• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Eng vs India - First Test - 20th-24th June

Voice of fair play said:
Yeah I do agree in the past we would have been about 220/250 battled hard but got out anyway for a lot less, seen it happen for years.

And it was just accepted
Click to expand...
At times I’ve been critical of the approach, but I fully accept that we were lost as a team before this approach came in. I feel more he didn’t go through the shot full blooded this time, which is frustrating.

We can’t say its not entertaining though we are going along at 4.7 here after 91 overs and we are more than in the game. This team has made test cricket a better watch over the last 3 years
 

Safc98 said:
No it isn’t. Yes, there is a risk and reward which has to be accepted. But. Smith trying to take on four fielders on the leg side to anything short it brain dead.
Click to expand...
I take your point and think I have made mine - I disagree completely. He was trying to get as many runs as possible before the new ball.
 
Raffs said:
But there was a comment on the thread when Smith was dismissed saying getting to 75 behind would be a result, yet here we are, less than an hour later and we’re only 50 behind. They’re given the licence to have a real go and that’s why what we all thought was a losing position on day 1 has been turned into anything but.
Click to expand...

I agree, and it’s marvellous. But we must stop falling for these traps. Why go for the massive hit on 99? India must have thought, ok, serve up the big hit as a tempter. and he fell for it.

The frustration is that Brook could have hit 150+ here if he’d just taken a moment to avoid the obvious ploy. No one can be happy about the way he got out, least of all himself. He has to learn to be more circumspect when obvious carrots are being dangled. He’s played a superb knock to bring us close to parity, by playing a certain way. Great players adapt, though. Just because batting a certain way has brought the scores close, it doesn’t mean that traps that prey on that style have to be blundered into.
 
Raffs said:
I take your point and think I have made mine - I disagree completely. He was trying to get as many runs as possible before the new ball.
Click to expand...
Taking on 4 leg side boundary riders WILL NOT WORK in Australia. It’s partly why the rules of the game are the way they are re short pitch bowling.
 
Raffs said:
I understand the point you’re making but disagree completely. Being this aggressive means that sometimes you are going to playing at a lot of balls the more traditional player would leave. But it puts enormous pressure on the bowlers who don’t know what to expect - look at what Brook just did to Siraj. I think there are real benefits in doing the things that are annoying so many on here.
Click to expand...

I can see the point you’re making. It sows a chaos factor into the mind of the bowler and fielders.

I just don’t agree that it has to be that approach in all scenarios, or bust.
 
Doogie Hauser said:
I don’t find that summary particularly fair tbh. It’s an all-or-nothing approach to a style. It doesn’t have to be that binary.
Click to expand...
It’s also the finest of fine lines between a quality pull shot and one the you slightly mistime. It doesn’t have to be idiocy every time a player is out playing an aggressive shot.
 
Safc98 said:
Taking on 4 leg side boundary riders WILL NOT WORK in Australia. It’s partly why the rules of the game are the way they are re short pitch bowling.
Click to expand...
Fair comment but I don’t see anything other than this hyper aggression working over there. Given the state of our bowling attack mind it might just be whether you want to choose a quick death or a slow one!
 
rentaghost said:
It’s also the finest of fine lines between a quality pull shot and one the you slightly mistime. It doesn’t have to be idiocy every time a player is out playing an aggressive shot.
Click to expand...
The odds of taking on short pitch bowling in that manner with that field are low.
 
Raffs said:
Can’t believe some of the comments on here about the Smith and Brook dismissals. The only reason we are nearing parity is because of this hyper aggressive approach to batting.
If we batted like some on here seen to want us to we would probably have 100 less runs.
I just don’t get it.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see some evolution of this approach though.

It's excellent but lacks pragmatism that you also need in test cricket.

How does Smith shot selection make any sense. Not a single person can defend that.

It's more nuanced then plenty are making it. Everyone is pretty binary on it which is frustrating.

Seems to be two camps that just go well you can't complain they get out cos they play all the great shots.

Then you have the camp they are morons everytime they get out to a bad shot.
 
Raffs said:
Fair comment but I don’t see anything other than this hyper aggression working over there. Given the state of our bowling attack mind it might just be whether you want to choose a quick death or a slow one!
Click to expand...
Indeed this is very true 😆😆 Like I said. I back the aggressive approach, I just think the short pitch stuff they could temper a bit. Purely because. You can’t do it for more than a few overs without being fucked. Then after that you can fly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top