What's new

Ashes 4th Test | Aug 6 | England thrash Australia by an innings and 78 runs

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eureka said:
Thats just it only 8 balls out of 111 would have hit the stumps. So if they had left most of the balls they would still have two wickets in hand. Attacking for attacking sake just doesnt always work. Like Mccullum captaincy in the 1st test versus England.
Click to expand...

0/8 is worse than 60/10.
 
[MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION] I don't think Australia were too attacking or too defensive. They were simply careless, something that can be a result of being too aggressive dependant on the situation or just playing silly shots as was the case yesterday, Clarkes being one of the most ridiculous given youd rarely see him play that to a good length ball that isnt overpitched when he's got going and in form.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
To be more clear, I want them to attack. If they do that and get out, no problem. Like Clarke.

You're just don't get out, which is not in their control at all. It's not advice. It's just meaningless, and no you can't leave every ball, some of those might have got them bowled.
Click to expand...

Hahahahha

Clarke's shot was the shot of a man who knows it's over.

That was a career ending shot.

Will not tour Bangladesh
 
Now aussies attacking and getting away with it due to poor fielding and total different conditions than on first day first hour, but cricket analyst will come back chest thumping "you know, i told you guys" and i still think it's more to do with bad bowling than Oz aggressive batting, if poms get their radar right and don't spill anymore catches and Oz keep over attacking just for sake of it, they will still lose it by an inning inide 2.5 days.
 
The fact that this happens to Australia whenever there is any horizontal movement shows how flawed the current approach is.
 
Zeshan547 said:
Now aussies attacking and getting away with it due to poor fielding and total different conditions than on first day first hour, but cricket analyst will come back chest thumping "you know, i told you guys" and i still think it's more to do with bad bowling than Oz aggressive batting, if poms get their radar right and don't spill anymore catches and Oz keep over attacking just for sake of it, they will still lose it by an inning inide 2.5 days.
Click to expand...

Basically no matter what happens you're going to say you were right even when you're proven wrong.

That's why I like stock markets and betting sites. It's like Nate Silver said, it forces you to back up your viewpoint.

No matter what happens you will keep saying defensive batting is a must.

They played defensive and 60 all out. They are hitting now and 69/0 but still you will claim you're right.

No hope for the likes of you.
 
Zeshan547 said:
Now aussies attacking and getting away with it due to poor fielding and total different conditions than on first day first hour, but cricket analyst will come back chest thumping "you know, i told you guys" and i still think it's more to do with bad bowling than Oz aggressive batting, if poms get their radar right and don't spill anymore catches and Oz keep over attacking just for sake of it, they will still lose it by an inning inide 2.5 days.
Click to expand...

Except they're not really attacking that much here either, it was only that one Finn over that Warner went after. Other than that they've been trying to bat sensibly, lots of leaves and forward defensive shots.

Of course he'll just look at the final run rate and ignore the fact that neither opener was going at more than a 50% SR after 9 overs.

The fact that conditions are much easier for batting now than they were on the first morning will also be totally irrelevant when it comes to his "analysis".
 
I'm not seeing any difference in aggression, just putting away the bad balls and not holding the bat outside the off stump to good balls.
 
Big Mac said:
Except they're not really attacking that much here either, it was only that one Finn over that Warner went after. Other than that they've been trying to bat sensibly, lots of leaves and forward defensive shots.

Of course he'll just look at the final run rate and ignore the fact that neither opener was going at more than a 50% SR after 9 overs.

The fact that conditions are much easier for batting now than they were on the first morning will also be totally irrelevant when it comes to his "analysis".
Click to expand...

So only the first nine overs of the innings count. Your logic is so cherry-picked. You're just looking for the one fact out 100 that can show defensive cricket is good.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
Basically no matter what happens you're going to say you were right even when you're proven wrong.

That's why I like stock markets and betting sites. It's like Nate Silver said, it forces you to back up your viewpoint.

No matter what happens you will keep saying defensive batting is a must.

They played defensive and 60 all out. They are hitting now and 69/0 but still you will claim you're right.

No hope for the likes of you.
Click to expand...

How did they play defensively?

Only 8 out of 114 balls were on the stumps.

They mostly got out playing unnecessary shots with Clarke the worst offender
 
CricketAnalyst said:
So only the first nine overs of the innings count. Your logic is so cherry-picked. You're just looking for the one fact out 100 that can show defensive cricket is good.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that the batting wasn't aggressive from ball one. You know, the only method you insist works.

I picked nine overs because, as I said, it was only that one Finn over (the tenth over) that was expensive. They were batting normally before that, and they have been batting normally after that.

Of course that basic logic appears to be beyond you.
 
This wicket 'll be best for batting on Dsy 2 after lunch to Day 4 & Aussies has the chance to put 500+. Still I think, ENG 'll win it - anything under 300 on last day should be ENG game.

Too much noise is made for that 8 balls - there are 8 other ways batsman can get out.
 
Last edited:
The millionth legal delivery in test cricket in England was just bowled according to Jim Maxwell
 
Two dropped catches now. Although to be honest it would have been sensational had Bell hung onto it.

At present this Ashes has to go down as pretty dissapointing from a contest perspective, would be good for the game if Australia can wipe off the deficit and set England 250 plus
 
Big Mac said:
No, I'm saying that the batting wasn't aggressive from ball one. You know, the only method you insist works.

I picked nine overs because, as I said, it was only that one Finn over (the tenth over) that was expensive. They were batting normally before that, and they have been batting normally after that.

Of course that basic logic appears to be beyond you.
Click to expand...

That's actually not what I said. I said you have to be aggressive in unplayable conditions and secondly that Australia were too defensive. Both are true.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
That's actually not what I said. I said you have to be aggressive in unplayable conditions and secondly that Australia were too defensive. Both are true.
Click to expand...

The conditions weren't even remotely unplayable.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
That's actually not what I said. I said you have to be aggressive in unplayable conditions and secondly that Australia were too defensive. Both are true.
Click to expand...

Point is it wasn't unplayable though, they shouldve just not played a large amount of them and they wouldn't have had a horrible collapse.
 
Convict said:
How did they play defensively?

Only 8 out of 114 balls were on the stumps.

They mostly got out playing unnecessary shots with Clarke the worst offender
Click to expand...

You're judging in retrospect that they were unnecessary. That's absurd logic taken to it's extreme because it's just so obviously wrong. You're literally saying they shouldn't have played any shot at all except a leave. That's the extent you guys go to before acknowledging that attacking cricket can be right, or that a collapse can be blamed on the scapegoat, mob/mentality of you 'purists' who talk about "career-ending shots' and 'irresponsibility' any time someone gets out with a shot that would have no mention at all if it worked.

None of them bar Clarke were trying to score when dismissed. That's about as defensive as it gets. Look at the percentage of balls they tried to score off? It's absurdly low and why they failed so hard.
 
Now cricket analyst will even claim that england dropping catches because Oz aggressive approach has put them under pressure, but these drops can really haunt england big time, even though they are still favorite to win this easily.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
You're judging in retrospect that they were unnecessary. That's absurd logic taken to it's extreme because it's just so obviously wrong. You're literally saying they shouldn't have played any shot at all except a leave. That's the extent you guys go to before acknowledging that attacking cricket can be right, or that a collapse can be blamed on the scapegoat, mob/mentality of you 'purists' who talk about "career-ending shots' and 'irresponsibility' any time someone gets out with a shot that would have no mention at all if it worked.

None of them bar Clarke were trying to score when dismissed. That's about as defensive as it gets. Look at the percentage of balls they tried to score off? It's absurdly low and why they failed so hard.
Click to expand...

No. They should have left a lot more balls and waited for it to stop swinging.

As it did after the first hour.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
That's just so amazingly illogical I invite you to reflect on it.

0/9 isn't worst than 342/1 either if the last wicket puts on 1,242 runs.
Click to expand...

You call anything that doesn't agree with your thesis illogical. But your thesis is based on a false premise so there is no logic in it I'm afraid. "CricketAnalyst" indeed. Doesn'tUnderstandTestCricket more like!
 
CricketAnalyst said:
You're judging in retrospect that they were unnecessary. That's absurd logic taken to it's extreme because it's just so obviously wrong. You're literally saying they shouldn't have played any shot at all except a leave. That's the extent you guys go to before acknowledging that attacking cricket can be right, or that a collapse can be blamed on the scapegoat, mob/mentality of you 'purists' who talk about "career-ending shots' and 'irresponsibility' any time someone gets out with a shot that would have no mention at all if it worked.

None of them bar Clarke were trying to score when dismissed. That's about as defensive as it gets. Look at the percentage of balls they tried to score off? It's absurdly low and why they failed so hard.
Click to expand...

They shouldn't unless it was a poor ball. As a good amount of the boundaries today have been off.
 
Bhai getting hammered... Come back is on

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 
My projections and predictions are constantly more accurate than anyone here INCLUDING on Test Cricket.

Whenever it comes to anything objectively measurable, I'm right and people evade the issue and resort to subjective claims where no matter what happens in reality you guys will claim you are right.
 
Except you think that Australia's problem is that we were too defensive.

Which is blatantly stupid.
 
Sam1 said:
They shouldn't unless it was a poor ball. As a good amount of the boundaries today have been off.
Click to expand...

You do realize that trying to block also counts? Or are you guys seriously maintaining that you can easily leave everything that's an inch outside off stump or an inch over at 145 mph and swinging? Pretty absurd expectations.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
0/8 is worse than 60/10.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep bringing up the figure of 0/8? No one here is talking of defending every ball. In test cricket you do have to wait for the bad balls and avoid certain kind of risks you take in shorter formats of the game. Australia batted so carelessly in the first innings and lost the plot - it had nothing to do with being attacking or defensive. Instead of 60/10 off 18, Australia could have easily been 30/1 or 40/2 off 18 if they had played sensibly. A half or one hour of cautious and sensible batting could have enabled them to get a big first innings score. The key in test match is to keep wickets, a 15(15) is much inferior to a 60(120) in test cricket.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
You do realize that trying to block also counts? Or are you guys seriously maintaining that you can easily leave everything that's an inch outside off stump or an inch over at 145 mph and swinging? Pretty absurd expectations.
Click to expand...

Even the attempted blocks were aggressive, going at it with hard hands out in front of their body. Look at the English players playing defensive shots, they played it right under their noses with soft hands.

As I typed this Nasser is on the TV saying the same thing.
 
IndianWillow said:
Why do you keep bringing up the figure of 0/8? No one here is talking of defending every ball. In test cricket you do have to wait for the bad balls and avoid certain kind of risks you take in shorter formats of the game. Australia batted so carelessly in the first innings and lost the plot - it had nothing to do with being attacking or defensive. Instead of 60/10 off 18, Australia could have easily been 30/1 or 40/2 off 18 if they had played sensibly. A half or one hour of cautious and sensible batting could have enabled them to get a big first innings score. The key in test match is to keep wickets, a 15(15) is much inferior to a 60(120) in test cricket.
Click to expand...

They literally are.

In fact they are going beyond that and don't even want a defensive shot if you got out. Unless it would have hit the stump, you should have left it is the logic being provided here.

If they score at 6 RPO attacking, they claim that this was their suggestion, but they would be criticizing if ANY of these shots was mis-executed. Their analysis is "if it works, I recommended it and if it doesn't work you should have been more defensive". They are unable to give any recommendation that is separated from the result. And even if you score 2 (15) without attacking any ball at all, you were not defensive enough.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
Why?

Care to actually reason instead of making assertions.
Click to expand...

Because they could have left a lot of those balls and just lasted out the hour when it became easier to bat.

Only 8 deliveries would have hit the stumps.
 
Big Mac said:
Even the attempted blocks were aggressive, going at it with hard hands out in front of their body. Look at the English players playing defensive shots, they played it right under their noses with soft hands.

As I typed this Nasser is on the TV saying the same thing.
Click to expand...

That's bad execution. It has nothing to do with being too aggressive. The intent was negative and defensive and if they had just tried to hit those balls they would have done better.
 
Robert said:
You call anything that doesn't agree with your thesis illogical. But your thesis is based on a false premise so there is no logic in it I'm afraid. "CricketAnalyst" indeed. Doesn'tUnderstandTestCricket more like!
Click to expand...

never seen PP more united than when disagreeing with mr analyst lol!!
 
CricketAnalyst said:
They literally are.

In fact they are going beyond that and don't even want a defensive shot if you got out. Unless it would have hit the stump, you should have left it is the logic being provided here.

If they score at 6 RPO attacking, they claim that this was their suggestion, but they would be criticizing if ANY of these shots was mis-executed. Their analysis is "if it works, I recommended it and if it doesn't work you should have been more defensive". They are unable to give any recommendation that is separated from the result. And even if you score 2 (15) without attacking any ball at all, you were not defensive enough.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the concept of a percentage shot and match situations?

after losing three wickets in the first few overs - batting out the new ball without losing any wickets was the most important aim.

Which means not playing unnecessary shots.

Have you actually played any level of cricket?
 
Convict said:
Because they could have left a lot of those balls and just lasted out the hour when it became easier to bat.

Only 8 deliveries would have hit the stumps.
Click to expand...

They couldn't have left a lot of those balls because the fact that they were missing the stumps wasn't obvious unless you're sitting in the AC with a Hawkeye ball distribution chart, not to mention that you're again going straight back to the ludicrous claim that they shouldn't have played any shot at all unless the ball was hitting the stumps.

You're just not giving any prescription at all as to how to play which you are willing to standby if they apply it and it doesn't work.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
They literally are.

In fact they are going beyond that and don't even want a defensive shot if you got out. Unless it would have hit the stump, you should have left it is the logic being provided here.

If they score at 6 RPO attacking, they claim that this was their suggestion, but they would be criticizing if ANY of these shots was mis-executed. Their analysis is "if it works, I recommended it and if it doesn't work you should have been more defensive". They are unable to give any recommendation that is separated from the result. And even if you score 2 (15) without attacking any ball at all, you were not defensive enough.
Click to expand...

I feel like I'm arguing with Man of Steel here.

Who said that the Aussie batsmen should have left every single delivery regardless of where it was headed?

Show the posts please.
 
Convict said:
Do you understand the concept of a percentage shot and match situations?

after losing three wickets in the first few overs - batting out the new ball without losing any wickets was the most important aim.

Which means not playing unnecessary shots.

Have you actually played any level of cricket?
Click to expand...

Yes I have. I actually benefited from many of the things I complain about as a "classical, elegant No.3 Batsman" who did jack but still got rated by the coaches.

All I'm understanding is that certain strategic ideas have been internalized as gospel to the point where you're impervious and resistant to any attempt to analyze without a gazillion assumptions you don't realize you're making.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
They couldn't have left a lot of those balls because the fact that they were missing the stumps wasn't obvious unless you're sitting in the AC with a Hawkeye ball distribution chart, not to mention that you're again going straight back to the ludicrous claim that they shouldn't have played any shot at all unless the ball was hitting the stumps.

You're just not giving any prescription at all as to how to play which you are willing to standby if they apply it and it doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Defend Smith and Clarke's shots.
 
Big Mac said:
I feel like I'm arguing with Man of Steel here.

Who said that the Aussie batsmen should have left every single delivery regardless of where it was headed?

Show the posts please.
Click to expand...

All these guys who are jumping back to "only 8 balls would have hit the stumps" as an argument for why Australia were too aggressive.

That's valid logic only if you argue that they should have left everything which wasn't. They were out playing defensive shots as Clarke himself has pointed out. This is an execution error, not them being too aggressive.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
All these guys who are jumping back to "only 8 balls would have hit the stumps" as an argument for why Australia were too aggressive.

That's valid logic only if you argue that they should have left everything which wasn't. They were out playing defensive shots as Clarke himself has pointed out. This is an execution error, not them being too aggressive.
Click to expand...

Not what you said and not what I asked.

You have repeatedly trotted out 0/8 like it means anything and then doubled down and said that people "literally are" saying that the Aussies should have left every single delivery.

Quote those posts.
 
Convict said:
Defend Smith and Clarke's shots.
Click to expand...

I am defending Clarke's shot. He tried to hit a boundary and it didn't work. It's exactly what I want him to do, because I think there's a career worth of sample to show he hits that to the boundary far more often than he gets out.

Smith's wasn't a shot at all, he misjudged the trajectory of the ball and got squared up. He wasn't trying anything aggressive it was an execution error.

Again, can you please tell me a method of playing that you will not criticize as being too aggressive when it doesn't work and which can also score some runs?
 
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha Inzi would have walked through the gap between bat and ball there :))
 
Problem with umpires not calling practically any no balls is that they're not going to find out theyre actually overstepping unless they take a wicket.

Sky have shown numerous occasions where the bowlers have overstepped and not been called.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
I am defending Clarke's shot. He tried to hit a boundary and it didn't work. It's exactly what I want him to do, because I think there's a career worth of sample to show he hits that to the boundary far more often than he gets out.

Smith's wasn't a shot at all, he misjudged the trajectory of the ball and got squared up. He wasn't trying anything aggressive it was an execution error.

Again, can you please tell me a method of playing that you will not criticize as being too aggressive when it doesn't work and which can also score some runs?
Click to expand...

Smith's moving that far out is entirely due to an overly aggressive mindset.

Clarke's shot was just weak and not a shot he's capable of playing.
 
Big Mac said:
Not what you said and not what I asked.

You have repeatedly trotted out 0/8 like it means anything and then doubled down and said that people "literally are" saying that the Aussies should have left every single delivery.

Quote those posts.
Click to expand...

I am using that stat of 0/8 as a response to the people who are seriously arguing that they batted too aggresively based on that "stat" that only 8 balls would hit stumps.
 
Dare I say that's one of the worst appeals I have ever seen.

You could drive a bus through the gap of bat and ball :))
 
CricketAnalyst said:
I am using that stat of 0/8 as a response to the people who are seriously arguing that they batted too aggresively based on that "stat" that only 8 balls would hit stumps.
Click to expand...

Once again, you said "they literally are".

Who is saying that? Where did they say it? When?

Show me the posts.

195255.gif
 
Convict said:
Smith's moving that far out is entirely due to an overly aggressive mindset.

Clarke's shot was just weak and not a shot he's capable of playing.
Click to expand...

My problem is you're criticizing every aggressive execution error, and fine with any defensive execution error.

Except that yesterday was so bad that you're in witch-hunt mode so some argument has to be made to find a guy whose defensive shot was more aggressive. I mean it's worthy of a parody that the arguments have descended to the level of actually arguing about defensive shots being too aggressive because it's so clear to you guys that only aggression can ever be blamed.

Answer two questions please without evading more:

1) Is there anything such as too defensive for you?

2) Can you recommend any approach that you will not criticize when the execution goes wrong?
 
Wood bowling more no balls and not being told, let's wait for the wicket now!
 
What a soft dismissal from Warner, hasnt seemed to like these slightly back of a length balls from Stokes.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
They literally are.

In fact they are going beyond that and don't even want a defensive shot if you got out. Unless it would have hit the stump, you should have left it is the logic being provided here.

If they score at 6 RPO attacking, they claim that this was their suggestion, but they would be criticizing if ANY of these shots was mis-executed. Their analysis is "if it works, I recommended it and if it doesn't work you should have been more defensive". They are unable to give any recommendation that is separated from the result. And even if you score 2 (15) without attacking any ball at all, you were not defensive enough.
Click to expand...

May be it is a good idea to start the innings with an aggressive intent. But if you lose early wickets, then the priority is to protect the wickets, consolidate and attack when conditions have improved. I haven't heard anyone recommending aggression as a strategy on day one, first hour of a test match (on a green wicket) when three wickets have fallen in the first two overs.

I can see where you are coming from. You want every batsman in the world to play like IVA Richards regardless of the match context. But there was only one Richards ever. Other batsmen have their limitations and they would get cheaply dismissed on lively wickets if they don't exercise enough caution. If you have trouble negotiating sidewise movement, then avoid those deliveries wherever possible - until the ball gets a bit older and the wicket eases out. That is the way to play cricket. You cannot hit your way out of trouble if you aren't skilled enough.
 
IndianWillow said:
May be it is a good idea to start the innings with an aggressive intent. But if you lose early wickets, then the priority is to protect the wickets, consolidate and attack when conditions have improved. I haven't heard anyone recommending aggression as a strategy on day one, first hour of a test match (on a green wicket) when three wickets have fallen in the first two overs.

I can see where you are coming from. You want every batsman in the world to play like IVA Richards regardless of the match context. But there was only one Richards ever. Other batsmen have their limitations and they would get cheaply dismissed on lively wickets if they don't exercise enough caution. If you have trouble negotiating sidewise movement, then avoid those deliveries wherever possible - until the ball gets a bit older and the wicket eases out. That is the way to play cricket. You cannot hit your way out of trouble if you aren't skilled enough.
Click to expand...

Both you and Convict have both just repeated to me the dominant and accepted strategy. I know perfectly well what that is and the logic it's based on.

You guys seem incapable of understanding that a dominant strat can just be flat-out wrong and everyone can be wrong. To say that no one agrees with me is true, but to conclude that I'm therefore wrong is false. What's more every batsman now has innings of the kind that only Richards used to play in the past. Batsmen are just much much better at aggressive batting and much less proficient at defensive batting, but because cricket is so traditional people fail to realize that strategies based on the competences they used to have in 1970 are just not valid now.
 
It appears that Shaun Marsh subscribes to CricketAnalyst's newsletter
 
3 wickets to stokes who has been bowling well and swinging ball both ways...
 
Big Mac said:
It appears that Shaun Marsh subscribes to CricketAnalyst's newsletter
Click to expand...

If he did, he would have gone the way Smith did, trying to score. Smith didn't work this time, but Warner and Rogers did and at least they were trying to do the right thing, and defensive guys haven't had a single success.
 
Don't know why guys are arguing over the approach, apart from Warner and Rogers, the technical ability to negotiate the off stump is not there. They'd be back in the pavilion regardless.
 
ChachaCricket said:
Don't know why guys are arguing over the approach, apart from Warner and Rogers, the technical ability to negotiate the off stump is not there. They'd be back in the pavilion regardless.
Click to expand...

It's not about negotiating an off stump line, these clowns can't handle a seventh stump line. Someone needs to explain to them that dot balls are allowed in test matches.
 
Looking at the score card & reading few posts at PP, I think, I am forgetting everything I learned as a kid in schools in AUS & London in my first few years of cricket baptism.....

Give the first hour to the bowlers, the wickets & the conditions - get you eyes in, try to get an idea about the pace & bounce of wicket, get your feet moving, try to leave as many as possible outside off, get few in middle of your blade on front-foot defence, avoid % shots - that's about first hours job, rest day is yours.

Cricket must have changed dramatically in last 15 years, several times than what took place in previous 150 years.....
 
[MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION] Think you guys need a change of coaches, Lehmann's brought back Australia on the map but it's time to appoint Langer to take the next step. Lehmann's approach is suited for ODIs and flat tracks but not for actual 'test' cricket.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

jeetu
Stats: Rating players by their performance against each country
Replies
12
Views
479
jeetu
jeetu
jeetu
Stats - Rating Test batsman by taking Peer Factor into account
Replies
6
Views
2K
jeetu
jeetu
UN talkz
England [514/8d] beat West Indies [168 & 137] by an innings and 209 runs in the first Test
2 3
Replies
163
Views
8K
Aman
Aman
Abdul
ICC CT 2017 | England [310] beat New Zealand [223] by 87 runs
2 3
Replies
224
Views
10K
Ashraful_Rox
Ashraful_Rox
Abdul
ICC Champions Trophy, Group A : England [308/2] beat Bangladesh [305/6] by 8 wickets
6 7 8
Replies
629
Views
39K
jnaveen1980
J
Back
Top