Does tailenders batting at the end make game less interesting?

[ma_o_mati]

I was watching a match the other day on on Willow tv. The team chasing lost 6 wickets and had a target that was beyond reach of their tailenders. The game was pretty much over. The result is known, its agony for spectators to continue sit through on such games.

Instead of having all the bowlers batting at the end, why don’t ICC make a rule of mixing it up. Top and middle order batsman has to bat with a tailender. That way the game will have batsman till the 10th wickets. In that way, it can truly be glorious game of uncertainty. Even if you lose 5/6 wickets, u know there are still batsman who can win it. It will also encourage bowlers to bat better I think.

What you guys think? I am tired of these games dying halfway.

[mufi_02]

make the game more batsmen friendly?

nope...thank you.

[ma_o_mati]

Originally Posted by mufi_02
make the game more batsmen friendly?

nope...thank you.

Not necessarily batsman friendly. A top or middle order batsman will bat with a lower order batsman. So batting will be tougher on top regular batsman. Even if a side lose 5/6/7 wickets, the game can still be interesting till the end cause there would be uncertainty regarding the outcome

[aklemalp]

Same way MLB went with the American league...instead of the pitcher batting, a designated hitter was introduced.

Cricket is great when tailenders play shots like these:

[Miraz]

Originally Posted by aklemalp
Same way MLB went with the American league...instead of the pitcher batting, a designated hitter was introduced.

Cricket is great when tailenders play shots like these:

I agree the bating of Walsh, Chris Martin or Bumrah certainly adds to the entertainment.

[NoName]

Walsh with that swag daamn