Test matches also have their own kind of defensive fields when the pitch is playing easy and batters are scoring freely.
Two common variants are:
In out fields - where you still keep 3-4 Fielders in spots that can catch edges or miscued shots (typically slips behind the batter or a position about 30-45 deg in front which can catch a ball that’s accidently hit into the air) and the rest are in the outfield preventing boundaries and sixes.
7:2 fields - where the bowler bowls on the off side - ie close to that wide line away from the batter. In test matches the line is considered more of a guideline so you don’t get penalty wides unless it’s really egregious. So the strategic idea is to place 7 fielders on that side and basically frustrate the batter into making mistakes.
This probably needs video clips to illustrate matters but I’m unable to easily find stuff on YouTube to link to 
That’s pretty sick.
Hard for me to tell from the camera angles, but how many of those balls would have hit the wicket if there was no batter. I think at least a couple would have passed harmlessly by, but I’m sure the batter knows better, and wouldn’t have made contact if there wasn’t danger.
Basic sports psychology would suggest that as you limit the maximum attempts (e.g. overs), each attempt becomes more important and more exciting. And this is without even getting into possible sloppiness due to fatigue in day-long matches.
Consequently, it’s hard for me to imagine how test matches could possibly have either the excitement or as high a level of play as shorter matches.
T20s are definitely the most exciting start to finish but the tension in a close test match or second half of an ODI are unique in sports imo.
ODI seems like the perfect cricket format to me.
I guess what I’m getting at is that some those balls didn’t even look close. Like a batter swinging at something way outside of the strike zone.
I met a guy from Barbados and he said batting against Curtley Ambrose was said to be like watching the devil himself run at you.
A few of those were swings hoping to score runs. Sometimes batting gets a bit more aggressive against the best bowling because the batter realizes he likely won’t be around for long anyway (and each successive batter is weaker).
I guess that would explain it.
Something I want to ask those with a deeper understanding of cricket…
Why in IPL (and T20 cricket in general) is someone like Andre Russell not sent in until 4 or 5 wickets have been lost and/or it’s around the 15th over?
Given that he has the ability to put up a huge total, seems to me you’d want batting behind him who can bat calmly or go hard depending on what Russell produced, rather than such batters coming in early with no knowledge of whether he goes big or is out for a duck.
The ball when it is brand new out of the box is harder and “moves” more in the air and sideways movement off the pitch. Not every batter can handle this movement, so bat lower in the order against slower and more predicatable bowling.
Likewise, the first 6 overs of 20 have only two outfielders out. Making it easier for boundaries for some batters who otherwise might struggle to clear the outfield when its spread out.
For Russell specifically, him being lower down allows other batters to bat when its a bit easier to find a boundary (a one or two bounce over the rope is usuall safe in the first 6 overs, but out after that) and allows a player of his calibre to bat as the situation demands it. If he comes in with the team in trouble he can rebuild, otherwise he can go power from ball 1. Some of the opening/top order batters dont have power from ball one in the bag, so take some time to settle.
Frequently, if a team starts super strong, late power batters are promoted up the order. For Australia in 50 over cricket, our #3 and #4 are fairly solid plodders. But if our first two do really well, we promote Maxwell/Stoinis etc… up to try and score 60 off 25 balls or similar.
1 Like
Thanks for the detailed reply.
The condition of the ball never gets mentioned in commentary outside of tests so I’d never considered it in T20s.
I still remain curious how it’d work out to have the traditional #8-10 come out first and just go for maximum strike rate from the get go at minimal risk if they fail completely, then send out the big hitters and have the normal top order batters close out the last half of the inning.
I’m not arrogant enough to not realize it’d be done were it not a terrible idea. Pitfall of loving cricket because it has lots of numbers rather than growing up grasping the nuances of the game.
Sunil Narine has done this the past 10 years or so to great success. Not a high average (runs per out) but a very good strike rate (runs per 100 balls) despite historically being a bowler/late order batter.
While we’re doing this has there ever been a Batting XI vs Bowling XI? As in like an all star match where each side is selected only for skill on one side.
While we are going all American this tournament
Lockie Ferguson just bowled the first “perfect game” to steal a baseball term in T20 World Cup history (2nd ever behind a Canadian)
4 overs (24 pitches).
0 runs conceded
3 wickets
4 maidens (an over of 6 balls without conceding a run. These are very rare in themselves)
Admittedly vs Papua New Guinea but still, fair effort
Are the number of balls a bowler can pitch limited or could they have sent that dude out a fifth time?
Limited to 20% of the total innings.
In 20 over cricket, any specific bowler can only bowl 4 overs. In 50 over cricket its 10 overs each. In a test match there is no limit for how many you can bowl total, but you can’t bowl two in a row.
The other restriction is that after each over, the “end” the team bowls from changes. So if you were sitting behind the bowler in over 1, you would be behind the batter in over 2 and so on. Bowlers can’t bowl two in a row, so back in the day generally bowlers picked an “end” to bowl from, would bowl a few overs, have a break to rest and then come back later to bowl the rest.
Nowadays, the tactics for who bowls from which end changes a lot as bowlers generally only bowl one or two overs in a row before changing it up to not let a batter get settled. Some bowlers are better suited to bowl to left handed batters as to right handed and so on.
1 Like
In Test matches back in the 90s the average team lineup looked something like
2 opening batters whose aim was to play defence and survive the “new ball”. The new ball used to do these kind of things with amazing opening bowlers like Wasim Akram from Pakistan (now a pundit) and this over of a Test match from 1995. The red ball in Test matches actually is a bit crazier than the white ball for one day game (they use a white ball to see it better under floodlights)
Batting positions 3-6 were made of other batters who provided the bulk of the runs. The best batter usually bats at number 3 or 4 in the order.
#7 is usually the wicketkeeper/catcher. Up until about 1995, a premium was put on the fielding/catching skills of the wicketkeeper, with any batting runs he made a bonus. However, since Adam Gilchrist came around (and to a lesser extent Romesh Kaluwitharana) batting abilities became more important than the catching.
Now days it is popular to have your wicketkeeper also be a top position batter, saving the #7 spot for an “allrounder” who does batting and bowling fairly well. This was Gilchrists best innings in a 50 over game (he was slightly too early for the invention of 20 over cricket in late 2000s)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egxEfBI3hyk
Positions 8-11 are dedicated bowlers/pitchers. Usually 3 bowl fast/pace and one bowls spinners that rely on deception/sideways movement to deceive the batsman and get wickets/outs.
For this tournament, a lot of teams have a lot of “all-rounders” who provide both elements but perhaps not as well as a specialist. The last few years has created more on an emphasis on power hitting early, and bigger, stronger batsman that can hit 6’s/home runs all over the ground are at a premium.
3 Likes
Not that I’m aware of. Also it wouldn’t really work out as you need both sets of skills on your team. That’s like having a NFL game where one side just as an offense and the other a defense.
While some no 8s are good strikers (though often with limited technique) most 9s and 10s are not good hitters and would only be a liability to send up.
Rarely in t20s but more so in the 50 over format, esp before the 2010s a no 7 or 8 who was good at hitting the ball from the get go was often sent up the order tactically either opening or at nos 3 and 4 to up the scoring rate. This kind of batting order promotion was called sending in a “pinch hitter” (a term borrowed somewhat incorrectly from baseball)
Another tactic you’ll occasionally see in modern t20s is sending in a lower order batter who is not necessary a good hitter but is good at defense! up the order. E.g. if you are say 50/3 after 7 overs and don’t want your hitter (such an andre Russell to come in a bat for a few overs more) then you would send this guy to maybe score 15(15) and get out in the 13-15 over mark. Such a player is called a “pinch blocker”
