Best tail-order batsmen in Test cricket

Stewart Broad........ ;)

I remember Dizzy's 201* very fondly... good memories

Loved Hoggy's 36 on debut, out of 116! He later got 52 vs the West Indies at their peak of hostility. D K Lillee was also very good. 73* his top. Henry Lawson got a few 50s. Spofforth and O'Reilly got test 50s. Jimmy Anderson got 80 at no.11.

Tim May's epic 42* in the one run loss to the West Indies is probably my favourite. Agakar, he of many ducks, got a 100 at Lords! Danny Morrison was always entertaining, especially if he got off the mark. Pat Symcox was defiant.

Part of me feels, the tai lender should be considered someone who bats from "9" onwards in the modern game, as in the last 30-35 odd years 1980-2016, there has been to many good no 8 batters. e.g. Brad Hogg/Hadlee/Shaun Pollock/Warne/Mitchell Johnson/Wasim Akram etc, I wouldn't consider them batting bunnies or tailenders. It would be ludicrous to suggest no 7 in the modern game is a tailender e.g. Gilly/Mark Boucher etc. So if were basing it on guys who batted a lot at no 9 or lower, I'd say Paul Reifel was handy/Kasporwicz/Brett Lee/Nathan Lyon/Tim May could be very gritty to, as was Peter Taylor. Craig Mdermott loved a tonk as well. Darren Gough in early part of career was more an 8 than,but his batting faded as the ball took over.

The best tailender is a silly concept. If you take a qualification of 20 innings. Pollock has a weird record in that he has the best average of 40 at no 9 with his 2 only centuries, but he spent most of his career at no 8 with a 30 average. Vettori on the other hand is a poor performer at no 9 23 average but the best at no 8 with a 39 average. The other one that really stands out is Nathan Lyons at no 11. He has 39 innings at no 11 with an average of 20 with 25 not outs, but averages arounf 10 only when he doesn't bat at 11.

All of this depends on where you draw the line between all rounder. Everyone here keeps touting Vettori and so they should. The author has sort of arbitrarily cut some out and left others in based on perception. The reality is that Akram might have been considered a bowling all rounder in his day, but his batting average was only 22! That is basically the expected average of an 8 or 9 playing for Australia these days. We then remove Vettor despite where he batted for most of his career. It'd be useful (though problematic in its own way) if the ICC introduced some sort of cut of point for what is considered what. Perhaps something like: Batting Averages (for bowlers): - Under 20 average, tail-ender - Between 20 and 30, bowling all rounder - 30 and above, "genuine" all round (depending on bowling stats). Bowling Averages (for batsmen): - Over 40, batsman only ("but rolls arm over"); - Between 35 and 40: batting all rounder - 35 and below, "genuine" all rounder (depending on batting stats). At least as a guideline it's helpful. You'd obviously have to put in place minimum wickets and runs (just as we have minimum games played) to prevent statistical anomalies. I might have made these a bit generous. We could certainly toughen it up, you'd be surprised how many players would drop out of "all rounder" status (whether bowling or batting preferred) if you ramped it up more than this.

Mark 'two long hops per over' Craig struggles as a test match bowler. However, he averages about 40 with the bat at no 8.

I am staggered that nobody has mentioned Ashwin. He has always been a step above tail end with the bat and over the past year has graduated to a level where he can make the team as just a batsman.

Dan Vettori for mine too, as others have said, he was a very very good batsman for where he batted. Took it very seriously. Such a valuable cricketer for them and an underrated all-round player.

Agree about Harris. Loved watching him bat. Him and Johnson pulled us out of trouble a few times in the Ashes

Nice article, however I miss the days of the hopeless tailenders having to bat. I seem to recall an ODI when Australia had Whitney, Alderman, Rackemann and Reid as the tail. Funny funny stuff.

Thanks for letting us ponder the question Ritesh, all the names I have read on the list are worthy and some as Junior Coach point out enter the realm of All Rounder, some players have the all rounder talent early and some like Vettori work on it over a long career. Peter Siddle is one I would like to add 1032 runs at 14.5.

Both Waughs were handy with the red ball, Steve obviously earlier in his career. Blewett was a bit nippy rolling them over and I am sure Shahid Afredi was picked as a top,order bat and Wasim threw him the ball in a test.

Most of these guys listed are "allrounders" they tended to play proper cricket shots and tried to score runs- if you want a true tailender with crap technique but somehow managed to score runs then how can you go past "swerving;" Mervyn Hughes , started life as an 11 who was lucky to get 0 not out to making 1032 runs at 16.78 to be the first Australian since Richie Benaud to do the 1000run/100 wicket double (a few have done it since) , his batting also used to crack me up so the entertainment factor was high.