The Ashes 2010/11

[kabbes]

I didn't say it was about preserving your wicket. I said it was about taking other peoples' wickets.

The finest ever sight in test cricket was over after over of Shane Warne coming in at terrified batsmen, fielders clustered around the bat, scoreboard barely ticking over. It created an excitement that the bastardised form will never share.

 

[kabbes]

? Test Cricket is primarily about runs. If you have more runs, you generally win - with the exception of team losing on runs, holding out for a draw.

That's a pretty bloody big exception.

If it were primarily about runs, you wouldn't be seeing so many declarations. Fundamentally, you take 20 wickets or you don't win. End of story.

Yesterday I saw Australia almost win by taking 10 wickets. Not quite sure where that fits into your analysis. Wickets are crucial for breaking up momentum in T20.

They didn't bowl England out, though, no matter how close it was. England won. And did so by scoring a bucket load in the last two overs, despite having so many wickets down. It's pretty bloody rare to get bowled out in 20 overs -- rare enough not really to have to worry about it.

 

[mattie]

I didn't say it was about preserving your wicket. I said it was about taking other peoples' wickets.

The finest ever sight in test cricket was over after over of Shane Warne coming in at terrified batsmen, fielders clustered around the bat, scoreboard barely ticking over. It created an excitement that the bastardised form will never share.

So I assume you've no time for Lara, Richards etc etc dismantling a bowling attack?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I have to say that I don't mind 2020 too much. It's enjoyable enough, if instantly forgettable.

But, the biggest problem I have with limited overs cricket is the way that it elevates the dot ball to an end in itself. That's what kabbes is getting at, I think - that a dot ball is a success for the bowler in a way that it isn't in test cricket, and as such the bowling in one-dayers is essentially defensive in nature.

 

[kabbes]

So I assume you've no time for Lara, Richards etc etc dismantling a bowling attack?

You know what they say about assumptions.

 

[kabbes]

I have to say that I don't mind 2020 too much. It's enjoyable enough, if instantly forgettable.

But, the biggest problem I have with limited overs cricket is the way that it elevates the dot ball to an end in itself. That's what kabbes is getting at, I think - that a dot ball is a success for the bowler in a way that it isn't in test cricket, and as such the bowling in one-dayers is essentially defensive in nature.

Yes, this is what I am saying.

 

[butchersapron]

If by defensive you mean clever, thoughtful, part of a plan, aware of the wider game then yes.

 

[Santino]

A succession of dot balls is very useful in Test cricket. England out-bowled (and bowled out) Australia during the Ashes by being exceptionally parsimonious with the older ball. The batsmen needed runs and threw away their wickets looking for them.

 

[Santino]

You know what they say about assumptions.

Do they make U and ME look like brilliant chaps?

 

[kabbes]

On batting in test cricket:

You generally score about 100 runs per session. It's rare that it is outside of the 80-120 run range. IF you have a batsman that can break this consistently over several sessions THEN you have managed to turn defence into attack and create something awe-inspiring. That's bloody brilliant.

It's also rare, for the same reason that a truly excellent counter-attacking football team is rare. Brilliant, but rare. Judging all defence on the basis of the rare counter-attacking counter-example is no way to judge a game. Most defence in football is about killing the opposition strike force and most defence in cricket is about scoring 80-120 per session.

Given the consistency of test scoring, it becomes a matter of staying in for long enough to rack up the runs. It's up to the bowling team to get them out before they can manage it. Of COURSE you need to keep up this scoring rate, so scoring is important. But that's like saying that a football defence needs to be able to pass it to the midfield -- it's necessary but it will happen anyway so long as they do their fundamental job.

 

[kabbes]

Also, if you enjoy the short game then great, good luck to you. But I'm explaining why I don't get much from it and, in all likelihood, never will.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

A succession of dot balls is very useful in Test cricket. England out-bowled (and bowled out) Australia during the Ashes by being exceptionally parsimonious with the older ball. The batsmen needed runs and threw away their wickets looking for them.

In test cricket, a dot ball is a means to an end. In one-dayers, it is an end in itself. A dot ball can also be a success for the batsman in test cricket, depending on the circumstances.

Also, in test cricket, a wicket is an end in itself – you can't win without taking 20 of them – whereas in one-dayers, a wicket is merely a means to an end, a way of slowing the scoring down.

And... for me the biggest weakness of one-dayers is the page after page of restrictions and regulations imposed on the fielding team, telling them who can bowl, what fields they can set, etc. As a general rule, the more rules a sport needs, the worse it is, imo. If it needs all these rules, it's not a very well conceived contest.

 

[Streathamite]

And surely an hour of highlights of a T20 are more representative of the game than an hour of highlights for a Test, so you must have a better feel of the T20 than the Tests after that?

whoa easy there, I need to warm myself to it slowly!
leaving aside whether an hour's tv review of a T20 game can ever be called 'highlights', I'd say the two have equal worth and value; they are 2 tactically different variants of the game which consequently place
emphasis on different facets and skills

 

[gabi]

So. based on everything that's happened over the last few months, Shane Watson is the only world-class player left in this aussie side. Depressing stuff, from their point of view. I seriously think if NZ played em at the mo they'd win.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Steady!

NZ's best quick bowler is Chris Martin, ffs.

 

[kabbes]

Steady!

NZ's best quick bowler is Chris Martin, ffs.

And that's only when he gets time away from singing with Coldplay.

 

[butchersapron]

Don't! Oh you did. Oh dear.

 

[gabi]

NZ pushed India harder in India than the ockers

 

[littlebabyjesus]

They did surprisingly well in India yes, before losing of course. But their bowling is thin and their batting is fragile. When Vettori doesn't deliver in both areas, they struggle.

 

[gabi]

Tim Southee's our best bowler anyway, for the record lotta potential there. anyway. derail.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Tim Southee's our best bowler anyway, for the record lotta potential there. anyway. derail.

I'll take your word for that. Haven't seen much of him. But I wouldn't give NZ a price against England at the moment.

ETA: technically speaking, this whole 2020 discussion has been a derail.

 

[kabbes]

Technically speaking, the whole Twenty20 game is a derail.

 

[Idaho]

That's a pretty bloody big exception.

If it were primarily about runs, you wouldn't be seeing so many declarations. Fundamentally, you take 20 wickets or you don't win. End of story.

Taking 20 wickets is a pre-requisite for victory but not the cause of victory.

 

[Santino]

Anyone want to talk about women's cricket?

 

[Idaho]

So. based on everything that's happened over the last few months, Shane Watson is the only world-class player left in this aussie side. Depressing stuff, from their point of view. I seriously think if NZ played em at the mo they'd win.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves now...

 

[kabbes]

Taking 20 wickets is a pre-requisite for victory but not the cause of victory.

No -- taking them fast enough is the cause of victory.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Taking 20 wickets is a massive part of the cause of victory. In test cricket, the team with the better bowlers usually wins.

 

[Idaho]

It's a slightly backwards way of looking at it. The losing team can't get 20 wickets. The game will always stop before they do.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's a slightly backwards way of looking at it. The losing team can't get 20 wickets. The game will always stop before they do.

yes they can.

 

[Santino]

You can take twenty wickets and still lose.