender’s average has consistently been between 16 and 19 and the tail has consistently scored 18-21% of all runs.

It seems the hype over a few extra individual centurions has clouded the truth that the tail contribute no more now as a troupe than
they have ever done.But why so? In part this might be because the 2000s have been dominated by Shane Warne and Muttiah Muralitharan, who have
hoovered up countless tails between them. A plucky No. 9 can practise digging out yorkers and fending off short balls all he likes to combat the quicks but preparing to face arguably the two greatest spinners ever is notoriously hard. Indeed, the lack of
quality spinners in the 1980s might explain why the tail prospered most in that decade.The lower order may have been victims of their own perceived success. Because they are now working so hard on their batting and scoring more centuries, bowlers in turn are refusing them the liberties they once had. Gone are the days when pacemen
took pity and observed an etiquette of not roughing up tailenders with short stuff. They are treated like any other batsmen nowadays, and this may have harmed their figures.There is also a growing sense that many sides are beginning to see beyond and through arguments for a strong tail at all costs. Relying on the top six or seven to score the bulk of the runs and picking bowlers on their bowling ability alone are seemingly becoming fashionable again.Double-hundred or not, Gillespie was dropped by Australia after that match and has not played since because of his sub-standard
bowling. While South Africa’s former lower-order players (Lance Klusener, Andrew Hall, Nicky Boje, etc) often seemed more impressive with bat than ball, their vice-captain Ashwell Prince suggested a philosophy change when, during the recent series against New Zealand, he said: “You have to get their guys out. If a team declares on over 500, it doesn’t matter if our guys at eight, nine or 10 can bat.”

Likewise in post-Fletcher England. Michael Vaughan said before the recent Tests in Sri Lanka: “We’d love to have [lower-order] guys who can get fifties and hundreds … but we have to try to pick the right bowlers to get 20 wickets, which is a positive step to try and win. If we miss out by a few runs in the batting, so be it.”Vaughan’s use of the word “positive” is significant. For the professionalism of the modern game is a double-edged sword. Yes,
teams want to earn every last run from every last player but they also want to maximise their chance of taking 20 wickets to win a game. Are the two mutually exclusive?Parsons thinks not: “You pick your bowlers primarily on their ability to bowl but that doesn’t stop you working up the batting skills of the ones you do pick, as much as possible.”So which side has the strongest tail (Table 2)? And how successful have they been? The resounding answer to the first question is
New Zealand, whose tailenders over the last three years have had by far the best average per head (almost 24 — no other country
averages above 20) and contributed by far the biggest share of their team’s runs (22% — next best are Bangladesh, with just under 17%). Yet the Black Caps have won fewer matches in that period than any other major Test nation except West Indies. Is there a connection?Certainly, says New Zealand’s No. 11 Shane Bond (who averages 12.63). “Our top order just hasn’t been getting us off to the starts we need. So the guys below are regularly under pressure to deliver, they’re getting used to a lot of Test match batting and they’re scoring a big chunk of the runs.”The dominance of one-day cricket in New Zealand may also be a connecting factor between their strong tail and poor form.
While their players are adept at every discipline they are exceptional at none, making them unsuitable for the fierce skill examination of Tests.”I don’t think so,” says Bond. “We’re just blessed right now with a number of bowlers – especially Daniel Vettori and James Franklin – who can also bat. Their abilities come to the fore most in ODIs but we’d be in real trouble without them in the Test team too.”

Whatever the explanation, the case of New Zealand suggests a successful tail does not make for a successful team. In fact, it might even be a sign of weakness. Maybe flooding your lower order with players who bat decently could be seen as a default option for
teams who do not have enough talented batsmen to score heavily or enough talented bowlers to take wickets. (In their last Test, against South Africa in November, New Zealand fielded no batsman with an average over 40 and no frontline bowler with an
average under 34.)The most successful sides – 2000s Australia and 1980s West Indies – pick themselves: the best six batsmen and best four bowlers, who excel so much at their major discipline that they are not often needed to contribute in another. It tends to be the lesser teams who jiggle the balance of their sides. And though Australia do have the world’s second-best-averaging tail, that is probably more a welcome side-effect of their strong top order than testament to hang-ups about a strong tail. Batting is far easier once Matthew Hayden, Ricky Ponting and the other brutes have exhausted the opposition bowlers. Even Bert Ironmonger’s wife might have had to stay on the phone a while if he had played in that team.

For the Indians it was a familiar story of top-order failure followed by a late revival

S Rajesh24-Feb-2008
The key requisites of one-day cricket are fitness, temperament, and a range of strokes, and Gambhir showed he has all three in abundance © Getty Images
After being pushed on to the back foot by the bowlers throughout this tournament, the batsmen at last had something to smile about – the flat pitch, lack of seam movement and the quick outfield were all ideal for run-making, but for the Indians it was a familiar story of top-order failure followed by a late revival.Gautam Gambhir’s polished century and Robin Uthappa’s frenetic fifty shouldn’t hide the fact that India’s best batsmen have been worryingly absent in the CB Series, and the team has lived and died by the performance of the lower middle-order. When they have made significant contributions – as they did against Australia in Melbourne and against Sri Lanka in Adelaide – the team has gone on to win; when they have floundered, as they did against Australia in a low-scoring game in Adelaide, the result has been embarrassing.In six out of seven matches so far, India have lost their fourth wicket with less than 100 on the board, leaving Mahendra Singh Dhoni and the rest to do much more than their fair share of work. When the squad for the tournament was announced, there was plenty of concern about the lack of experience in the batting line-up, but ironically, it’s the most experienced ones who have been letting the team down so far.Yuvraj Singh played one exceptional innings against Sri Lanka in Melbourne, but that apart, he has scored 42 in five innings, while the opening act of Sachin Tendulkar and Virender Sehwag – both of whom were in smashing form during the Tests – has been even more disappointing: Tendulkar has a highest of 44 from seven innings, while Sehwag has an aggregate of 81 from five. They are the three superstars of the batting order yet they all have an average of less than 20 in the tournament.Tendulkar has been in fine fettle in both forms of the game over the last couple of years, but just like the fourth innings has been a bit of a jinx for him in Tests, the run-chase has caught him cold in ODIs: over the last three years, Tendulkar averages a mere 26.94 in the 39 matches that India have chased, with 18 single-digit scores. During the same period, he has averaged 56.03 in the 32 innings when India have batted first, with four centuries and just seven scores of less than ten. The last time Tendulkar scored a century in a run-chase was nearly four years ago, when he stroked a glorious 141 in Rawalpindi against Pakistan.While the pressure of the run-chase hasn’t suited Tendulkar, it did little to rein in the flair of Gambhir, who has added consistency to his other virtues to make himself an indispensable member of the batting line-up. He scored fourth-innings hundreds in the semi-final and the final of the Ranji Trophy, and under the lights in Sydney showed once again that he doesn’t mind the pressures of a target.For long Gambhir hasn’t been given his due as an ODI player: critics question his technique around off stump and his tendency to open the face of the bat, but the key requisites of one-day cricket are fitness, temperament, and a range of strokes, and Gambhir showed he has all three in abundance.He came in to bat after India had lost Tendulkar, and they soon slumped to 4 for 51, but not once did Gambhir allow the seemingly hopeless situation to faze him. Equally, he didn’t allow himself to get into reckless mode either even though the asking rate was mounting. When the squad for the tournament was announced, there was plenty of concern about the lack of experience in the batting line-up, but ironically, it’s the most experienced ones who have been letting the team down so far Throughout, he kept up an impressive tempo, running hard between the wickets to keep the score moving, and improvising superbly to strike the boundaries which kept the required rate within achievable limits. He had shown the same composure in big-match situations during the World Twenty20, and further experience and exposure at the highest level will only increase his consistency.Uthappa proved his utility at No. 7, and has made a strong case to deserve a promotion up the order. The skills required to combat the new ball, though, are very different to those that are required down the order, and Uthappa’s energetic knock will probably tempt Dhoni to keep him at that slot.After a surprisingly strong start to the tournament, India have fallen away somewhat, with three defeats in their last four games, but thanks to the limp Sri Lankans, they are still the favourites to make the final cut. With the top order floundering like it is, though, Sri Lanka will believe they still have a chance to ensure that they’ll have all to play for against Australia next Sunday.

Cricket is about to take a leap of faith in technology with the trial of a system that allows players to challenge the decision of the on-field umpires

Jamie Alter in Colombo22-Jul-2008Review of umpiring decisionsWhat?
It allows players to seek reviews, by the third umpire, of decisions by the on-field umpires on whether or not a batsman has been dismissed. When?
A player can request a review of any decision by the on-field officials concerning whether or not a batsman is dismissed, with the exception of “timed out”. No other umpiring decisions are eligible for review. Each team can make three unsuccessful requests per innings, which must be made within a few seconds of the ball becoming dead; once made, the requests cannot be withdrawn.Who?
Only the batsman involved in a dismissal can ask for a review of an “out” decision; in a “not out”, only the captain or acting captain of the fielding team. In both cases players can consult on-field teammates but signals from off the field are not permitted.How?
A review request can be made by the player with a ‘T’ sign; the umpire will consult the TV umpire, who will review TV coverage of the incident before relaying back fact-based information. The field umpire can then either reverse his decision or stand by it; he indicates “out” with a raised finger and “not out” by crossing his hands in a horizontal position side to side in front and above his waist three times.Technology
The TV umpire can use slow-motion, ultra-motion and super-slow replays, the mat, sound from the stump mics and “approved ball tracking technology”. Snicko and Hot Spot are not to be used.Click here to read the ICC guidelines in detail.Cricket is about to take a leap of faith in technology with the trial of a system that allows players to challenge the decision of the on-field umpires in the Test series between Sri Lanka and India. The umpire’s word will no longer be final.The system has been tried, somewhat unsuccessfully, and in the relatively obscure environment of county cricket. But,after a shelved proposal to use it in the current England-South Africa series, millions of television viewers now await the sight of the first-ever referral to be made in an international contest. The jury is out on whether the move is designed to undermine the umpires or to assist them, but the acceptance of the system will depend by the decisions it produces.At one level, the referral process is likely to eliminate obvious umpiring errors, such as the reprieve of Andrew Symonds in the Sydney Test last year that led to India threatening to call off their Australian tour, but there are also apprehensions about the exactitude of technology, particularly in the area of catches close to the ground and in the case of faint edges. In light of the Sydney controversy, it was inevitable, however, that the referral system would be trialled in international cricket. The sooner the better.There will be 22 cameras at work at the SSC to help eliminate doubt from the decision-making process and for first time Virtual Eye will be used for line decisions in judging lbws. Even though the predictive aspect of Virtual Eye will not be used, the third umpire will still have visual evidence of the pitch of the ball and the point of impact. Technologies such as Snickometer and Hotspot have been kept out of the pale. Even the broadcast companies that use these aids to enhance television viewing are unable to vouch of their infallibility.Following the tradition set by tennis, the first spectator sport to allow players challenge decisions, each team will be allowed three unsuccessful referrals per innings, and men who will be making the decisions in the match have welcomed the move.The trial has received positive responses from the captains of the two teams which will use it over the next few weeks. Mahela Jayawardene, Sri Lanka’s captain, gave it an enthusiastic endorsement. “I am all for it,” he said. “I think it’s a very good system, what we are trying to eradicate is the obvious mistakes that happen on the field. We [the captains and umpires] had a chat yesterday and I think the umpires are in favour of this as well.”Anil Kumble, India’s captain, pointed out that umpires must understand that technology is there to assist them. “I don’t think we’re trying to say that umpires are redundant,” he said. “They are an integral part of the system and it is very difficult for them in the heat of the moment; it is just assisting them. It is not a question of taking something away from them. It is a mode of assistance.”But of course, there are flaws in the method. As Ian Chappell, who has opposed the referrals, points out, the system would bring justice for some but not for all. “If three referrals are deemed fruitless,” Chappell wrote, “under the recommendations of the proposal a team would then have no further opportunity to ask for assistance from the third umpire. Consequently, the biggest howler ever perpetrated could then enter the scorebook unhindered. This would be classic .”And technology is neither foolproof nor 100% conclusive. Two catches, or non-catches, in the recently-concluded Headingley Test highlighted the problem. Both AB de Villiers and Michael Vaughan claimed catches that were referred to the television umpire. In the first instance, the ball was conclusively grounded. In Vaughan’s case, two camera angles presented different pictures and the batsman was given the benefit of the doubt. The next day, Nasser Hussain demonstrated with the help of the Sky television crew how the camera could lie.But at the same time, there is acceptance that the game needs to adapt. Kumble’s assessment sums it up in a way. “Traditions are important but you need to keep changing. Everybody respects that now. Now millions of people watch the game on television and it is accepted. In tennis, line decisions are accepted now – it is a part of every game. In cricket we have already accepted the third umpire ruling on run-outs and stumpings. It’s moving forward, and we shouldn’t just look at the history of cricket here.”

How a chubby left-armer made it from Orissa via Hyderabad into the India side

Sriram Veera08-Jul-2008

“In Test cricket you have to hit the right line and length for hours and hours, which I am prepared to do,” said Pragyan Ojha, after being picked for India’s tour to Sri Lanka.It wasn’t always so with Ojha. Talented but also afflicted by youthful frivolousness, he didn’t seriously start working on his game till the 2006-07 Ranji season. Kanwaljit Singh and Vivek Jaisimha, the bowling coach and head coach of Hyderabad, think the opening game of the season against Maharashtra in Karad was the turning point of Ojha’s career.Hyderabad were bowled out for 385 in the first innings and the captain, VVS Laxman, Kanwaljit and Jaisimha decided it was time to have a chat with Ojha. “We told him, look you are our strike bowler,” Kanwaljit says. “This is a wicket aiding spin and we are confident you can run through them. Show us you can.” Ojha took 6 for 84 and his first small step towards maturity.Before then, Ojha knew he had the talent, but that incident drove home the realisation that he also had the responsibility to use that talent well. He remembers the day as the one when, in his mind, he turned into Hyderabad’s strike bowler. “I remember Laxman and my coaches telling me to go and bowl them out and I did it. That match gave me the confidence that if I can do it today, I can do it again and again.”On Cricinfo, Ojha’s birth place is recorded as Khurda, a small district in the eastern state of Orissa. But he requests that it be changed to the state capital, Bhubaneswar. “The Orissa chief minister was trying to find my place in Khurda and he told me to use the proper name of my city of birth.”Ojha moved to Hyderabad in 2000 as a 13-year-old because his parents wanted him to have a proper education. Instead, there he met coach Vijay Paul and flourished as a cricketer. With Kanwaljit and Venkatapathy Raju, the former India left-arm spinner, also stepping in, young Ojha worked hard on his bowling. He played in the Under-19s and took a five-for on Ranji debut, in the semi-final against Railways in 2005. But there was still a gap between potential and his performance.Jaisimha identified the problem the next season. “He is a bowler who needs confidence. He is a captain’s bowler and once he knows you have confidence in him and the backing of the captain, he turns into a match-winner. I am confident that under a captain like [Mahendra Singh] Dhoni he will thrive.The 2006-07 season was the one of his transformation. Jaisimha recalls the “slightly overweight” Ojha sweating it out in the gym. The baby fat disappeared and a bowler serious about his art emerged. Kanwaljit remembers Ojha seeking him out frequently during nets to talk more about the game. “He had become a serious pupil and now everything was coming into place for him.”Ojha would mark out a spot in the nets and try landing every ball on it, over and over again, for hours. That diligence helped get him eight wickets against a South Africa A side that included Test players Hashim Amla, Ashwell Prince, Boeta Dippenaar and Justin Ontong, in Delhi in November 2007. “I had seen the Kotla wicket on television, and knew pretty much how it was going to be,” Ojha says. “I wanted to flight the ball and keep it on middle and off. I marked out a spot and bowled right there. I didn’t want to get over-confident.” He looks back at that game as another important signpost on his way into the Indian team.After that, Kanwaljit and Jaisimha knew Ojha’s India selection was just a matter of time. “As with any kid at that age, distractions were there,” says Jaisimha. “And he has overcome that. He now knows he has it in him to play for India. He is really focused and mentally stronger.” Kanwaljit says Ojha’s strength is his lovely loop, bounce, and the fact that he knows when to experiment and when not to. “A very patient bowler.”

Ojha got his international call-up for the Kitply Cup and the Asia Cup, though it was in the latter that he made his debut. He was understandably nervous, by his own admission, but decided to stick to what he knew. Still, it must have been unnerving when asked to bowl to a rampaging Sanath Jayasuriya in the final? “I had a simple plan,” Ojha says. “I just wanted him to hit me to long-off and long-on and wanted to prey on his patience. No experiments. Stick to the basics. Dhoni told me to just relax and keep things simple.” Though he didn’t get any wickets, Ojha conceded only 38 in his ten overs.Ojha knows the road ahead can be a devilish spin track. “I am not going to celebrate wildly about this call-up. I want to stay in the team, and if given a chance, perform. My aim is to play long for India.”How many of the 258 players who have turned out for the Indian Test team do we remember? Time will tell whether Ojha will slip into anonymity or walk into the hall of fame.

Australia’s embarrassing defeat to Pakistan stemmed in part from a lack of experience and coincided with the free-scoring form of Gilchrist and Hayden in the IPL

Alex Brown22-Apr-2009Australia’s selectors could hardly be blamed for casting a yearning eye towards South Africa. It is there that two former mainstays of the Australian top-order, Matthew Hayden and Adam Gilchrist, have tenderised IPL bowling attacks at a time when the national one-day batting line-up has struggled for any semblance of authority or consistency.Consider this: in each of their past five one-day internationals, Australia have suffered major batting collapses. Prior to their disastrous passage in Dubai on Wednesday, during which Shahid Afridi and Saeed Ajmal claimed a combined 8-27 between the 19th and 31st overs, the Australians had endured batting sequences of 3-15 (Johannesburg), 3-14 and 4-11 (Port Elizabeth), 3-17 (Cape Town) and 5-19 (Centurion). They have lost four of those matches. No surprises there.In South Africa, Australia’s collapses were born largely out of frustration after extended periods of restricted scoring. In Dubai, the implosion was due to a failure to pick Afridi’s wrong-un and Ajmal’s doosra. The result has been a stunning freefall from the top of the one-day rankings to third. And should Pakistan sweep the five-match UAE series, the Australians will find themselves mired in fourth place, their lowest position since the ranking system was introduced in 2002.The fortunes of Hayden and Gilchrist, meanwhile, could not contrast more sharply with those of their former teammates. A run of low-scoring convinced Hayden to walk away from the international game three months ago, but now, free from the pressures that weighed so heavily upon his shoulders, the veteran opener has powered his way to second on the IPL’s run-scoring list with the Chennai Super Kings. Gilchrist, too, has been in bludgeoning form, thumping five sixes en route to a 45-ball innings of 71 against a Bangalore attack that included Dale Steyn and Anil Kumble – all while the Australians were stumbling to defeat against Pakistan.Much like their spin bowling department, Australia’s selectors are now attempting to rebuild a limited overs top-order in the knowledge that their best and most seasoned candidates are no longer available to them. The recurrence of Shaun Marsh’s left hamstring injury will presumably make that task all the more difficult, and should the intermittent form of veterans Michael Hussey and Michael Clarke continue, Andrew Hilditch’s panel could be faced with further difficult decisions ahead of the next World Cup.Much work is required. High on Tim Nielsen’s to-do list in the coming months will be a thorough review of his batsmen’s strategies to spin bowling. Roelof van der Merwe and Johan Botha were most successful in drying up Australia’s scoring rates in the middle overs, while Afridi and Ajmal confounded them with prodigious turn – the former bowling three batsmen through the gate with googlies, the latter skittling Nathan Hauritz shouldering arms.None of the Australian batsmen – even top-scorers James Hopes, Brad Haddin and Shane Watson – appeared comfortable against the turning ball on a Dubai pitch grown from imported Pakistani soil. Ajmal, like the soil, hails from the Punjab region, and the right-armer could not have appeared more at home as he turned numerous deliveries away from Australia’s befuddled top-order. And Afridi was simply devastating.Cricket scribes have recently learned that writing off an Australian team is fraught with peril, but the troubling signs from an admittedly travel-weary one-day side are impossible to ignore. A massive effort is required to turn this series around and rediscover their batting form of yore. Perhaps a quick glance at the forthcoming Chennai-Deccan match might prove instructive.