“Your strategy for victories in battle is not repetitious, and your formations in response to the enemy are endless.” – Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Australia can convert its biggest weakness into a strength by bucking 100 years of convention, and embracing a malleable top six.
Debate has raged over the make-up of the Australian batting order throughout 2013, from the shambles that was the tour of India, dominating the lead-up talk to the Ashes, and subject to constant change during it.
After the disgraceful collapse that occurred on Sunday night in the fourth Test, calls for mass sackings were as loud as they were predictable.
It’s time for people to realise there is no set of magic batsmen out there who have been missed. Instead, we have to make do with what we’ve got.
There are plenty of questions about our batsmen, and each one divides opinion.
Should Shane Watson open, as he wants to, or bat at six to protect his body from the strain of too much all-rounders load?
Should David Warner bat at six and be a destructive presence against the old ball, or open to set the tone?
Should Usman Khawaja come in at three, or be allowed to settle down the order while he finds his feet at Test level?
Michael Clarke should bat at three, four or five depending on who you listen to.
Phil Hughes either can’t play spin so has to open, or doesn’t have the technique for the quicks, so is better suited in the middle order.
Steve Smith should bat at four to save Clarke for his favourite position, or is at his best counter-attacking at five or six.
All of the above should be an option when Australia is at the crease. Versatility is seen as an important factor in any work place, so why not for a batsman in the Australian cricket team?
In an ideal world, like the one the England Test team currently resides in, a concrete top six is a luxury not to be thought twice about.
But the Australian Test side doesn’t exist in that world. In fact, it’s so far away as to be Pluto to England’s Earth.
We are at war with the Poms, and we’re losing battle after battle, badly so.
When an underdog is outmatched in terms of talent, it must resort to other means to level the playing field.
So why not embrace the chaos? A captain doesn’t call on his bowlers at a fixed time every innings, and Michael Clarke, especially, has shown an ability to make a change based on game situation.
The same should apply to the batting order.
Much has been made of the meticulous planning undergone by the England hierarchy, and Alastair Cook has often been accused of captaining by the numbers, especially in the field.
Meeting such structured thinking with a rigid game-plan is destined to fail without feats of individual brilliance.
Michael Clarke is the best batsman in the side, but is also more vulnerable than most to the moving ball early in an innings.
While he shouldn’t be out there at 1/10 or when the ball is still new, there’s no reason he shouldn’t be the next one to the crease after a century opening stand.
Maybe if he had have come out at three instead of Khawaja on Sunday, he’d be celebrating a comfortable victory right now, rather than painfully looking for yet more excuses.
Shane Watson, at his best with the field up, can be moved up or down depending on the game situation.
If Graeme Swann is looking particularly dangerous, Steve Smith or Brad Haddin can be called into the fray earlier than they otherwise might.
The Aussie top six consists of three left-handed batsmen, and three right. Why not have one of each padded up at all times, to go in depending on who falls, and keep opposites at the crease, not allowing the bowlers to settle in a groove?
We always hear plenty about how batsmen like to prepare a certain way based on the position they’re batting, but such talk is nonsensical. When you actually think about it, it’s simply ludicrous.
On the first day of a Test match, a number three can be in for the second ball, or the second over after tea. Batting at five could see you walk to the crease at 3/40 before drinks have been taken, or 3/270 with two overs to go in the day.
You can’t have two blokes padded up to be in depending on which scenario unfolds? A Test match batsman is going to go to water because he can only bat when three wickets have fallen rather than two? Give me a spell.
The batting order should adapt to the match depending on how best to apply the skills within.
It’s currently seen as a weakness to not have a settled batting order. Let’s make it a strength.
The motto of the Australian batsmen should be a battle-cry: “Anywhere. Anytime.”
Max
Guest
I came across this forum when I googled "Why don't captains change the batting order according to circumstances?". Cameron.......you're spot on!........at least, for the second innings. To me..... it's just plain obvious! In English premier league club cricket (one day 55 overs each with a draw) this approach to the second innings is pretty standard. With bad weather forecast and the possibility of a curtailed match you may even change the openers. Batsmen who get precious about it don't get much sympathy - it's a team game and the captain must be able to shuffle his batsmen according to the prevailing circumstances.......just as he does his bowlers! Yesterday, Michael Clarke did it because that was the only option he had..........and what a day's cricket it produced!.......and by the way, much as it cheesed off the crowd.........coming off early for bad light produced a fair result as Australia had played all the cricket until the final afternoon. Cheers. Max (in England)
Chris
Guest
It's not empty words when you've had with your first two responses two players saying they hate the idea. And it's a perfectly valid point that you hear ex international players saying messing around with the order is something that causes disruption. You've not advanced any good reason beyond "let's try it". Players wouldn't know if they were coming or going. If it was such a brilliant idea someone would have done it. And matches on uncovered sticky dogs 80 years ago don't count.
Cameron Rose
Expert
Thanks for the support Gav, some good stuff in there. I'm with you about Watson, I've always thought he was a natural number three if he was able to fulfil his potential.
Cameron Rose
Expert
Yes, I was Chris. Opened for a while in the early years, but batted everywhere, and couldn't have cared less when I went in. The principles of batting are still the same. All the stuff you're saying it just empty words that no-one challenges because it sounds good. It's rubbish. You can have two guys padded up, and tell them "if X goes out, you're in; if Y goes out then you're in". "Knowing your role in advance" is nonsense. What happened to playing each ball on its merits? I'll give you an idea of what the plan is and what you're expected to do - keep the good balls out, punish the bad ball, keep your discipline, concentration and focus at a premium. It doesn't get done frequently because cricket is a conservative game, and if it was tried once and failed, the media and people like you would tear strips off everyone involved.
Sanjay
Guest
Khawaja and Smith will be our future batting stars, just need their chances
DingoGray
Roar Guru
Oh yeah Blocker....What about the record chase in South Africa when he top scored with 65 against South Africa line up of Steyn, Philander & Morkel????
Peter
Roar Rookie
Dirk Nannes isn't the first person to have expressed that opinion about the Future's League etc. Every man and his dog seems to be saying the same thing and laying claim to it as their original thought.
Peter
Roar Rookie
The problem with judging people by their Shield records nowadays is the way it's broken in 2. It's very hard to get a feel for a player's performance. You might as well judge them by their County records. Klinger's 893 @ 55 makes him a no brainer of a choice really.
blocker
Guest
yep, watching Ryobi cup is time well spent, study that technique, watch some 20/20 while your at it, some good techniques to observe there too. make some more ill-informed judgements. Anyone else there who may have taken one wicket and therefore may be in line to bowl for Australia?
Gav
Guest
Cameron, I think your direction has merit! We have a core group of 6 currents, + 2-3 in waiting (let's say Cowan, Hughes and maybe Marsh) With the exception of probably Rogers (opener) and Clarke at either 4 or 5, there are options. These guys are in reality going to be cycled about ( hopefully not in merry go round fashion) for the foreseeable future, until we get the guys that grab the opportunity and show some consistency. Our developing batsmen should be given roles, suitable to their style / temperament and develop their skills with the understanding of what is going to be asked of them. Eg New ball batsmen or old ball batsmen. Rogers, Hughes Khawaja, Cowan Marsh are all bats we want to be skilled in combating the newer ball. Be it opener, 1st drop, or 2nd or even, depending on the circumstances of the match, facing the 2nd new ball. Clarke and Smith both look to be better options, for different reasons, batting 4-6. Warner is an eye player. If he matures, he could well be something special, used as an opener or as a late order bat. In either case, he could take the game away from the opposition in a session or two. Think about Adam Gilchrist and his different roles in the batting order. Of course Warner is not a keeper, so he should be able to be used as appropriate in a match, without concern over what keeping for an innings has had on him. Watson, tragically out of form, should also be used strategically. For mine if he gets back to the form that he showed, for an extended period of time, a few years ago....he is a natural no 3. But again that depends on his form, and our needs from him as a bowler in any given match, the balance of the side and even the conditions. Right now, I'd be keeping him away from the new ball, and if he doesn't perform in the next test, I'd drop him. Go and show us some consistent form and long innings Shane or it may be over for you! If we are smart and embrace a level of flexibility with our developing bats, I'm sure it will be to both our long term benefit, and immediate benefit, One thing that the shorter forms of the game (which arent going to go away) have given us is players who are much more flexible in their outlook, skills and ability to adapt. We need to embrace this........without ending up on the merry go round, and until we get batsmen who perform consistently
Chris
Guest
Are you a batsman? It seems pretty rich to start calling them precious when pretty much all would say the same thing. Preparing to bat is about a lot more than sticking your pads on, it's about being mentally ready. It's about knowing your role in advance and being prepared for that. Changes in the line up if circumstance demands are fine, all players get that, but not knowing in advance what the plan is and what you're expected to do isn't. Railing against reality won't get you very far, even if you don't like it. If it's such a magnificent idea, how come no one does it?
blocker
Guest
Stein, Morkel, Philander, Kleinweldt and Kallis, I think taht is five., therefore, sth sfrica do play an extra bowler. Plus Smith as well just for the recored. The last test India played against us I think you might find they had five bowlers too. Rev, are you okay? i think you are arguing against your own point. it has been a long day for you. Like Hughes facing anyone bowling short, YOU ARE DISMISSED! =;
Ted
Guest
You're dead on the money Alan!
Red Kev
Guest
The law of averages says you should post something sensible sooner or later but you're defying it, I'll give you that. South Africa, England, India and then Australia are the top four test playing nations. England play the same side against all of them. So do South Africa who play three pacemen, Kallis who is good enough as both a batsman and a bowler (contrast with Watson who is not good enough as either) and another batsman who bowls part time offspin in the mould of a Mark Waugh. So try again there champ.
BLOCKER
Guest
Oh Rev, Rev, Rev, sorry point 11, again S L O W L Y. Sometimes you play opposition who are weak, and you know to be weak, and you gamble on four fast bowlers only. We do not have that luxury because we know we need to keep our bowlers as fresh as possible because their batting is stronger than ours. My bad, should have remembered this basic point. Sorry
Red Kev
Guest
At least I've watched some cricket, something you have apparently never done.
Red Kev
Guest
So your explanation for why England are so successful with only 4 bowlers and no allrounder is what? No team needs an allrounder in tests, they are a luxury if you have someone who holds their place with one discipline and contributes with the other. Moreover 90 overs are rarely bowled in a day these days. India, Australia, South Africa and England all have shocking over-rates, not even close to 15 an hour.
BLOCKER
Guest
oh Rev Kev, please try and understand, I will spell it out for you S L O W L Y. 1. Australia has four main bowlers. 2.In a day there is 90 overs. (About 22 over s each) 3.Sometimes teams bat more than a day. 4. 22 overs in a day is a lot, bowling for more than one day is even more than a lot. 5. Ideally, you want your bowlers to bowl as a team, that is work together. One may bowl tight whilst one may attack. On another occasion both might bowl defensively. 6.Generally, at some stage of the game batsman might get on top of one bowler, and maybe two bowlers. 7. If this happens then the captain may call on one of the other players to have a bowl. 8. Hopefully, this bowler will be able to bowl tightly whilst either a) all the bowlers have a rest to get ready to bowl again or b) put the pressure back on the batsman by bowling tightly. 9. Watson, in this team, fulfils this role. 10. I hope this helps.
Red Kev
Guest
It's a fairly simple line to draw from your comment "because he bowls" to mine that both Khawaja and Wade can bowl too. A bowler's currency is wickets, you don't play bowlers that don't get wickets. Watson averages fewer than one wicket per innings he bowls in. He is not required. Your talk of a foil an tying up the runs from the other end is inherently flawed because you believe only Watson can do that. In point of fact both Siddle and Bird are long spell bowlers. If Clarke were a better captain of spinners he'd use Lyon more frequently in that role too.
AlanKC
Guest
Jeez, no wonder Dirk never made it in Australia with opinions like that ;) Excellent article.