When it’s preferable not to get a batsman out

OPINION: It would be seen as the ultimate humiliation for a batsman.

It could also be seen as contravening the spirit of the game.

But soon I believe we may witness a smart, bold, innovative cricket captain deliberately not want to get a woefully out-of form batsman dismissed.

I feel there’s justification in advocating this as a genuine tactic in the right circumstances. I’ve seen a few examples this season when it appeared optimal.

The latest was in the opening ODI between New Zealand and South Africa in Hamilton, when the struggling Tom Latham made an 11-ball duck before falling lbw. The umpire ruled not out, South Africa questioned the decision after consultation and the DRS resulted in Latham having to walk off.

But would South Africa have been better off keeping him in?

To make such a move, you need to weigh up the possibilities and probabilities, by assigning values to players and likely occurrences. That can give you a guide, allowing for variance, of what your Expected Value (EV) is – it’s a method bettors and poker players use to gauge their chances of winning.

Removing Latham brought in Kane Williamson – who averages 46.58 in ODIs with a strike rate of 83.87. Latham averages 29.71 at 79.01. So almost 17 extra runs at a slightly quicker rate, with Williamson having a maximum 46 overs to potentially bat.

Factor in also how much Latham was struggling to get the ball off the block in that innings in the middle of a form slump (and, admittedly retrospectively, how Williamson had reached double figures in the balls taken for Latham’s duck).

Work out how much the wicket of an opening batsmen is worth in a one-day match, taking into account his average, his strike rate, how often a side is dismissed in 50 overs, or how deep into the tail the bowling side may progress.

Some of it is an estimation, but there’s a lot of solid data to work with also to make an informed decision.

Proteas captain AB de Villiers stated after the match that his side’s approach with the ball is to ‘‘strike’’ – he wants to take wickets; with that likely having priority over run-rate (although taking wickets can obviously restrict an opposing team’s run rate).

So he seemed unlikely to consider turning down a wicket – it was his decision to ask for the DRS – but if similar circumstances arise, another skipper with a differing mindset may not.

It’s more likely to happen in Twenty20 cricket than in an ODI – the limit on overs makes restricting the run-rate a greater priority.

Should you have a top-order bat struggling horribly during his innings, why would you want to replace him with another batsman far more likely to score runs, at a quicker pace, and with less chance of ultimately being able to bowl at the tail because teams only have 20 overs to bat?

It’s hard NOT to get a batsman out. If he’s horribly out of form, there’s a greater likelihood that he’ll get bowled or be dismissed lbw.

But would a captain deliberately instruct his fielders to drop a catch? Or for the keeper not to make a stumping? Or would you not even appeal?

I’ve been told it happens occasionally in club cricket – which should be the perfect petri dish to explore new philosophies and tactics based around statistics.

And there are precedents in other sports.

In baseball – a sport that has benefited more than any other from the use of statistical data in developing advantageous tactics – if a batter is in dominant form or has a superior record against the kind of pitching he is facing, he will often be deliberately walked.

It’s the same theory – a better, in-form player is not given a turn at bat as the fielding side knows it’s more beneficial to pitch to a lesser player – even it requires allowing a man on base, something baseball pitchers almost exclusively try to avoid.

Teams deliberately target outof-form players in rugby and football, and it’s not against the spirit of the game. If a league fullback is having problems with his hands, he’d be peppered with bombs.

If a keeper is like a vampire on crosses, the opposition will be slinging them in endlessly.

In a swag of sports, you’d substitute a player who’s performance was detrimental to his side.

In some sports you can do this throughout the match, just as you can make switches to produce the optimal line-up as circumstances demand.

These are all tactical moves designed to maximise a team’s chance of winning.

So would be electing to keep a struggling batsman at the wicket in limited-overs cricket. Let’s see it.