It is infuriating to the opposition, but a dream to the batting captain. Test cricket in recent years has shown the importance of having a long batting line up, and more importantly bowlers that can bat.
Stuart Broad's efforts in the final test against New Zealand barely a week ago is another of history's fine examples of how a bowler that can bat can swing a match for his team.
His partnership with James Anderson on the second morning was crucial in setting up England's innings victory. Broad had spoken about making the No. 8 role in England's side his, and with performances like those demonstrated against the Kiwis, many see No. 8 as being his for a long time.
Broad is an example of many bowlers that can be more than useful with the bat. It is now seen as an essential part of an all round, balanced side, including a wicketkeeper that can hold his place as a specialist batsman.
You only have to look at the best sides in the world to see that at least one of their specialist bowling unit can hold his own with the bat. Australia as the benchmark had for many years as more than capable Nos. 7, 8 , 9 and 10 as Gilchrist, Warne, Lee and Gillespie and all this after having to get through a more than formidable top 6!
India as well have always been able to produce lower order bowlers who could bat, those just coming to mind include Kumble, Pathan and Agarkar.
With the advancement in coaching, safety equipment and psychology of the game though, this could simply be a natural progression of the game.
Without batting ability, even with the best coaching in the world, there would be a struggle to produce lower order batsman that can score runs. Gone are the days of "if the bowlers score runs, it will be a bonus."
Bowlers are now expected to hang around with the recognised batsmen and score as many runs as possible. This is a long way from Fraser, Tuffnell and Malcolm as No. 9, 10 and 11 of England's batting line up. Scarily, this has only changed in the last 15 years.
Will a team ever produce 11 batsmen? Ex-England Captain and Psychologist Mike Brearley believed in picking a specialist for all positions, so if they are the best bowler in the country but cannot bat, then pick them for their bowling merits.
It is not impossible to have 11 batsmen, but it is difficult to see a country producing specialist bowlers worth their place in their No. 1 role who can bat as well. It is safe to say that many captains would be happy to see nine of his 11 who can bat.
There is also the overriding argument that the top order should be doing their job so the bowlers shouldn't need to bat, but then again that just wouldn't be cricket.
2 comments Last one added about 1 year ago — Leave a Comment
Jon Naylor about 1 year ago
I agree completely - plays like Martin for NZ and McGrath for Aus can't bat for toffee, but they have more than enough ability with the ball to ensure they would be regular picks for their national side.
To relate it to other sport, football managers don't drop strikers because they can't defend, although players like Drogba have strong capabilities in that area which is a bonus.
To field 11 batsmen would almost certainly be to the detriment of a side's bowling.
Edit Comment Cancel
Anon Payn about 1 year ago
I don't know about fielding eleven batsmen, but 8 is almost standard these days. I think the benchmark for a number 8 has to be Gillespie! How can anybody forget that double against Bangladesh!
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.