Bat first strategy

[qwertyjjj]

I'm referring to amateur cricket here rather than 5 day test matches where the wicket will change.
I have a book, which states "99 times out of 100 you should bat first if you win the toss. It is very difficult to state the case for fielding first unless you have a very poor batting side."

Why is this the case? Some people think it is easier to chase the runs than bat on an unknown track where you are not sure of the par score for the wicket.
On the other hand batting first and getting a big total gives you more flexibility in the field.

Of course there are exceptions like when it's rained the night before and the wicket might be moist but it's a sunny day, etc.

 

[Jit]

well it all depends on u r team and the other and the wicket. if u have a good batting pitch and good batting line up bat then bat. look the other team if they are not good at putting up a score then make them bat

 

[icyman]

I agree with Jit here.It depends upon your team strengths. If you have a good team,then it really doesnt matter whether you bat/bowl first. According to me,this theory doesnt make any sense.

 

[Owzat]

You only bowl first if the conditions strongly favour bowling in the first session or first day. The pitch does deteriorate, on a good batting pitch you look to apply pressure by posting 500+. It is traditionally harder to bat in the last innings, that is why there are so few teams have chased 350+ successfully and of course a lot of pitches turn more are the pitch wears.

But mostly I'd say the pitches are designed to last five days and you normally get the best batting conditions first up and worst last up. I prefer pitches that help the bowlers a bit all through the match to make it a contest, having 400+ in the first innings with the prospect of maybe as little as 200 in the last just seems to make the pitch as much a factor as the respective strengths of the two sides.

 

[angryangy]

^ Needs to read thread again.

I can feel the confusion, in 'real' cricket there are factors at work that are generally much stronger than the pitch or any degradation you can expect to see. Hell, plenty of pitches are carpet and would give you nothing.

However, batting first is a lot to do with strategic elements like momentum and initiative. Setting the tone of the game can be a good way to create a win. Weather is often a desirable element; make hay while the sun shines. Take good conditions when you see them and you will set the standard for taking that which is there to be taken.

 

[MUFC1987]

Batting first is designed to just put pressure on the other team. Say you're playing a 50 over league game, if you bat and score 250, then the other team knows they're in trouble, whereas if you bowl first and then concede 200 or so, you can be deflated and can struggle.

I think it depends on your team though. If you're stronger at bowling, then bowl first, hope to bundle them out and then edge to the target.

It also depends on the league rules. My local league has points for draws, (winning or losing draw) so if you know you're going to struggle to get the other team out, you bowl first, so you don't have to get them all out to win.

So, it depends on the team, conditions and league rules in my experience.