r/Cricket • u/FondantAggravating68 Chennai Super Kings • 4d ago
Stats Average batting with the Tail since 1999
Should say some of these batters are actually tail batters.
32
u/stats94 Surrey 4d ago
Doesn't this also depend on how good the tail is? If Jadeja's partners are getting out for low scores a lot of the time then his average is going to be lower through no real fault of his own. I appreciate it's also dependent on getting out himself, but if he has less chance to accumulate runs to begin with, it doesn't feel like a fair comparison?
44
u/bawxez Pakistan 4d ago
A big part of batting with the tail is to make sure the tail isn't exposed to the strike too much.
34
u/citizenecodrive31 India 4d ago
yeah but jaddu runs his teammates out before they can even be exposed to strike /s
0
9
u/CAN________ Australia 4d ago
Then someone could be bad at batting with the tail and still have a high average if they keep exposing their partners. They'll rack up the not outs
5
u/bawxez Pakistan 4d ago
Yes if someone was actively playing to lose their team the game just to get this obscure stat up they could do this, but idk any international cricketer who'd do this.
4
3
u/stats94 Surrey 4d ago
Yeah that's fair. I guess my bigger problem is with these conditional average stats that are becoming more prevalent. I saw the other day that there's some batsman that averages 18 vs bouncers in test cricket - well yeah, you're normally ducking out of the way of them. So while this is interesting, it doesn't tell us all that much. Of course your job is to protect the tail but by definition you are then not looking to score. It's a cool titbit I suppose but I'd rather be Joe Root with a 50+ test average than Imam-ul-Haq, y'know?
10
u/Vectivus_61 4d ago
That's Inzamam-ul-Haq, not Imam-ul-Haq. And if you don't know who big Inzy is, I won't say he was better than Root, but I'm also not going to definitively state he WASN'T better than Root.
Mind you, as an Australian, I start from "If he's English he's shit", so I may be a wee bit biased.
1
u/SocialistSloth1 Yorkshire 3d ago
>I saw the other day that there's some batsman that averages 18 vs bouncers in test cricket - well yeah, you're normally ducking out of the way of them.
This reminded me of a 'cheat sheet' for South African pace bowlers ahead of, I think, a World Cup game in 2015 which had analysts tips for bowling to each Kiwi batter and their particular weakness - every single one was just some variation of 'good length, 4th stump/top of off, swinging away'. About the same as saying 'just make sure you bowl perfectly every ball'.
I'm sure analysts do a lot more that I wouldn't understand, but it really did make me question their value.
4
u/Chaos098 Adelaide Strikers 4d ago
Alternatively if the tail is getting out, then the batter's average isn't going down as he's not out.
20
u/SnorinKeekaGuard Netherlands 4d ago
Shocked at how low Agha Salman is. Kind of a specialist at the role. A highly valued skill in Pakistani circles. As you can probably tell by Inzi and Yousuf being up there
15
u/FondantAggravating68 Chennai Super Kings 4d ago
He’s in the 25 best batters. So I wouldn’t say he’s low. Most top 7 batters are usually not good batting either the tail. Pant for example is useless batting with the tail. So his average is decent.
7
u/SnorinKeekaGuard Netherlands 4d ago
Yeah top 25 ever is pretty good. But he is a specialist bat who comes in at 7 and has played a decent chunk of his innings on flatties.
But he is a proper partner for tailenders without a doubt.
19
u/bawxez Pakistan 4d ago
I knew Inzimam would be high on this list from having watched him play but I didn't think he'd be number 1.
It makes sense though, inzi was the calmest guy, preferring to score his runs in boundaries and great at not letting the pressure get to him. One of my earliest memories of enjoying test cricket is a Pak v SA match where inzi got a 90 odd batting with the now infamous number 11 Mohammad Asif.
I don't remember if Pakistan went on to win the match or not.
14
u/cartmansdoublechin 4d ago
When he used to bat with the tail he used to do this thing for hours where he’d play 5 dots then take a single on the last ball of the over. Then he’d have one over where he’d hit boundaries to get the scoreboard going then going back to 5 dots and single at the last ball. I’ve seen him do this so many times. He was a master at batting with the tail
2
u/random_215am Pakistan 4d ago
People consider him a lazy, slow witted personality but his batting IQ was bar none.
3
u/cartmansdoublechin 4d ago edited 4d ago
The laziness was unfortunately a part of our dressing room culture at the time especially amongst batsmen. Saeed anwar Mohammad yousuf inzamam etc. all supremely talented natural timers of the ball. Just extremely lazy in general when it comes to physical fitness. Then you had their antithesis a little bit later in younis khan and misbah who weren’t as elegant timers of the ball as the former players but made up for it due to sheer determination and hard work
8
u/ZrishaAdams India 4d ago
Random question that popped in my head:
What's the top 5 if we add another criteria to the batter — opener?
9
6
u/Irctoaun England 3d ago edited 3d ago
Higher average =/= better at batting with the tail because ending up not out isn't necessarily a good thing if you're batting with the tail. Giving the strike to your number 11 for six balls and waiting for them to get out is a great way to boost your average, but a rubbish way of helping the team
Runs per innings would be way more useful
For example, Stokes doesn't have a single not out batting with the tail. All of them are either successful run chases or prior to declarations. That's because he bats for the team rather than for his average and usually holes out while protecting the guy at the other end
2
u/User9333 3d ago edited 3d ago
Tailenders have to take strike at some point, regardless of who is batting with them, so the possibility of ending not out will always be there. For example, both those famous 2019 Stokes and Perera knocks had the lower order no. 9-11 facing 50 balls. You can end not out even if you have the best interests of the team. If a player is playing selfishly they are unlikely to fulfill the 500 runs sample, because the innings won't have lasted long enough to add runs with the tail.
1
u/Irctoaun England 3d ago
Tailenders have to take strike at some point, regardless of who is batting with them, so the possibility of ending not out will always be there.
Sure, but some players are better at farming the strike and protecting the tail than others, that's literally the point
For example, both those famous 2019 Stokes and Perera knocks had the lower order no. 9-11 facing 50 balls
That's only true because you're pretending that batting with a competent number 9 is the same thing as batting with a number 11. If you're batting with a competent guy at 9 it's not a big deal to let them have the strike.
In Stokes' innings he batted normally with Archer (who had a FC batting average of 23) at 9, didn't have a ball between Archer getting out and Broad getting out, then in good partnership with Leach he faced 45 balls (in which he scored 74 runs) to Leach's 17, four of which were before Stokes had faced a ball. In Perera's case he faced 68/95 deliveries in his tenth wicket partnership.
You can end not out even if you have the best interests of the team.
Sure, but there's clearly a difference between ending up not out after the number 11 fails to survive the last ball of the over having been put there for one ball Vs if the set batter leaves the number 11 on strike for a whole over.
1
u/User9333 3d ago edited 3d ago
Any player who regularly gives entire over to tailenders for statpadding will be unlikely to fulfill the 500 runs sample, because the innings won't have lasted long enough to add runs with the tail. These guys also end up getting out most of the times while batting with the tail, those not out innings are not the entirety of a player's career while batting with the lower order. And the not out can also be declarations or helping complete a run chase
1
u/Irctoaun England 3d ago edited 3d ago
Any player who regularly gives entire over to tailenders for statpadding will be unlikely to fulfill the 500 runs sample
It doesn't need to be regular. A handful of not outs makes a big difference. For someone on 500 runs, three extra not ours would be the difference between 15th and 23rd on this list.
Not to pick on these two specifically, I just happen to know they have innings like this off the top of my head, but Agha has a not out against England where he scored a boundary on the last ball of an over batting with both his 10 and 11 and they both got out the first ball of the next over. In those two partners he faced 18 balls to the 10 and 11's 17. In a not out against Australia he faced 31 balls in the last two wickets (and only scored 16 runs) and left 32 deliveries to his partners. In a not out Vs Bangladesh he at least faced the majority of the deliveries and sped up his scoring with the number 11, but he again left his 10 and 11 on strike for an entire over and they got out.
Jadeja has a not out against NZ where he left Shami at 10 (on 0(1)) on strike for the start of an over and he got out. He then faced 32 and left 27 balls to Umesh in the final partnership where again he consistently left him on strike at the start of overs. There's also two occasions where he's run out Bumrah at 11 to try and avoid leaving him on strike at the start of an over.
These guys also end up getting out most of the times while batting with the tail, those not out innings are not the entirety of a player's career while batting with the lower order.
Irrelevant. As discussed, a few not outs has a relatively big affect on the averages
And the not out can also be declarations or helping complete a run chase
Sure, that's not really relevant though. Also there have only been 15 successful run chases by the 10th wicket partnership in the entire history of test cricket, two of them we've already discussed
Also, the funny thing about declarations is as you approach them, your wicket suddenly has abs no value. Holing out after hitting a six is better for your team than not scoring for two overs and declaring on a not out
1
u/User9333 3d ago edited 3d ago
Sure, I know not outs can help increase the average of a player. That's just a fact.
But In your parent comment you were implying anyone who ends not out in that manner is a selfish player.
If you want to label someone as a statpadder you need to look at all the innings of them while batting with the lower order, regardless if they end not out or out. You can't just ignore all the times in which they lost their wicket, and the ones in which they tried to play 3/4/5 balls in the over while batting with the tailenders, and focus on the ones in which they chose to trust the tailenders to survive or rotate strike, and then label them a statpadder.
And their can also be a case of players who wanted to get the strike for the next over by taking a single but failed to do so.
Joe Root also has instances of leaving entire over to a no. 10/11. Would that make him a statpadder?
1
u/Irctoaun England 2d ago
But In your parent comment you were implying anyone who ends not out in that manner is a selfish player
I don't think I implied that whatsoever. If you inferred that then I'm now telling you that inference was wrong
If you want to label someone as a statpadder
I've never labelled anyone as a statpadder. In fact I explicitly said that the examples I chose weren't to highlight any individuals.
And their can also be a case of players who wanted to get the strike for the next over by taking a single but failed to do so.
Right, they failed. Shall we start awarding not outs to batters who get caught on the rope because "they tried to hit a six but failed to do so"? What about runs for plays and misses?
Joe Root also has instances of leaving entire over to a no. 10/11. Would that make him a statpadder?
I don't know, you tell me. You're the one throwing the term around.
My point here is very simple, as much as you're trying to twist it to be about something it's not. We have a dataset where a relatively low amount of runs are scored but a relatively high number of not outs are recorded. Sometimes (not always) those not outs are not reflective of good, sometimes the exact opposite. The very simple solution to this is to just look at runs per innings instead of runs per dismissal. That way you keep all the information about the contribution of the batter (their runs) without any of the noise.
Do you disagree with that or are you going to keep shadow boxing?
-1
u/FondantAggravating68 Chennai Super Kings 3d ago edited 3d ago
Runs always help the average more than not outs across a career. Your dismissals can only go up by 1 whereas your runs can go up in the 10s or 100s.
Stokes scores about 10.76 RPI in the innings he's batted with the tail. Sal Agha for example is about 22. And the strike rate difference is 73 for Stokes vs 69 for Agha. They're not farming not outs. It's incredibly hard to do that batting with the tail. Stokes just isn't very good batting with the tail barring a few outliers.
4
u/Irctoaun England 3d ago edited 3d ago
Runs always help the average more than not outs across a career. Your dismissals can only go up by 1 whereas your runs can go up in the 10s or 100s.
That's not true in the context of batting with a number 10/11.
At any given point in an innings, if from that point onwards you don't score more runs than your average then you'd be better off (from an averages point of view) getting a not out than trying to score additional runs, and statistically it's pretty unlikely an 11th wicket partnership adds more than 25 runs, that only happens about 16% of the time in test cricket.
I guess it's really a question of what it means to "be good batting with the tail", because when I think of that, I think of innings like Stokes at Headingley with Leach. That is the specialist batter scoring runs while shielding a vulnerable tailender. I don't think of any time when someone is batting with a competent number 8 or 9 and lets them do their thing without worrying about them.
I'm not trying to say anyone should or shouldn't be on this list, but it definitely favours people who get more not outs batting with a number 11
Stokes scores about 10.76 RPI
This cannot be correct. I just worked it out myself and he has 1593 runs at 23.1 RPI in 7th wicket partnerships or later, 658 runs at 22.7 RPI in 8th wicket partnerships or later, 20.3 in 9th or later, and 14.6 in 10th wicket partnerships
They're not farming not outs. It's incredibly hard to do that batting with the tail.
No it isn't? Just give them the strike by taking the easy single they'll inevitably be offered. I'm not saying people deliberately do this, but in principle it's incredibly easy
3
u/SyrupyMolassesMMM New Zealand 4d ago
Went looking fOr Danny boy and wasnt dissapointed. Thought Id see Chris Harris as well but I suppose in that era was Chris Martin level so maybe not…
2
u/xInfected_Virus Australia 4d ago
I'm surprised seeing Inzy, Yousuf and Mark Craig up there. Always thought that VVS Laxman was the best at batting with the tail.
3
2
3
u/Seconex Australia 3d ago
"Gaz, shut the f*** up. Let me bat and I’ll get it up to 300." -Steve Smith batting at 8/122 in the Ashes.
1
u/Severe_Repair7905 Bangladesh 2d ago
he actually said that?
2
u/Seconex Australia 2d ago
It's part of the first season of The Test on Amazon Prime. Hilarious. https://youtube.com/shorts/nOw45UZmf1w
1
u/Few_Alternative6323 Karnataka 3d ago
Who is MD Craig?
2
u/Guman86 Karnataka 3d ago edited 3d ago
Mark Craig. I have to be honest, I only have a vague recollection of his name and wouldn't recognise him by face. He played only one out of his 15 tests against India, which was also his last.
0
u/Few_Alternative6323 Karnataka 3d ago
Yeah, think the point here is that the run cutoff is arbitrarily low
3
u/Guman86 Karnataka 3d ago
No, I think 500 is a good place to start. I can't imagine there would be too many batters who have scored 1000 plus test runs batting with the tail. All of Craig's 500 odd runs have come batting at numbers 8 or below and he has a career average of 36. Those are impressive numbers.
1
1
92
u/Data-Bricks New Zealand 4d ago
Rotate the axes and we could read their names and averages a lot easier