Cricket XVIII -- Ashes and other psychological horrors

[Jeor]

Interesting idea about Clarke at 5, Adelstein...historically it has been his best position. Whatever it takes to get Clarke scoring is going to be worth it, so if he is more comfortable at 5 he should do it. In truth I've never really got the arguments about certain positions in the order being more 'prestigious' than others. A while ago I might have thought so but not anymore.

The openers at 1 and 2 obviously have a tough job - they face the opening spells, where it's usually the best bowlers of the opposing team who are well-rested and have the new ball in hand. But they also have the benefit of not having to play spin as much as the other batsmen, and psychologically they get to set the agenda of the innings and can never be involved in a collapse (they can start one I suppose). On the very few times I opened in club cricket, it was also good to not have to wait to have a bat and then be able to relax for the rest of the innings once you got out. :P

3 and 4 are obviously positions for batsmen with all-round techniques and versatility. But at 5 you're more likely to be batting with the tail or less-experienced batsmen, you deal more with spinners and you might have to face the new ball. Plus you have to have the adaptability to play according to the game situation since half of the specialist batsmen are already out by the time you come in. In some ways I reckon you need to be more versatile at 5 than at 4.

Hey, 5 wasn't a bad position...Steve Waugh was there virtually his whole career, including the time he was rated as the world's best batsman.

[The Winged Shadow]

But there is a reason Clarke was moved up. He had Hussey before to build an innings with at 5 and 6. Hussey is no longer there and we don't have anyone in the team who is even close to that quality. Clarke had to move up because that is where the team needs him to perform, not at 5 when most of the batsmen are gone and he has mostly the tail for company. Despite the tail doing really well this last test, relying on them pull the team through is a sure way to fail.

[Paxter]

So apparently Watson is a 'cancer' on the Australian team. The fallout from Arthur's sacking continues...

Oh and also: Haddin admits he nicked it. Snicko doesn't lie after all.

[arya_underfoot]

Oh and also: Haddin admits he nicked it. Snicko doesn't lie after all.

Fine...... :ohwell:

So apparently Watson is a 'cancer' on the Australian team. The fallout from Arthur's sacking continues...

Isn't that what Clarke allegedly said? It would be in keeping with the way he undermined Katich's position in the team.

As for batting positions, opening and first drop are obviously specialised positions that require specific skills. But I always though that in test cricket, 4 to 6 are pretty much interchangeable. I don't see why Clarke should bat better or worse by coming in at 4 or 5 or 6. I understand that there's a difference in his stats between the positions, but surely there are confounding factors that need to be considered when looking at stats(like stage of career, form, conditions, match specifics etc).

[Jeor]

TWS true there's no Hussey to help Clarke mount fightbacks, but until Clarke starts getting stranded not out I'd be willing to see him back at 5 if that's where he feels most comfortable (although no one really knows if that will make a difference except maybe Clarke himself). The top order has its own problems but I think Rogers and Watson could yet become an influential opening pair, and at least Haddin has shown good form at 7.

I was impressed with Haddin's knock actually - I usually consider him a flat-track bully and fair-weather batsman, but his innings in the run chase was excellent. With his experience in this young team he's a better bet than Matthew Wade.

EDIT: Good to hear Haddin say he was out...gives me a bit more peace of mind. ;) I still hold Haddin's false appeal against him (ODI match years ago vs NZ when he appealed for a bowled after breaking the stumps himself), but more innings like that last one and with his honest comments now, he's beginning to win me back over.

[Hereward]

Interesting couple of articles. The problem between Clarke and Watson was most noticeable when the edge flew between them and neither moved. They didn't even look at one another, but their faces said it all.

[Alester Florent]

But there is a reason Clarke was moved up. He had Hussey before to build an innings with at 5 and 6. Hussey is no longer there and we don't have anyone in the team who is even close to that quality. Clarke had to move up because that is where the team needs him to perform, not at 5 when most of the batsmen are gone and he has mostly the tail for company. Despite the tail doing really well this last test, relying on them pull the team through is a sure way to fail.

The problem is that even if the team needs him to perform at 4, he's not performing there. Forcing square pegs into round holes because the pegs must be square, dammit, doesn't really do anyone any favours. It's precisely the gulf in quality between Clarke and the rest of the middle order that means Australia have to make the most of Clarke's runs.

Jeor mentioned Steve Waugh above, and while Waugh had the luxury in his later career of batting with four world-class players above him in the order, earlier on he was often required to arrest a collapse. Until Ponting really asserted himself, Australia became the best team in the world with their best middle-order player* usually playing at 5 or 6.

Bell's average also drops significantly at number 4, while KP's drops at 5.

You're right about the average, but I wonder how much of that is nightwatchman-affected (I can't be bothered to do a proper analysis right now). I imagine that at least a few of KP's innings that are recorded at 5 are where he was "actually" a 4, and Bell likewise at 3 (where he was a liability for ages). A couple of low scores in those positions would really damage the average.

I think one of the ideas behind leaving Pietersen at 4 is to ensure that the fast-scoring batsmen (Pietersen, Bairstow, Prior) aren't overly concentrated in positions 5-7. Sometimes you need a stodgy player a bit further down the order (as per Bell at Trent Bridge).

That's another good point. I've wondered in the past about moving Trott down the order (iirc he batted at 4 for Warwickshire) to avoid some of the slow grind at the top, especially if Compton is playing. If Root is a regular opener, hopefully it won't be too much of a problem any more. I suppose it's also worth bearing in mind that England are at their best when they're boring the opposition to death, so a concentration of slow batsmen isn't necessarily a problem unless you have to get a shift on for a run-chase (which England are alert to, I think).

*Depending on which twin you prefer, of course.

[Hereward]

Just watching highlights of the 2002 Ashes with England at 90-1 and Australia's field being 4 slips, a gulley, a leg gulley, a silly point and a silly mid-on. Things have certainly changed on the aggression front.

[Pinkie Baelish]

This thread reminded me of what an important asset Hussey was to Australia. I never realized his worth until he was gone....

As for batting positions, opening and first drop are obviously specialised positions that require specific skills. But I always though that in test cricket, 4 to 6 are pretty much interchangeable. I don't see why Clarke should bat better or worse by coming in at 4 or 5 or 6. I understand that there's a difference in his stats between the positions, but surely there are confounding factors that need to be considered when looking at stats(like stage of career, form, conditions, match specifics etc).

I'd say the main difference is that it's more important for a number 4 to work as sort of backbone for the team to build their innings on. Number 4s are also generally required to be better batsmen than number 6s, who may find themselves batting with the lower order. You would never see Dravid bat at number 6, because he did exactly what's needed of him at number 4, which was establish a solid foundation for the more flashy players(Tendulkar, Ganguly) to work with. I think Clarke was perfect at number 6, back when the team had even better batsmen in Ponting and Hayden. But now that he IS the team's top batsman, number 6 is far too low and he has to be the backbone of the innings at number 4, even though he's better suited for number 5 or 6.

[ants]

The problem is that even if the team needs him to perform at 4, he's not performing there. Forcing square pegs into round holes because the pegs must be square, dammit, doesn't really do anyone any favours. It's precisely the gulf in quality between Clarke and the rest of the middle order that means Australia have to make the most of Clarke's runs.

Jeor mentioned Steve Waugh above, and while Waugh had the luxury in his later career of batting with four world-class players above him in the order, earlier on he was often required to arrest a collapse. Until Ponting really asserted himself, Australia became the best team in the world with their best middle-order player* usually playing at 5 or 6.

*Depending on which twin you prefer, of course.

Steve Waugh had Heally, Reifel and Warne following him. Add their averages and that's a relatively decent amount of support. Reiffel especially was pretty strong technically and not only had an average in the high 20's, would stay in for a while getting them if necessary.

[Alester Florent]

I'd say the main difference is that it's more important for a number 4 to work as sort of backbone for the team to build their innings on. Number 4s are also generally required to be better batsmen than number 6s, who may find themselves batting with the lower order. You would never see Dravid bat at number 6, because he did exactly what's needed of him at number 4, which was establish a solid foundation for the more flashy players(Tendulkar, Ganguly) to work with. I think Clarke was perfect at number 6, back when the team had even better batsmen in Ponting and Hayden. But now that he IS the team's top batsman, number 6 is far too low and he has to be the backbone of the innings at number 4, even though he's better suited for number 5 or 6.

While it sounds sensible in theory, I just don't think it works that way in practice.

Clarke's played most of his career at 5, where he averages 63.95 (over 80 since he became captain, but let's take his career figures). At 4 it's a relatively puny 21.51, which means that, on average, it's costing Australia over 40 runs per innings to have him bat one position higher in the order. To make up for that, the rest of the batsmen need to up their game considerably, by an average of eight runs per specialist batsman, or four runs if you include the bowlers. There's no evidence this is actually happening. Mike Hussey, the best 5 Australia have had apart from Clarke in recent times, made a relative success of batting at 5 but didn't contribute any more runs than he had higher in the order. Steve Smith has done ok for a couple of innings, but there isn't enough data for a proper conclusion. It's not even just the number 5s - Australia have yet to find a reliable number 6 since the exit of Andrew Symonds (save for Hussey, again).

It's not just the runs, either; Clarke isn't sticking around long enough at 4 to support the team; he's there for an average of less than seven overs per innings. Clarke's playing at 4 is to allow other batsmen some security to build an innings, but if those batsmen aren't coming up with the runs, it's better to have Clarke contribute them himself from a secure position, especially since his loss of wicket early is actually putting more pressure on the lower order, not less. It just seems to be a waste of the best resource Australia have.

This thread reminded me of what an important asset Hussey was to Australia. I never realized his worth until he was gone....

I think he's underrated because he played Tests pretty much exclusively after the end of the Australian golden age. The team remained the best in the world on paper until 2008 or so, but the aura of invincibility had been punctured earlier and after the 2006-2007 winter when four great players retired nearly simultaneously it was obvious that the team was in decline. Hussey also arrived late in his career, so didn't have so long to win his place in the hearts of the nation. Possibly more than any other player, he helped to keep the team alive, but I think he'll always be associated with the dying of the light.

[Paxter]

You would never see Dravid bat at number 6, because he did exactly what's needed of him at number 4, which was establish a solid foundation for the more flashy players(Tendulkar, Ganguly) to work with.

Except Dravid hardly ever batted at number 4...that's SRT's spot. Dravid played nearly his entire career at number 3.

Steve Waugh had Heally, Reifel and Warne following him. Add their averages and that's a relatively decent amount of support. Reiffel especially was pretty strong technically and not only had an average in the high 20's, would stay in for a while getting them if necessary.

Haddin, Siddle, Agar, Starc and Pattinson is a fantastic tail - definitely better than Heals and co. So I think Clarke at 5 works.

[Pinkie Baelish]

Except Dravid hardly ever batted at number 4...that's SRT's spot. Dravid played nearly his entire career at number 3.

Whoops, my bad. Heh, I honestly don't know how I got this wrong. But I still stand by my earlier point.

[Jeor]

The other thing to bear in mind with Steve Waugh at 5 was that he was at 5 (or lower) for his whole career, including the time when Australia really wasn't that good (although arguably Waugh wasn't that good either during that time). He had a constant stream of new No. 6's to bat with (e.g. Ponting before he got good, Katich, etc) as it seemed to be the place in the team where new players were blooded. And although Healy was a great wicketkeeper for his time, his Test average of 30 doesn't really rank with wicketkeepers of today. By the time Gilchrist arrived, Waugh had already had his best days as a batsman. So I think Steve Waugh's greatest years of batting often happened when he didn't necessarily get much support from the lower order, and the top order wasn't necessarily that great either (the strongest years of the Aussie dynasty happened when Waugh's batting was already in decline). There's no reason to think that Clarke couldn't do the same from 5.

Nasser Hussain actually said that he preferred to come in during a collapse when he batted down the order (obviously he also spent a good deal of time at 3 as well), because the expectations weren't high (the previous batsmen had also failed) and that there was no pressure to go out there and start scoring - you could take your time to steady the ship and no one would criticise you for it. Whereas if you came in when times were good, he was often criticised for slowing up the scoring or getting out cheaply when others had built the platform. There's no way of knowing whether Clarke thinks the same way, but certainly it's evidence that some players can do better in dire situations.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Just watching highlights of the 2002 Ashes with England at 90-1 and Australia's field being 4 slips, a gulley, a leg gulley, a silly point and a silly mid-on. Things have certainly changed on the aggression front.

Gods, I am so fucked for August. I had to look at a field map to figure out where a couple of those positions were. :crying:

[Paxter]

Gods, I am so fucked for August. I had to look at a field map to figure out where a couple of those positions were. :crying:

I think that's half of the fun of cricket though...I've been watching the game for ages but I'm still learning its nuances and history. I remember a couple of years ago boldly proclaiming that West Indies had never had a truly world-class spinner...then somebody pointed out this guy. 309 wickets @ under 30 with a riduclously low RPO. Whoops!

[Stubby]

Gods, I am so fucked for August. I had to look at a field map to figure out where a couple of those positions were. :crying:

Knowing when to set a field like that is like knowing when to use a safety blitz. You'll be able to understand what's going on just fine without going into that much detail. :)

[Alester Florent]

I remember a couple of years ago boldly proclaiming that West Indies had never had a truly world-class spinner...then somebody pointed out this guy. 309 wickets @ under 30 with a riduclously low RPO. Whoops!

I'll put in a shout for Sonny Ramadhin, too. His figures are good enough as they are, but if the DRS had been around back then they'd probably have been a heck of a lot better. For starters, he wouldn't have been shellacked by Cowdrey and May to nearly the same extent: they'd have been out within about five minutes.

[arya_underfoot]

I think that's half of the fun of cricket though...I've been watching the game for ages but I'm still learning its nuances and history. I remember a couple of years ago boldly proclaiming that West Indies had never had a truly world-class spinner...then somebody pointed out this guy. 309 wickets @ under 30 with a riduclously low RPO. Whoops!

The West Indies have produced other good spinners like Valentine (about 150 wickets at 30) and Ramadhin (about 150 wickets at 28). They get overshadowed and hence because they played with formidable fast bowlers like Wes Hall and co. Lance Gibbs also held the record for most balls bowled in test cricket for a long time before it was broken by Kapil Dev I think. I suspect Murali probably holds that record now.

[Alester Florent]

The West Indies have produced other good spinners like Valentine (about 150 wickets at 30) and Ramadhin (about 150 wickets at 28). They get overshadowed and hence because they played with formidable fast bowlers like Wes Hall and co. Lance Gibbs also held the record for most balls bowled in test cricket for a long time before it was broken by Kapil Dev I think. I suspect Murali probably holds that record now.

Right on all counts. Gibbs also had a remarkably stingy economy rate.