Batting first

[Gavin Excell]

Thoughts?

Used to think put a team in the box seat. Still do but wavering in that conviction.

 

[PhatBoy]

Thoughts?

Used to think put a team in the box seat. Still do but wavering in that conviction.

Still can't put a price on having runs on the board.

Its easier to come from behind as well.

Bat second and trail by 200, even a great bowling performance leaves you needing 400 to win. bat first and trail by 200, 1 big partnership can give you a decent shot at setting something defendable .

 

[JG22]

Depends what the wicket is like.
But in Australia you nearly always do it.
Only exception day night tests and Hobart

Winning the toss is way to crucial in test match cricket

 

[rippersnipper]

Depends what the wicket is like.
But in Australia you nearly always do it.
Only exception day night tests and Hobart

Winning the toss is way to crucial in test match cricket

Sort of like kicking with the wind. The wind can die down or increase which may favour or go against your team. You always kick with it first though, scoreboard pressure does funny things.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Opening batsmen used to walk in and blunt any early life that is usually present in a Day 1 Test wicket, then the team would go on to set the game up with a healthy score. The way batsmen play now, batting first is fraught with danger as they have no idea how to bat for survival. Anything that moves off the deck is a ticket to the pavilion.

The other bonus of batting first used to be that by days 4 & 5 the pitch would begin to break up and take spin. You see pitches these days where days 4 & 5 are the best batting conditions of the match.

 

[iluvparis]

Would be interested to see if win % of teams batting first has changed much over the last 10 years or so - personally I doubt it has. Still a huge advantage.

 

[Torz]

You should normally bat first, however an interesting comment was made about electing to bat first in the first match of a series.

You can't win the game with the bat in the first session, because at most you might be 0/150. But you can certainly lose it if you're 5/30.

 

[corbies]

Would be interested to see if win % of teams batting first has changed much over the last 10 years or so - personally I doubt it has. Still a huge advantage.

Tests Overall
Matches: 2235
Team Batting First Won: 772 (34.54%)
Team Batting First Lost: 712 (31.86%)
Draw:751 (33.60%)
Percentage of matches won by team batting first excluding draws: 52.02% (772/1484)

Last 10 years
Matches: 419
Team Batting First Won: 182 (43.44%)
Team Batting First Lost: 134 (31.98%)
Draw:103 (24.58%)
Percentage of matches won by team batting first excluding draws: 57.59% (182/316).

 

[the_interloper]

I think in a day night test you're better off batting first, trying to put some quick runs on the board and declaring half hour into the last session if you can. But other than that these days openers aren't what they used to be so if there's juice in it for the first session you can get in trouble.

And you don't want to be that captain who puts the opposition in and they're 1 for 350 at stumps, could cost you your job.

 

[PhatBoy]

I think the percentages are more in favor of the team batting first over the last 10 years for a simple reason - and one that Australia has displayed over and over lately.

Teams aside from SA occasionally and sometimes England, have lost the art of playing for a draw.

Think about some of the memorable innings of the 90s - Mark Waugh vs SA at Adelaide, Atherton at The Wanderers, Kallis at the MCG, Steve Waugh in countless knocks and even up until his final test innings in 2004 etc

Now try and remember some great innings to draw games in the last 10 years - du Plessis at Adelaide is one of the few I can think of.

It's at the stage now where any time a team is set 400 plus, and 4 or 5 sessions to survive, it's virtually game over.

 

[PhatBoy]

Actually I can think of a couple of others but they come from an unlikely source.

Gayle made 160* and carried his bat in Adelaide to force a draw, also made 197 or something in NZ. Darren Bravo made a double in NZ too.

 

[Hamingja]

You should normally bat first, however an interesting comment was made about electing to bat first in the first match of a series.

You can't win the game with the bat in the first session, because at most you might be 0/150. But you can certainly lose it if you're 5/30.

Last uttered by Nasser Hussain November 7 2002

 

[Underarm]

I think in a day night test you're better off batting first, trying to put some quick runs on the board and declaring half hour into the last session if you can. But other than that these days openers aren't what they used to be so if there's juice in it for the first session you can get in trouble.

And you don't want to be that captain who puts the opposition in and they're 1 for 350 at stumps, could cost you your job.

You think declaring after 65 overs is a smart plan?

 

[PhatBoy]

Last uttered by Nasser Hussain November 7 2002

Geez I feel sorry for him over that call.
I reckon almost every visiting captain in the last 20 years at least once sent Australia in only for them to make a million

 

[the_interloper]

You think declaring after 65 overs is a smart plan?

Perhaps. If you are 8 for 300 and the ball is hooping all over the joint and promises to for the last hour or two of play then sure, you might get them 4 or 5 for 50 and set the game up.

 

[SpaceClef]

Opening batsmen used to walk in and blunt any early life that is usually present in a Day 1 Test wicket, then the team would go on to set the game up with a healthy score. The way batsmen play now, batting first is fraught with danger as they have no idea how to bat for survival. Anything that moves off the deck is a ticket to the pavilion.

The other bonus of batting first used to be that by days 4 & 5 the pitch would begin to break up and take spin. You see pitches these days where days 4 & 5 are the best batting conditions of the match.

These are my thoughts too. Seems most recent collapses have been caused by being sent into bat first because teams can't handle a juicy pitch

 

[frankrizzo]

But you can certainly lose it if you're 5/30.

Depends who you are playing i guess, 5/26 can be a winning start for some.

 

[Underarm]

If you are 8 down after 65 overs you are going to be no where near 300 runs, especially if the ball is 'Hooping around'.

Perhaps. If you are 8 for 300 and the ball is hooping all over the joint and promises to for the last hour or two of play then sure, you might get them 4 or 5 for 50 and set the game up.

 

[the_interloper]

If you are 8 down after 65 overs you are going to be no where near 300 runs, especially if the ball is 'Hooping around'.

You've missed the point Trevor. It hoops around in the evening session a lot more, so the idea being you get quick runs during the day and get them to bat under lights when bowling conditions are best. Steve Smith (who probably knows more about cricket than you or 1) tried a similar tactic in a Shield match at Adelaide a while back and it worked.

Don't get hung up on the figures I used by the way, just think about the tactic in general.

 

[frankrizzo]

Last two pitches were good because both teams had help with the ball early and then the chance to fight with the bat when things were tough.

We had them dead in the water with both bat and ball in the first test and couldn't finish the job, when they had us 5 for not many they finished off the tail and then turned that into a win by grinding us down with the bat.

We would have lost both those games whether we batted or bowled first, to me thats a good pitch as the obvious weaknesses get exposed whether it's heads or tails.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Last two pitches were good because both teams had help with the ball early and then the chance to fight with the bat when things were tough.

We had them dead in the water with both bat and ball in the first test and couldn't finish the job, when they had us 5 for not many they finished off the tail and then turned that into a win by grinding us down with the bat.

We would have lost both those games whether we batted or bowled first, to me thats a good pitch as the obvious weaknesses get exposed whether it's heads or tails.

Yes agree SAF clearly superior.

However if Smith wins toss today what maximises Australias chances? Id still suggest its batting first

 

[frankrizzo]

However if Smith wins toss today what maximises Australias chances? Id still suggest its batting first

I expect it to be a much flatter track than last year so yep it will be bat first for sure.

Hoping it's still the right sort of bat first pitch though where the first session is the tougher grind for the batting side which then gets rewarded if you fight through it, our normal pitches where the bowlers are thinking about retirement when they lose the toss are just awful.

 

[Underarm]

You've missed the point Trevor. It hoops around in the evening session a lot more, so the idea being you get quick runs during the day and get them to bat under lights when bowling conditions are best. Steve Smith (who probably knows more about cricket than you or 1) tried a similar tactic in a Shield match at Adelaide a while back and it worked.

Don't get hung up on the figures I used by the way, just think about the tactic in general.

You mean the game this year? New South Wales declared 8/325 for a half hour shot and took a wicket. Then won the game with good bowling during the day 4. doesn't prove its a wining strategy though.

I agree declaring at 7 or 8 down can make sense in some situations, But we've seen final partnerships putting on 30, 40 50 runs if they don't go out immediately. If you do it, and get it wrong its an awful play, and IMO you would need to take 2-3 quick wickets to make successful.

 

[the_interloper]

You mean the game this year? New South Wales declared 8/325 for a half hour shot and took a wicket. Then won the game with good bowling during the day 4. doesn't prove its a wining strategy though.

I agree declaring at 7 or 8 down can make sense in some situations, But we've seen final partnerships putting on 30, 40 50 runs if they don't go out immediately. If you do it, and get it wrong its an awful play, and IMO you would need to take 2-3 quick wickets to make successful.

It doesn't necessarily but the fact it has been tried (and that's not the only example) proves that captains will give it a go.

Of course it's a risk and unorthodox but it could surely set up the game if it comes off. In all honesty today's play is almost set up for that ploy, if Faf goes out, with 3 debutants to bat I would think it's worth the risk.

 

[MisterMarcus]

Geez I feel sorry for him over that call.
I reckon almost every visiting captain in the last 20 years at least once sent Australia in only for them to make a million

Steve Waugh made the point that if you're going to bowl first, it has to be an aggressive, attacking move: the pitch is green and/or the opposition batting is weak and fragile. Whereas Nasser (and many other visiting teams before him) used to bowl first as a defensive move, to work themselves into the game without having to front up with the bat on Day 1.

Waugh's argument was that this negative, defensive mindset meant that opposition teams had already half-conceded the match in their minds. "We can't win batting first, so let's take the easy option and hope Australia get themselves out for us".