Ritchie Benaud used a simple mantra, when talking about ODI batting – “use up all your overs”.
His reasoning was simple; if you had guys at the crease, you had some chance to either make a defendable total or chase down runs. He put it quite succinctly on more than one occasion “you can’t get runs if all your batsmen are in the pavilion”.
The first five games of the World Cup have thrown up some numbers that would have horrified Benaud.
To date, only England and Bangladesh batted their full 50 overs in making a defendable total and only South Africa batted its full quota in a fruitless chase. These same three sides all scored the only totals over 300 to date.
Other teams have made the following scores
South Africa – 207 off 39.5 overs – batting second
Pakistan – 105 off 21.4 overs – batting first
Sri Lanka – 136 off 29.2 overs – batting first
Afghanistan – 207 off 38.2 overs – batting first
Teams are obviously trying to get flying starts to their innings and that’s the modern way of batting, especially on the small grounds in England, with the ODI fielding restrictions in place.
That approach makes sense of a side is 0 for 60 or 70 off 10 overs, but what happens of a team is 3 for 50? There doesn’t appear to be any batting re-evaluation if a team loses a few quick wickets, as happened in all of the innings mentioned above.
In years gone by, sides would have drawn into their shells, put away the big shots (unless there was zero risk) and chased runs through singles and twos, building a series of partnerships – but above all, making sure they batted for 50 overs.
Nowadays, all sides seem to keep playing their shots, regardless of the circumstances. Very good teams like England and India can get away with this, simply because of the quality players they have, in very deep batting lineups. Still though, even the best sides like these can have batting collapses as England did on occasion in Sri Lanka and the West Indies.
Sri Lanka veteran Lasith Malinga. (Michael Bradley/AFP/Getty Images)
Other sides, including Australia and New Zealand, may have to resort to old fashioned batting tactics, if quick wickets are lost at the top of the order. Australia in particular has the type of player to rebuild an innings in Steve Smith or Usman Khawaja and Kane Williamson’s perfectly capable of doing the same for the Kiwis.
Kersi Meher-Homji has penned three pieces so far about World Cup cliffhangers and all have a similar thread; side one bats its overs and side two does likewise. In other words, both teams are a chance to win the game because they’ve played for nearly 100 overs.
Just look at what Australia achieved against South Africa twice in 1999 by batting out their 50 overs. That desire to score as many runs as possible in the allotted overs was the difference in our winning the World Cup that year.
There’s no shame in building a score, rather than thrashing a small total. By all means go hard from ball one and keep the foot down if conditions allow that, but if wickets fall quickly, side’s shouldn’t be scared to accumulate until the innings demands a different approach but above all, bat out their overs.
The ODI game’s designed to last 50 overs each side and teams need to remember that, otherwise we’re going to see more one sided games like that between Sri Lanka & New Zealand, which didn’t last 50 overs across two innings!
johnb
Guest
Would he have been happy or unhappy last night Paul?! Happy presumably - they did fail to but out the 50 - but did almost get there having been 4 down very early and 5 down after 16.1 at which point they just stayed there for a fair period. Probably just what the great man was going on about. Whether it looks such a good tactic if you don't have a Coulter-Nile type innings from someone in the late order who knows!
Neel
Roar Guru
Love the title Paul. I miss hearing the legend commentate each game. By the way Paul, would you put the failure of the batting teams to bat out their full quota of 50 overs down to technique deficiencies, good bowling or something else?
Paul
Roar Guru
I take your point Duncan and you're right, both sides finished on the same score through differing methods, but which side will feel more let down in terms of what might have been? Team B clearly had greater squandered opportunities and would be all the more angry with themselves, especially if they lost that game.
Paul
Roar Guru
It's safe to say there's always going to be games where conditions dictate how long side can bat. That said, Afghanistan never reset after losing early wickets and left 8 overs out there, but only lost by 34 runs. If they had wickets in hand at the 30 over stage, they could have walked home easily in this game.
Duncan Smith
Roar Guru
I know what you're trying to say, but my point is this: suppose there are two teams ... Team A bats conservatively for 40 overs and gets to 3-150, then scores 100 off the last 10 overs. They finish with 250 for the loss of 6 wickets. Team B has a 20-20 attitude and is 5-180 after 20 overs. They then lose 5-70 and are all out in the 30th over for 250. Despite the two teams different approaches, at the end of the day, they both ended up with 250. It doesn't matter how many overs they used.
Joshua Kerr
Roar Guru
Yes, sorry my comment was very similar but I'm glad we agree. This match was an example of the 'new' England. It was good to see Pakistan bounce back from 11 consecutive ODI defeats though. The Afghanistan-Sri Lanka match I'm listening to now might not go the full 100 allocated overs though!
Paul
Roar Guru
Exactly my point Joshua. This was a terrific contest for 100 overs, because there were two sides who made it into a genuine contest to go the full distance. England 4 years ago would probably not have got within 100 runs of that score, but this team showed it has way more determination and plenty of good players as well. That said, Pakistan certainly showed any teams beatable on any given day in this format if the entire side puts in and a bit of luck goes your way.
Joshua Kerr
Roar Guru
England still scored 334-9 off their 50 overs and were still in the game right until the last. 334-9 is still a great score - the English press seem to forget that. Those 14 runs that England didn't get were those left out on the field through misfield, dropped catches etc. and the failure of the opening partnership of Roy and Bairstow for the second consecutive match but at least England gave themselves a chance by batting 50 overs - it is a 50-over match after all!
Joshua Kerr
Roar Guru
I agree with Paul, Duncan - if the batting team got to say 250 off 30 overs but their wickets were falling at an unsustainable rate then they can afford to just be more careful in their batting and make sure they get to their 50 overs. They could still score 350-400 even though they had slowed down their run rate in the last 20 overs!
Paul
Roar Guru
Isn't it about maximizing the overs available for batting Duncan? In your example, that could easily happen where one side bats first, makes 250 off 30 overs, then the other team takes it's time and scores the runs in a canter. I can guarantee you'll hear words from the losing captain like " we left at least 50 or 60 runs out there" - through not batting his full quota.
Paul
Roar Guru
You're right John, it's striking that balance of getting enough runs without a) being all out and leaving too many overs or b) having wickets in the shed but batting 50 overs for a sub par score. I have no issue if a side is all out in say the 48th over in making a score, but my chasing target would be 5 down at the 40th over, chasing no more than 100 in international ODIs. In this age, leaving 6 or 8 balls unscored is maybe 16 - 20 runs and most top sides would reckon 10 an over from overs 40 - 50, with wickets in hand, is achievable.
Paul
Roar Guru
There's certainly validity in what you say Dave, but my point for this piece were the overs left out there. At no stage did Afghanistan, Pakistan or Sri Lanka look to reset their innings once they'd got into early trouble. They kept going almost as though it was a T20 game and the results speak for themselves. South Africa at least gave itself a chance against Bangladesh by batting the 50 overs, as did England last night against Pakistan. The fact they didn't win, comes back to your points about quality of the opposition, tough target, etc
johnb
Guest
Richie also used to think that the target had got very very difficult when it was past 6 an over. At the time he was no doubt right, as he was about most things relating to cricket. But times change. I think a distinction needs to be drawn between a side that is all out in say the 47th over, and one that is all out in the 37th. Instead of leaving 13 overs out there it might well have been better to throttle back a bit when you were already 4 or 5 down. But if you get to say 7 down in the 45th, sure you could most times comfortably make it through the whole 50 if you accepted only getting 3 or 4 an over in that time - but you are most likely better off trying to do better than that - and if you fail you haven't missed much.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
I think you’re overplaying the “going hell for leather” explanation for low scores rather than pitch conditions or quality of the opposition. Sri Lanka and Pakistan struggled on pitches that were very helpful early on to the quicks. Pakistan’s top five got out to misplayed short balls and strangles down the leg side rather than extravagant shots. Afghanistan just didn’t have the manpower in the batting. South Africa fell short as you note because it was a tough target and they had to take risks.
Duncan Smith
Roar Guru
I was thinking about this the other day, one of Benaud's pet peeves. But it's also a bit of an illusion. A team can score 250 off 30 overs (all out) or 6-250 off 50 overs. The bottom line is both teams scored 250.
Riccardo
Roar Rookie
In this modern age of bat dominating ball, massive willow clubs, benign pitches and the heave-ho injected throughout cricket's genres via hit and giggle, some of the old lessons still apply. Bat your allotment; just a no-brainer and when was Richie ever wrong? Line and length. Despite my snide opener we have seen some green-topped wickets, probably to give them longevity given repeat usage, but seaming, none-the-less. Despite the West Indies short barrage against Pakistan early on we have seen the effectiveness of a group of bowlers bowling line and length, building pressure and taking wickets. The Black Caps produced a great example of this on a day where there was limited swing. Rotate strike and accumulate. Weren't Warner and Smith, until his error anyway, great examples of this theorem. Warner at his most controlled, dabbing and tapping, early calling and turning one and a halfs into twos. This was how Border's young Australian side won in 1987. While there will be some big scores the winner is likely to have to graft as well as go slogathon. Good read mate...