The Fallacy Of The Number 8 Batsman

A peculiar selectorial smell emanates from defeated Test teams. If you see a team pick a number 8 batsman for his batting, put your money on its opponents or at least on a draw if betting is your thing. A Test team which justifies the selection of its 4th bowler with the words “he can also bat a bit” is essentially picking a lemon. Such a choice betrays one of two things. First, the team does not have good choices for its 4th bowling position, either for a specific set of circumstances, or at a particular point in a series. Second, the team has reached a stage where it lives in the fond hope that a winning Test match score is likely to be made from number 8.

Number 8 batsmen serve one of two purposes in all but the smallest minority of exceptional matches. They perform the work of finishing off an opposition attack which has already been mauled by the specialists, or they provide “respectability” to totals after the specialists have been shattered. But think about it. A bad fourth bowler who is going to merely serve up 3 gentle runs an over when he bowls is likely to boost opposition totals into safe territory, rather than help bowl teams out cheaply. Then, after his own batting has been destroyed, and the score is, say 130/6, he may make a nice 40 or 60 or even 80, and get his team to 300. But that 300 is very likely to still be at least a 150-200 runs short of the opponent’s first innings score. Respectability? Perhaps so. But useless, if the ambition is to win a Test match. 180 all out against 525/8 looks far worse than 310 all out against 525/8, but the match is equally unlikely to be won (or saved) from either position, follow-on or no follow-on.

1381 Tests have yielded outright results so far (in addition to 2 Tied tests). On the winning side, players at Number 8 in the batting order average 25.4 with the bat, and 21.8 with the ball. On average, They bowl 98 balls per innings, concede 41 runs, and take 1.9 wickets per innings. On the losing side, players at Number 8 in the batting order average 16.6 with the bat, and 39 with the ball. They bowl 112 balls per innings, concede 55 runs and take 1.4 wickets. In winning teams, the Number 8 batsman bats on average 1.3 times per Test. In losing teams, the Number 8 batsman bats twice. Put another way, the number 8 batsmen is needed, on average, only thrice in the second innings in every 10 Tests that are won.

It is far better to have a strong 4th bowler and concede 300-325, than to have a modest 4th bowler and concede 450. The extra 10 or 20 runs which a number better 8 batsman may make are not worth the sacrifice of a 4th wicket taking option. The benefits of having a 4th bowler who can bowl well far outweigh the benefits of having a 4th bowler who can bat a bit and not bowl as well. 
I don’t want to suggest here that teams who pick players like Bresnan or Johnson (when he was bowling poorly) for their batting, are doing so only because they want to shore up their batting. They often do so because there is no realistic specialist bowling option available which is decisively superior to the chosen candidate. India invariably choose Ashwin ahead of Ojha as a spinner overseas. This is often put down to Ashwin’s superior batting. This may well be the case. But it is also true, that Ojha is not decisively superior as a spinner compared to Ashwin. Selecting Ashwin in an investment which is made necessary by the fact that India don't have a better bowling option.

In the ongoing Ashes series in Australia, England have made this type of choice not once, but twice. First, they picked Ben Stokes to shore up both the batting and the bowling. Stokes was to bat above Matthew Prior in the order and perform the 5th bowler’s role. Second, they added Bresnan to the mix at Perth, specifically as a bowler who can bat as high as number 8. This, in a team which already has the perfect bowling candidate for number 8 in Stuart Broad. Not only does this compromise the quality of the English middle order, it put a lot of pressure on Matthew Prior who has been struggling with form. With the ball, England were unable to put any pressure on Australia's decidedly moderate batting line up when Broad wasn't bowling. Australia on the other hand were able to exert pressure with Harris, Siddle and Johnson. Australia would have had the same dilemma that England have, had Johnson not bowled so well. Do they pick a better bowler, or do they pick the guy who could turn a potential 160 all out into 250 all out? As it has happened, Johnson has been lethal with the ball.

England’s demise in the Ashes can be put down largely to their selectorial choices following Trott’s departure from the series. With Stuart Broad in their ranks, they should have packed the top 6 with the 6 best available specialist batsmen, and the last 3 positions with the 3 best available bowlers. But perhaps the selection of Stokes and Bresnan instead of a specialist bowler and a specialist batsman suggests that England don’t think the batsmen they have selected and the bowlers they have selected are good enough.

Australia are in a similar position with Shane Watson. But in their case, they’ve long identified Watson as a specialist top order Test player. It also suggests that they don’t think they have a specialist batting candidate who is decisively superior to Watson right now.

When India select their XI for the Test against South Africa, they should pick the 4 bowlers who are most likely to get them wickets and the 6 batsmen who are most likely to get them runs. If they think a fast bowler is significantly more likely to take more wickets than Ashwin, they should pick such a bowler ahead of Ashwin. Ashwin’s batting should not be a consideration.

I say this simply because the history of Test cricket, in simple numbers, suggests that having a 4th bowler who can take wickets is far more valuable than having a number 8 batsman who can hold an end up with the ball, but makes 25-30 extra runs with the bat.

Teams that make compromises of this kind are often teams that expect to lose.

View the Original article