• 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.

2nd test Old Trafford


Voice of fair play said:
Like I said mate it’s a question of balance between the two.

We lost 1 in 17 tests been far to timid, openers at times were not even rotating the strike.

It you just get bogged down just simply looking to bat time, you neither score runs then eventually get out.

And all you done is bat time with no runs putting pressure on next batsman.

But of course you need to assess conditions and game situation at that current time
Click to expand...
fair enough comment mate....Batting time has the advantage of tiring bowlers out tho...admiitedly it can get attritional and boring...to some, but its a means to an end.
I'm a dinosaur in both cricket and football..all England need to do now , is bat tomorrow out, and if they do, they shouldn't lose.
If its a slow grind...Ive no problem with it
I like ALL the cricket strokes, blocks, forward defensive, all the boring ones..cos thats cricket..the whole plethora of it..Once you get in front?..yea..i like the more expansive stuff...but theres a time and a place for all of it..and its not the "First" day...in my opinion
 
wednesday1957 said:
Ive got more faith in foulkes mate.....Bens gonna go bazball whatever,,,,,not necessary yet
Click to expand...
This bazball expression gets right on me tits. England are looking to play more positive cricket under Stokes and after the more turgid, losing England team of the recent past I think that’s a good thing. Players need to make judgement calls between positive and reckless and will sometimes get it wrong. The standard way of playing test cricket has evolved and there isn’t a one size fits all approach. Pitches in general don’t deteriorate as much as they did and of course players naturally have more shots to their game due to the growth of one day cricket.
 
Voice of fair play said:
Like I said mate it’s a question of balance between the two.

We lost 1 in 17 tests been far to timid, openers at times were not even rotating the strike.

It you just get bogged down just simply looking to bat time, you neither score runs then eventually get out.

And all you done is bat time with no runs putting pressure on next batsman.

But of course you need to assess conditions and game situation at that current time
Click to expand...
I don't think limited stroke players bat time unless they're playing for a draw at the end of a game. They bat the conditions and quality opening seam bowlers who give you nothing will severely restrict scoring opportunities and make rotating the strike extremely difficult. Crawley is still there,17 not out but shine almost seen off the ball which is his prime job. The game lasts 5 days, why any urgency at the beginning of an innings?
 
Hardyman's Yugo said:
I don’t remember Edrich being a stroke player as such, more of your traditional take the shine off the ball accumulator type.

Bit before my time the others !
Click to expand...


I'll give you that Edrich had a very, very solid defence (shouldn't that be part of the openers armoury?) But once he got in he was a great stroke player......scoring over a hundred 100s in his career, and an unbeaten 300.

You don't achieve that without being a classy stroke player. Unfortunately I only got to watch him during the last 6 years of his career.I

The other 3.....need no explaining. Three of the best batsman to ever grace a cricket pitch.
 
wednesday1957 said:
fair enough comment mate....Batting time has the advantage of tiring bowlers out tho...admiitedly it can get attritional and boring...to some, but its a means to an end.
I'm a dinosaur in both cricket and football..all England need to do now , is bat tomorrow out, and if they do, they shouldn't lose.
If its a slow grind...Ive no problem with it
I like ALL the cricket strokes, blocks, forward defensive, all the boring ones..cos thats cricket..the whole plethora of it..Once you get in front?..yea..i like the more expansive stuff...but theres a time and a place for all of it..and its not the "First" day...in my opinion
Click to expand...
Or yeah of course mate, can see your point.

But at the moment don’t think we have a Cook or Boycott in the side.

Who can grind it out but still make runs.
Parkside said:
I don't think limited stroke players bat time unless they're playing for a draw at the end of a game. They bat the conditions and quality opening seam bowlers who give you nothing will severely restrict scoring opportunities and make rotating the strike extremely difficult. Crawley is still there,17 not out but shine almost seen off the ball which is his prime job. The game lasts 5 days, why any urgency at the beginning of an innings?
Click to expand...
Yeah can totally see that point, but I certainly would not want say Sibley and Hameed opening together and the score going no where , a balance needs to be had.

Otherwise the score goes no where and quality bowlers when get them sooner or later.
rentaghost said:
This bazball expression gets right on me tits. England are looking to play more positive cricket under Stokes and after the more turgid, losing England team of the recent past I think that’s a good thing. Players need to make judgement calls between positive and reckless and will sometimes get it wrong. The standard way of playing test cricket has evolved and there isn’t a one size fits all approach. Pitches in general don’t deteriorate as much as they did and of course players naturally have more shots to their game due to the growth of one day cricket.
Click to expand...
Well that’s it been a bit more positive, doesn’t have to mean thrashing at everything, thought Pope looked busy today looking to be positive and just got beaten for pace from a very good ball that he would have if he was been defensive or attacking.
 
Last edited:
Voice of fair play said:
Or yeah of course mate, can see your point.

But at the moment don’t think we have a Cook or Boycott in the side.

Who can grind it out but still make runs.

Yeah can totally see that point, but I certainly would not want say Sibley and Hameed opening together and the score going no where , a balance needs to be had.

Otherwise the score goes no where and quality bowlers when get them sooner or later.
Click to expand...
It's justifiable if the wickets aren't going either. If course they'll eventually be out but equally,the ball will eventually lose it's shine and the bowlers will eventually tire. I'm sure the middle order prefer to go in after 30 overs rather than 10 regardless of the score.
 
TheRey said:
Aye, spot on. But chops can't think of a legitimate counter argument, so just expect a one line post about the future, or something
Click to expand...
Yeah the easiest thing in the world is saying somebody not good enough, it’s harder to say who is the better option
Parkside said:
It's justifiable if the wickets aren't going either. If course they'll eventually be out but equally,the ball will eventually lose it's shine and the bowlers will eventually tire. I'm sure the middle order prefer to go in after 30 overs rather than 10 regardless of the score.
Click to expand...
I guess that’s the point and Englands thinking after losing 1 in 17 tests that was not happening, they were losing wickets with that approach.

Openers were been very timid and still losing their wickets early, in fact we were 30 for 3 very regularly.

Of course in theory your point above makes perfect sense.

However in practice it wasn’t happening.

Middle order will of course prefer to bat after 30 overs rather than 10, but the game is about runs so score is always important.
If a team has you 30 for 3 after say 25 overs their tails are up and there has been no pressure on them.

Yes number 5 will be pleased coming in after 30 overs and while it will be obviously easier for him to bat then it is far from guaranteed he will!
 
Last edited:
Voice of fair play said:
Yeah the easiest thing in the world is saying somebody not good enough, it’s harder to say who is the better option

I guess that’s the point and Englands thinking after losing 1 in 17 tests that was not happening, they were losing wickets with that approach.

Openers were been very timid and still losing their wickets early, in fact we were 30 for 3 very regularly.

Of course in theory your point above makes perfect sense.

However in practice it wasn’t happening.

Middle order will of course prefer to bat after 30 overs rather than 10, but the game is about runs so score is always important.
If a team has you 30 for 3 after say 25 overs their tails are up and there has been no pressure on them.

Yes number 5 will be pleased coming in after 30 overs and while it will be obviously easier for him to bat then it is far from guaranteed he will!
Click to expand...
No, the issue is, in the early part of an innings what is the priority,scoring runs or preserving wickets?. The latter imo,overwhelmingly so. Runs,at this stage,is insignificant. A test match is scheduled for 5 days or 450 overs. The runs after the 1st 30 of the overs is irrelevant.
 
Still surprised by the decision at the toss, couldn't have felt more like a bowling morning. Think it will be the same most days like, mornings will be tricky before the cloud burns off.
 
Parkside said:
No, the issue is, in the early part of an innings what is the priority,scoring runs or preserving wickets?. The latter imo,overwhelmingly so. Runs,at this stage,is insignificant. A test match is scheduled for 5 days or 450 overs. The runs after the 1st 30 of the overs is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Problem been though neither was happening for several years.

With respect mate runs can surely never be irrelevant at any stage of a game as that is what the game is about.

Apart from if you batting out a draw I suppose.

And there is no guarantees either way, by batting more defensive doesn’t guarantee you will preserve wickets as our previous performances over several years have proved, and batting in a more positive way doesn’t guarantee you will lose more wickets.

This is what makes it a interesting debate as they is no right or wrong answer.

Different personal and different coaches will have different views.

Do you bat very defensively earlier on to protect wickets and trust that will happen.

Or do you try to look to rotate and put a bit more pressure on bowlers rather than just letting them good bowlers get a good line and length.

There is certainly good arguments either way.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top