Cricinfo - Blogs - It Figures - Does the tail wag more inTests now?

I felt that this deserved a detailed look. As normally happens, the scope of the article expanded and I have covered the Test tail-enders' batting in depth.

How do we define late order batting? I have decided to be quite conservative and defined a tail-end batting effort as starting from 7 wickets down. While theoretically the late order might start from no.8, I am influenced by the fact that a score of xyz for 6 still represents a reasonable position while xyz for 7 signifies the start of the end. Also, seven down means the two batsmen at the crease are one good batsman with a no.9, or no.8 and no.9 batting together. Thus any batting effort at this juncture is bound to be extremely valuable.

The other criterion I have is that the late order wickets should have added at least 50% of the score at which the seventh wicket fell. Incidentally this also translates to more than 33.33% of the final score. To avoid peculiar situations such as a team, tottering at 20 for 7, having a biff or two or three and trebling the score to 60 all out, I have also excluded the 36 innings which have ended as sub-100 all-out situations.

Let us first do a summary of these situations to determine whether there has been a spurt in late order batting exploits.

Period  Tests  # of instances  Frequency
               > 50% of runs    (Tests)
                 added for 
                 last 3 wkts

All:     1906       641           2.97

2000s:    424       157           2.70

2000:      46        14           3.28
2001:      55        21           2.61
2002:      54         9           6.00
2003:      44        13           3.38
2004:      51        31           1.64
2005:      49        22           2.23
2006:      46        19           2.42
2007:      31         6           5.16
2008-9:    50        17           2.94

Overall the late order batsmen have been successful once in 3 Tests. This figure has improved slightly for the 157 Tests played during the current decade. During 2002 the tail did not wag at all and the 8-9-10-11 batsmen just came in and went. During 2004, it was impossible to dislodge the tail. They stuck like leaches.

During 2007 again the tail has just folded up. However during 2008-09, the frequency has been the same as the all-time Test figure and is in fact slightly higher than the 2000s decade. However I have also found out why we get the feeling of a strongly wagging tail. Out of the 17 instances, 11 have occured during the last 3 months (out of 20 Tests). Hence it is true that during the last three months the bowlers found it difficult to disllodge the late order batsmen.

Let us do one more basic analysis. This is to look at the frequency of such innings by country.

Country       Tests  # of instances  Frequency
                      > 50% of runs   (Tests)
                      added for 
                      last 3 wkts

Australia      705        118           5.97
Bangladesh      59         22           2.68
England        880        122           7.21
India          427         80           5.33
New Zealand    348         76           4.57
Pakistan       335         56           5.98
Soouth Africa  341         66           5.17
Sri Lanka      182         23           7.91
West Indies    451         56           8.05
Zimbabwe        83         22           3.77

First point to remember is that the two frequency values are not comparable, since the number of Tests played by the countries adds to twice the number of Tests played. So the frequency numbers have 50% value.

Bangladesh has the best late order batting record with a very low frequency of 2.68 Tests per such innings. Next comes Zimbabwe, the other weak team with 3.77 Tests. That's probably expected with the poor manner in which these two teams' top orders have batted. New Zealand, South Africa, India, Australia and Pakistan then appear. The other end of the table sees England and Sri Lanka, whose tails have been the poorest of the lot.

Having got a 641-innings database, I have worked on couple of tables, across all 130 odd years of Test cricket.

The first one is a table ordered by the quantum of runs added for the last 3 wickets.

Table of late order batsmen successes: By Runs added

MtNo Year For Final Score                Runs  % of 7 wkt
                                         Added   score

0609 1966 Eng 527 for 10 from 166 for 7   361   217.5%  vs Win
0098 1908 Aus 506 for 10 from 180 for 7   326   181.1%  vs Eng
1336 1996 Pak 553 for 10 from 237 for 7   316   133.3%  vs Zim
1800 2006 Nzl 593 for  8 from 279 for 7   314   112.5%  vs Saf
1902 2008 Saf 459 for 10 from 184 for 7   275   149.5%  vs Aus
0209 1931 Eng 454 for 10 from 190 for 7   264   138.9%  vs Nzl
1139 1990 Nzl 391 for 10 from 131 for 7   260   198.5%  vs Ind
0078 1903 Eng 577 for 10 from 318 for 7   259    81.4%  vs Aus
1573 2001 Nzl 534 for  9 from 281 for 7   253    90.0%  vs Aus
1676 2003 Nzl 563 for 10 from 314 for 7   249    79.3%  vs Pak
0160 1925 Aus 489 for 10 from 253 for 7   236    93.3%  vs Eng
0914 1981 Ind 487 for 10 from 254 for 7   233    91.7%  vs Eng
1380 1997 Pak 456 for 10 from 230 for 7   226    98.3%  vs Saf
0066 1902 Aus 353 for 10 from 128 for 7   225   175.8%  vs Eng
0905 1981 Eng 356 for 10 from 135 for 7   221   163.7%  vs Aus
0136 1921 Aus 499 for 10 from 282 for 7   217    77.0%  vs Eng
1681 2004 Saf 532 for 10 from 315 for 7   217    68.9%  vs Win
0621 1967 Pak 354 for 10 from 139 for 7   215   154.7%  vs Eng
1066 1987 Pak 487 for  9 from 273 for 7   214    78.4%  vs Ind
1397 1998 Saf 517 for 10 from 305 for 7   212    69.5%  vs Aus

The first is an amazing match. After dismissing a strong West Indian side for 268 and against Hall/Griffith/Sobers/Gibbs, England were 166 for 7, there would have been very few takers on England saving the match. Then Graveney, who scored a masterly 165, with support from Murray, who scored 112, took the score to 399 for 9. To add insult to injury, Higgs and Snow, both reaching their 50s, added 128 for the last wicket. England reached 527 and the strong but demoralised West Indies, were all out for 225, losing by an innings.

The 1906 match should not really figure in this list. Australia recovered from 180 for 7 to 506 through Clem Hill's 160. However Hill normally batted at no.3 and by no stretch of imagination a late order batsmen.

Pakistan's recovery from 237 for 7 to 553 was through a massive 257 not out from Wasim Akram and 79 from Saqlain Mushtaq. New Zealand's move from 279 for 7 to 593 for 8 was through Fleming's huge double century and an unlikely 100 from Franklin. South Africa's match and series-winning progression from 184 for 7 to 459 was through Duminy's epic 166 and Steyn's 75.

Botham's once-in-lifetime innings of 149 at Headingley during 1981, which took the post-follow-on score from 135 for 7 to 356 all out also figures late in this table.

The second is a table ordered by the % of runs added.

Table of late order batsmen successes: By % of score at 7 wkt down

MtNo Year For Final Score                Runs  % of 7 wkt
                                         Added   score

0186 1930 Nzl 112 for 10 from  21 for 7    91   433.3%  vs Eng
0623 1967 Pak 255 for 10 from  53 for 7   202   381.1%  vs Eng
0168 1927 Saf 170 for 10 from  38 for 7   132   347.4%  vs Eng
0003 1879 Eng 113 for 10 from  26 for 7    87   334.6%  vs Aus
0111 1910 Saf 174 for 10 from  49 for 7   125   255.1%  vs Aus
0063 1899 Aus 196 for 10 from  57 for 7   139   243.9%  vs Eng
0761 1975 Aus 268 for 10 from  81 for 7   187   230.9%  vs Eng
0609 1966 Eng 527 for 10 from 166 for 7   361   217.5%  vs Win
1459 1999 Aus 188 for 10 from  60 for 7   128   213.3%  vs Slk
1450 1999 Slk 188 for 10 from  61 for 7   127   208.2%  vs Pak
1139 1990 Nzl 391 for 10 from 131 for 7   260   198.5%  vs Ind
0883 1980 Eng 209 for  9 from  73 for 7   136   186.3%  vs Win
1096 1988 Pak 194 for 10 from  68 for 7   126   185.3%  vs Win
0098 1908 Aus 506 for 10 from 180 for 7   326   181.1%  vs Eng
1455 1999 Eng 126 for 10 from  45 for 7    81   180.0%  vs Nzl
0066 1902 Aus 353 for 10 from 128 for 7   225   175.8%  vs Eng
0669 1969 Aus 153 for 10 from  57 for 7    96   168.4%  vs Ind
0327 1950 Eng 122 for 10 from  46 for 7    76   165.2%  vs Aus
0967 1983 Ind 103 for 10 from  39 for 7    64   164.1%  vs Win
0905 1981 Eng 356 for 10 from 135 for 7   221   163.7%  vs Aus

I am aware that a 400% improvement in score could be caused by a sub-25 for 7 situation improving to 100+ all out. However let us give credit to those hapless and less gifted batsmen who have batted bravely. This is their "15 minutes of greatness", at least as far as their batting is concerned.

In the 1930 match New Zealand were 21 for 3 and then lost 4 wickets in one over, including a hat-trick to Maurice Allom, making his debut. They recovered to a score four times bigger, mainly through Blunt. They still lost the match, though.

Pakistan's recovery was amazing. Trailing by 224 against England at The Oval, 53 for 7 and 65 for 8 before Asif Iqbal who scored a thrilling 146, added 190 in partnership with Intikhab Alam who scored 51. They avoided an innings defeat but lost comfortably.

The next three matches are old ones.

During the 1975 Ashes Test, Australia were 81 for 7 against an England total of 315. Follow-on and a huge loss loomed ahead. Then Ross Edwards added 52 with Walker but more importantly 66 with Lillee before he was out. Lillee carried on with Mallet and finished unbeaten on 77. Australia scored 268 and saved the match.

Then we have the England-West Indies Test already described. Then we come to two Tests playing within a month of each other with virtually the same scoring pattern.

First Sri Lanka, playing against Pakistan and trailing by 360+ runs slumps to 61 for 7. Tillakaratne who scored 55, in the company of the last three batsmen, added 127 more runs.

Now, six months later, Australia, batting first, slumps to 60 for 7 before Ponting who scored 96 glorious runs, adds 128 for the last three wickets, mainly with Gillespie. Australia, however, went on to lose the match.

What is the best ever late order recovery? It's impossible to pin-point one innings. However, if there is an imaginary gun pointing at me, I will plump for England against Australia at Headingley during 1981. Note the order of events. Australia scored 401. England scored 174, followed on and slumped to 135 for 7, against Lillee, Lawson and Alderman. 500 to 1 were very generous odds at this point.

At this stage Botham plays his epic 149, is well supported by Dilley (56) and Old (29) and England reach 356. Still Australia needs only 119 to win. Then Willis steps in. His best bowling effort ever, 8 for 43, makes sure Botham's stupendous effort is not wasted. It is my personal opinion that, Calcutta 2001 notwithstanding, that was the greatest recovery in Test cricket. It also happens to be the best in this current analysis. Again my personal view.