The myth of the improved tailender

A couple of weeks back, Jason Gillespie, a valuable stodger down the order but nothing more, scored a double-century against Bangladesh and then described the entire scenario as "ridiculous". Not long after, James Franklin milked the South African attack to the tune of 122 runs, and then didn't even bother to qualify his effort with a similar adjective which would express his astonishment. After all, it's hardly surprising these days for a lower-order batsman to walk away with a bagful of runs - it seems that bowlers and wicketkeepers today are much handier with the bat than they were, say, 30 years back. Or are they?

Though common perceptions tend to point in that direction, the numbers suggest something entirely different: the lower order, it turns out, hasn't been contributing more in the 2000s - in terms of average runs per dismissal or percentage of team runs scored - than they were in the 1980s or the 1970s. Surprised? Check out the table below, which lists out exactly how much the last five have contributed to team totals down the decades. The peak was reached in the 1980s, but it's remarkable that since the 1950s, the contributions of the tail have been nearly constant. The only significant difference is the ability of the lower order to score hundreds, which has gone up significantly in the 2000s. (Note: the analysis doesn't include tailenders who batted up the order in a particular innings; so Gillespie's double-hundred against Bangladesh doesn't count among the centuries scored by the lower order.)

Of course, as for most stats in this decade, the numbers here too are slightly skewed by the presence of Bangladesh - their last five average just 13.71. Remove those numbers, though, and the final result still isn't very different for the 2000s - an average of 19.18, a marginal improvement of 0.5, but lower than the corresponding figure for the 1980s, the decade in which the tail prospered the most. Which is itself quite interesting, for that's the period often referred to as the golden age of fast bowling - with the West Indian quicks, Imran Khan, Richard Hadlee, Bob Willis and a few others all at their peaks, surely getting rid of the last few shouldn't have been so tough?

As you'd expect, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are two of the three teams who rely heavily on the last five for runs. The only other side for whom Nos.7-11 contribute more than 25% of the runs is New Zealand - their stat of 28.84% is even marginally higher than Bangladesh's, and while that's a damning indictment of their top order, the stat is slightly offset by the fact that New Zealand's lower order is the most prolific of all teams.

These numbers surely suggest, though, that while there may be a few proficient tailenders, their tribe, as a whole, hasn't improved their run-scoring skills considerably over the decades, a fact which runs quite contrary to the general perception. (Another angle to explore is the number of balls faced by the tail per dismissal, and the partnership runs they've been involved in, but we shall keep those discussions for another column.) What could be the possible reasons for the numbers being so amazingly similar over the decades? Travis Basevi, our in-house statsguru, suggests one possible factor: lower-order batsmen are allowed fewer liberties now than they were earlier, a reason which perhaps explains - along with the unwritten rule of not bowling bouncers at them, and the lack of quality spinners - why the tail prospered in the 1980s. If you think you have a possible explanation, do write in and share it with us.