Batting to No10

[Wiljoy]

Has there ever been an international team that could bat to No 10 before this Australian team,?I can't recall any team that could bat so strongly,so deep. even Mc Grath has made a 50 plus!!!

[Mongoose]

New Zealand have had some pretty strong line ups down the order. OK, so the top 7 weren't as strong as Australia are now, but they've had Cairns and McCullum down at 9, and am I right in thinking Richardson was a no.10 before deciding he wanted to be an opener?

[Leafy Seadragon]

I wouldn't be claiming that they bat to no. 10. The number 10, Kasprowicz, only averages marginally over 10 and has a high score of 25. McGrath is, regardless of test 50, a batting bunny. Even Warne at number 8 only averages 16 odd. Hardly comparable to several past teams - several NZ teams spring to mind (the weakness was often the top order) and Klusener batted as low as no. 10 for South Africa and often batted at 8 or 9.

One thing the Aussie tail can do however is hold up an end. Gillespie in particular has featured in several notable partnerships and most of the Aussie tail, despite averages that are not outstanding, have featured in partnerships that have been gamebreakers. I think this and the Aussie batsmen, particularly Gilchrist, who have been good enough to take advantage of the tail's resilience, are the factors that make the tail appear to bat stronger than their averages suggest.

[Lemming]

I recall Chris Harris batting at number 10 for New Zealand against England in 1999 I think. He was not really near being a number 10 and in fact I think he had played everywhere from numbers 4 to 10. He played 23 test matches scoring 777 runs @ 20, getting 5 50's with high score 71. Judging by those stats he would probably make a test number 8 but I think his ability would warrant a lower-middle order place. He could also bowl a little too, but I think everybody in the New Zealand team can.

[Paoli]

I believe Tendulkar has played everywhere between 1 and 8, and Harris has now batted between 4 and 11, as he batted 11 in his most recent ODI vs. Australia when he busted his collarbone.

Can Australia bat to No.10? Not really. Whilst Dizzy and Warnie, and even Pigeon for that matter make a better tail than most, I can't rely on them like I have a few times this summer. In saying that, it sends a clear message that nobody can be underestimated. How many times did Pakistan have Australia reeling before letting the tail add an extra 200 this summer?

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Paoli69

How many times did Pakistan have Australia reeling before letting the tail add an extra 200 this summer?

I imagine Pakistan must have bowled poorly to gift the Australian tail so many runs. Warne and Gillespie can bat a lttle for a tailender but I was surprised to look at the scores and find McGrath getting a 50. Surely if Pakistan had bowled discipled he wouldn't have had it so easy.

[Milo]

I have always found that Warne and Gillespie (and Lee and Reiffel beforehand) regularly scored runs when the team required it. OK, they might have pretty mediocre averages, and they score nothing at 500-7, but they have on a number of occasions delieverd (often in big partnerships with the last recognised batsman) when Australia have needed it. This is very similar to the great West Indies team that had Roberts, Garner and Holding, who were nothing too special with the bat, but often contributed when the team really needed it.

Make no mistake, their batting performances went a long way to ensuring their teams' respective dominance.

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Milo

This is very similar to the great West Indies team that had Roberts, Garner and Holding, who were nothing too special with the bat, but often contributed when the team really needed it.

I seem to remember Roberts talking of the WIndies tail's mind-set. He more or less said that they appreciated the amount of hard work required to actually get a wicket, so they were never going to go out there and gift the opposition theirs. Their runs often contributed when needed most.

I think that is a good tailender's attitude to have. But when the tail are in at 450/7, there's nothing better than to see them really get under the opposition's skin and smack some quick runs in true tailender fashion!

[Mongoose]

As a tailender myself ('best no.11 in the league' they used to call me) I can relate to what Roberts says. It depends on what the match situation is, but part of a tailender's job is to frustrate the opposition. You can make their bowlers have to put in those extra few overs and get a bit more tired. You can keep the opening batsmen in the field for a while longer, all the time caught between concentrating on what is going on and thinking about how they will approach their forthcoming innings. And a little tail-end partnership can really change the mood of a team. I played in a low scoring game for my school where I went in at 80-odd for 9. We got ourselves to around 120 and skittled the opposition. I reckon we'd have lost that game if no.10 & myself had not applied ourselves.

There is nothing worse than seeing a batsman standing at one end on 60 or 70 while three tailenders throw their wickets away. There is still a place for stout defence in test cricket. You play 100%, and that means making the opposition sweat blood to get you out if you can.

[Beny]

I think it was our tour of India which forced our tail to really show themsleves. The Indians are fantastic at the same thing.