Robert
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Runs
- 37,604
- Post of the Week
- 1
Wood bowling only 83... saw him close to 90 last time?
He doesn't seem able to sustain pace two days in a row.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wood bowling only 83... saw him close to 90 last time?
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.
0/8 is worse than 60/10.
Not if the ninth wicket pair put on 61.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
The millionth legal delivery in test cricket in England was just bowled according to Jim Maxwell
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
They shouldn't unless it was a poor ball. As a good amount of the boundaries today have been off.
Except you think that Australia's problem is that we were too defensive.
Which is blatantly stupid.
0/8 is worse than 60/10.
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.
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.
Why?
Care to actually reason instead of making assertions.
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.
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!
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.
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.
never seen PP more united than when disagreeing with mr analyst lol!!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Defend Smith and Clarke's shots.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
It appears that Shaun Marsh subscribes to CricketAnalyst's newsletter
It appears that Shaun Marsh subscribes to CricketAnalyst's newsletter
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.
"England won't come close to us" - Steve Smith