Caesar
Member
How long is an acceptable tail in international cricket?
I was thinking about this the other day when people were debating the merits of McDonald's inclusion in the side. Granted he's an allrounder, but it's the first time I can remember that the batting merits of a member of the core bowling lineup have come under discussion.
I am somewhat of a traditionalist - I think you should select your four bowlers to give you the best attack, regardless of batting proficiency, and if any of them can wield a willow it's a bonus. I realise the day of the specialist wicketkeeper is over, and seven recognised batsmen should be enough for any side to get the job done.
However I have noticed a bit of a trend (not just in Australia) to push for eight recognised batsmen, with the fourth bowler quite often being an allrounder. This is fine if you have a Flintoff or a Kallis in your side, but that is pretty rare. Also, bowlers are expected to have to get out there and give it a dig, and often get or support another batsman in getting quite significant totals.
In recent years we have been quite spoilt in Australia. Although we have lacked any truly excellent Test allrounders (aside from the odd Test where Symonds' bowling clicked), we have had a tough tail with Warne, Lee and more recently Johnson all capable of making runs, and players like Clark and Kaspa at least capable of sticking around for extended periods. Now we're not so quite so lucky, although I think our pure bowlers still bat better than most.
So what's an acceptable tail? Personally, I'm happy with seven recognised batsmen, one bowler who can get some runs at a pinch, and maybe one or two of the others who are capable of sticking around for the others. I know we've had our arse saved a few times by brilliant lower-order stands, but I think if you start worrying about how well your tail bats you've got your priorities wrong.
Thoughts?
I was thinking about this the other day when people were debating the merits of McDonald's inclusion in the side. Granted he's an allrounder, but it's the first time I can remember that the batting merits of a member of the core bowling lineup have come under discussion.
I am somewhat of a traditionalist - I think you should select your four bowlers to give you the best attack, regardless of batting proficiency, and if any of them can wield a willow it's a bonus. I realise the day of the specialist wicketkeeper is over, and seven recognised batsmen should be enough for any side to get the job done.
However I have noticed a bit of a trend (not just in Australia) to push for eight recognised batsmen, with the fourth bowler quite often being an allrounder. This is fine if you have a Flintoff or a Kallis in your side, but that is pretty rare. Also, bowlers are expected to have to get out there and give it a dig, and often get or support another batsman in getting quite significant totals.
In recent years we have been quite spoilt in Australia. Although we have lacked any truly excellent Test allrounders (aside from the odd Test where Symonds' bowling clicked), we have had a tough tail with Warne, Lee and more recently Johnson all capable of making runs, and players like Clark and Kaspa at least capable of sticking around for extended periods. Now we're not so quite so lucky, although I think our pure bowlers still bat better than most.
So what's an acceptable tail? Personally, I'm happy with seven recognised batsmen, one bowler who can get some runs at a pinch, and maybe one or two of the others who are capable of sticking around for the others. I know we've had our arse saved a few times by brilliant lower-order stands, but I think if you start worrying about how well your tail bats you've got your priorities wrong.
Thoughts?
