Perhaps a bit much to ask of sides that barely have quality at the top of the order..

[Bees]

...but I think the competency of Australia's tail and their innings-saving efforts will set a trend around the world.

I think sides will be quicker to ask their lower end to spend a bit more time finding competency with the bat.

Do you agree or disagree?

I'm probably woefully wrong, but I can't remember a tail being so awesome. Is it a coincidence that the current Australian tail are solid batsman?

 

[Harry Harrison]

...but I think the competency of Australia's tail and their innings-saving efforts will set a trend around the world.

I think sides will be quicker to ask their lower end to spend a bit more time finding competency with the bat.

Do you agree or disagree?

I'm probably woefully wrong, but I can't remember a tail being so awesome. Is it a coincidence that the current Australian tail are solid batsman?

In past Pakistan had a pretty decent tail end with Moin Khan, Waseem Akram, Saqlain Mushtaq and Waqar Younis. They played well on many occasions for Pakistan.

 

[Debris]

All sides have been doing this for a while now. Pretty much all bowlers are trying to get their batting to a reasonable level where they can at least stick in to support a batsman. Australia have had more success than most.

Problem is that some bowlers really can't bat no matter how much they practice (McGrath).

 

[ohtani's jacket]

It's been this way with the Australian tail for some time. It's got to infuriate opposition bowlers that they can't get the last few wickets for cheap.

 

[BoyBrumby]

TBF I'd guess a fair few English bowlers are selected at least as much for their alleged batting prowess as their bowling. Broad being the most recent and one of the most egregious examples.

The "bits-and-pieces" player (i.e. one whose hand in neither suit would've been strong enough to secure selection on its own) has been pretty much a fixture in our ODI sides since the mid-90s too. Luke Wright, our specialist no.9 batsmen, currently filling the role.

 

[Goughy]

The "bits-and-pieces" player (i.e. one whose hand in neither suit would've been strong enough to secure selection on its own) has been pretty much a fixture in our ODI sides since the mid-90s too. Luke Wright, our specialist no.9 batsmen, currently filling the role.

The modern trend probably started a bit earlier with Dermot Reeve in 1991.

In ODIs I dont mind it too much as 1 B&P can add balance and flexibility, depending on the players around them.

Obviously more than 1 is a worry and certainly never in Test cricket.

 

[Matt79]

it is a trend, with the professionalisation of the game meaning that bowlers are expected to work on it, and helmets and other bits of protection making it feasible to ask poor batsmen to get in behind the line of a ball - if we had no helmets, we wouldn't have these regular occurrances of tail enders hanging around for a session making a pain of themselves.

 

[fredfertang]

Here's the ultimate example of a wagging tail - and not a bad bowling attack either - 1966 - 5th test

England 1st innings
G Boycott b Hall 4
RW Barber c Nurse b Sobers 36
JH Edrich c Hendriks b Sobers 35
TW Graveney run out 165
DL Amiss lbw b Hall 17
BL D'Oliveira b Hall 4
*DB Close run out 4
R Illingworth c Hendriks b Griffith 3
+JT Murray lbw b Sobers 112
K Higgs c & b Holford 63
JA Snow not out 59
Extras (b 8, lb 14, nb 3) 25

Total (all out, 199.5 overs) 527

FoW: 1-6 (Boycott), 2-72 (Barber), 3-85 (Edrich), 4-126 (Amiss),
5-130 (D'Oliveira), 6-150 (Close), 7-166 (Illingworth),
8-383 (Graveney), 9-399 (Murray), 10-527 (Higgs).

Bowling O M R W
Hall 31 8 85 3
Griffith 32 7 78 1
Sobers 54 23 104 3
Holford 25.5 1 79 1
Gibbs 44 16 115 0
Hunte 13 2 41 0

 

[silentstriker]

I did a stats spider way back that showed that the tail does not really score much more, nor stay around blocking longer than lower order of previous decades. I'll see if I can find it, but I think that the whole concept of the modern tail that can bat is a bit exaggerated. Certainly, there might be a couple of players at 8 or 9 that are really good, but if you take all the lower orders in cricket, it averages out to be not much more than how it's always been.

Of course, there used to be an unwritten rule about lower order not getting short balls and such, so maybe that allowed the averages back then to be slightly inflated. I'm not sure.

 

[Uppercut]

I did a stats spider way back that showed that the tail does not really score much more, nor stay around blocking longer than lower order of previous decades. I'll see if I can find it, but I think that the whole concept of the modern tail that can bat is a bit exaggerated. Certainly, there might be a couple of players at 8 or 9 that are really good, but if you take all the lower orders in cricket, it averages out to be not much more than how it's always been.

Of course, there used to be an unwritten rule about lower order not getting short balls and such, so maybe that allowed the averages back then to be slightly inflated. I'm not sure.

Remember reading that analysis too. I think in a lot of cases the tail these days get taught to use the correct technique but essentially sometimes don't score that much more than they did when they just swung at anything. See Tim Southee and Steve Harmison trying to play in cricketer mode as opposed to slogger mode.

 

[krkode]

The Australian tail does seem to often fish them out of a tight spot and this is quite a useful thing to have. That said, Australia has been setting trends with respect to players' roles for a while now. Gilchrist, for example, was probably the first of the swashbuckling wicketkeeper batsmen and now based on his example, every team wants their own Gilchrist... now we have Dhoni, McCullum, etc. Similarly, teams whose tail can bat will begin to set an example - I think even India showed some decent quality in this department recently with quite a few solid innings from Harbhajan Singh. But I do think it's a bit of a stretch to expect bowlers to be able to to save/win a match with the bat. First you want them to be able to do that with the ball and there's plenty of teams out there who don't even have that.

If there's two wicketkeepers, one of whom is a slightly worse gloveman but a hugely better batsman, teams are likely to go for the better batsman of the two. But if you have two bowlers, one of whom is a better batsman but a worse bowler - teams should and will always go for the better bowler.

 

[iamdavid]

I think it's just becoming the norm really, as the game becomes more proffesional it is expected that even number 11's can bat to some extent. And not just at the highest level, I remember being in the train-on squad for an under 17's rep side in 2004, and I was not picked in the final squad which went to the Australian under-17 champs, the main reasoning given to me being that my batting simply was not upto scratch and that at this standard of cricket even the number 10's and 11's were expected to have some ability with the willow, I think the guys who ended up batting 10 and 11 usually batted much higher up the order for their club sides.

I think the days of Chris Martin-esque batsman, in Australian cricket atleast are behind us. Even someone like Peter Siddle I can imagine scoring grade hundreds.

 

[susudear]

Been happening regularly lately

Could be the better bats, could be the overall decline in standard of bowling, could be the pitches, could be the better coaching, or a combination of two or more of all of them, but it has been happening lately regularly in Test cricket. No time can rest easy seeing the opposition score reading 160-5.

We saw two very good examples in the subcontinent. One was in Bangalore Test match between India and Australia where Harbajan Singh and Zaheer Khan bailed India out of a catharsis and posted half centuries. The other one was in Nagpur, where M S Dhoni and Harbajan Singh once again rescued India out of a hole in the 2nd innings, although Ponting's tactics were questionable then.

Almost all of Bangladesh's best efforts have come with sizeable contributions from the lower order. And it is not entirely unsurprising that some of their lower order/tailenders have better batting average than the top half.

Pakistan had very good tailenders in the form of Wasim Akram, Moin Khan, Waqar Younis and even Saqlain Mushtaq in the 90s. A resurgence was seen before the cricketing isolation with Sohail Tanveer, Rana Naved Ul Hasan, etc before the ICL exodus and subsequently the isolation of Pakistan in the cricketing world.

South Africa also possessed a good lower order and when Mark Boucher comes in at No.8, you know they have a very good tail.

Eng

 

[krkode]

Ironic this post came on the eve of a superb tail-end effort from South Africa's tail against Australia of all teams!

 

[Migara]

South Africa also possessed a good lower order and when Mark Boucher comes in at No.8, you know they have a very good tail.

They had one of the best tails ever. Pollock at 8, Symcox at 9, Elworthy at 10 was some batting. And Donald was the only bunny in the team

 

[Richard]

Perhaps a bit much to ask of sides that barely have quality at the top of the order.. ...but I think the competency of Australia's tail and their innings-saving efforts will set a trend around the world.

I think sides will be quicker to ask their lower end to spend a bit more time finding competency with the bat.

Been being attempted for ages now, still hasn't happened yet. More tailenders probably look less hopeless now than they used to, but don't often either score more or last longer.

They should though and batsmen should also get more not-outs and nurture higher stands with tailenders by playing differently when batting with the tail. Maybe it might happen one day.