**Official** England in New Zealand

[tooextracool]

He is doing what we want him to do and keeping his place by being a good Test bowler for the mainpart. Its still early and he has played on a lot of favourable wickets but he is doing his best to make his doubters (such as myself) eat their words. I have to admire him for that. It was a pretty inopportune moment for me to talk him down a little

It still doesnt change the fact that, IMO, having him as the key bowler isnt ideal for England. He is looking good because a) He is bowling well b) he is in conditions that suit c) NZ are hardly a quality lineup and d) he is surropunded by a shower of **** that its impossible not to shine when compared to.

Im being a little harsh in d) but the point still stands.

You know, having said all that, I remember watching a 'Top Gear' once that was talking about a 1000 hp car. It looked good on paper but wasnt able to use that HP effectively as it was poorly designed. Maybe Sidebottom is the mid-engine bowler that maxes out his potential and performs better than the more impressive models.

Couldnt agree more actually. Sidebottom, IMO has done fairly well but its true that hes been in conditions that suit him to a pill. Hes a decent bowler no doubt, but I dont expect him to be winning back the Ashes for us. Essentially hes a slightly more consistent mirror-image of Matthew Hoggard.

 

[tooextracool]

With regards a few of them comments on McCullum (and more surprisingly Ambrose!) trying to immitate Gilchrist's style, I think that's absolute nonsense. McCullum is, and always will be, an attacking player that at times will frustrate his side by selecting the wrong ball to attack. Very little brain power went into the shot he played against Sidebottom in the first innings. Not every attacking player is trying to be a Gilchrist, I am sure he is aware of his own capabilities.

Whilst I dont think he is trying to be a Gilchrist, I do think he has gotten carried away with his recent master-blaster ODI innings and his paycheck for the IPL. I remember watching him at Lords 4 years ago, as well as when he scored that 99 against SL at home, and whilst he always was an aggressive batsman, I certainly dont remember him batting with the same sort of carefree attitude that he currently embarks onto the field with. Nor do i think he is going to have too much success with it.

 

[tooextracool]

Rubbish, Vaughan's summer 2007 was the best season he's ever had. Truth is, Vaughan is next to useless when opening the batting only - down the order his average is currently 37.66, and since 2004 39.56.

Well give him a medal for being the worst out of the entire English batting card in his favored position.

 

[Richard]

I agree with much of what has been said about Bell.

Contrary to certain people's odd imaginations, that's not really remotely important. You can be a top-notch batsman without being an imposing one.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Contrary to certain people's odd imaginations, that's not really remotely important. You can be a top-notch batsman without being an imposing one.

Name one.

 

[Goughy]

Contrary to certain people's odd imaginations, that's not really remotely important. You can be a top-notch batsman without being an imposing one.

Players are imposing in ways other than aggression.

Take a Boycott, Kallis or Dravid who shut down hope in bowlers due to their barndoor forward def and concentration. They intimidate by giving the bowler little opportunity and making the bowler worry about how they will achieve any success.

You impose your will in a number of ways.

 

[Richard]

You know, having said all that, I remember watching a 'Top Gear' once that was talking about a 1000 hp car. It looked good on paper but wasnt able to use that HP effectively as it was poorly designed. Maybe Sidebottom is the mid-engine bowler that maxes out his potential and performs better than the more impressive models.

Don't often do this, but I agree entirely with that. Excellent metaphor.

 

[Richard]

Name one.

Players are imposing in ways other than aggression.

Take a Boycott, Kallis or Dravid who shut down hope in bowlers due to their barndoor forward def and concentration. They intimidate by giving the bowler little opportunity and making the bowler worry about how they will achieve any success.

You impose your will in a number of ways.

Looking at this poster's history it's very obvious that "imposing" means "strokeplaying". Denial possibly may follow, of course, but I won't believe a word of it TBH. You can be an excellent batsman without being a fast-scoring one.

 

[Goughy]

Looking at this poster's history it's very obvious that "imposing" means "strokeplaying". Denial possibly may follow, of course, but I won't believe a word of it TBH. You can be an excellent batsman without being a fast-scoring one.

I brought up imposing didnt I?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Looking at this poster's history it's very obvious that "imposing" means "strokeplaying". Denial possibly may follow, of course, but I won't believe a word of it TBH. You can be an excellent batsman without being a fast-scoring one.

You were the first poster in this thread to use the word "imposing". Denial possibly may follow, of course, but I won't believe a word of it TBH.

 

[grecian]

Really don't think I am that into attacking play. Hate Afridi/Symonds type players, but Richard knows best, I guess.

Controlled aggresion is important though, but I'm all for contrast.

I did say "impose his personality", which is surely saying if the batsman is phlegmatic, he imposes that on the bowler.

 

[Richard]

I brought up imposing didnt I?

You were the first poster in this thread to use the word "imposing". Denial possibly may follow, of course, but I won't believe a word of it TBH.

My post was preceded by (and was a result of) this:

He just doesn't seem to impose his personality on the bowler.

You can believe what you want, obviously.

 

[Richard]

Really don't think I am that into attacking play. Hate Afridi/Symonds type players, but Richard knows best, I guess.

Controlled aggresion is important though, but I'm all for contrast.

Yeah, as explained by the fact you were banging-on in the Second Test about how England weren't being aggressive enough, basically that England not being aggressive was the cause of all the trouble. Along with things like rating Trescothick a better Test opening batsman than Atherton - because he played shots, Atherton "allowed himself to be dictated to".

Sorry, to me you don't really understand the game of cricket, because you place too much emphasis on strokeplay, and don't realise that the bowler, not the batsman, has the biggest control over the number of strokes that can be played.

 

[Goughy]

the bowler, not the batsman, has the biggest control over the number of strokes that can be played.

hmm, Im going to have a think over that

 

[Richard]

You're telling me that it's not the case that attacking shots cannot (wisely) be played to certain deliveries? And that the bowler controls which deliveries are bowled, not the batsman?

(And, obviously, that the better the bowler the more of the deliveries he attempts he will achieve - don't think many will argue that)

Essentially, what I'm saying is that if the bowler is good enough he will stop the batsman scoring quickly (other than when bowling at truly rare types like Adam Gilchrist who can when in very top form hit almost any delivery) and there is nothing the batsman can do to up the rate without being exceedingly likely to get himself out.

 

[Jamee999]

Some batsman are able to play shots to balls that batsmen wouldn't normally be able to play an attacking shot to, though; see Pietersen, Kevin P.

 

[Richard]

Anyway, in the game Strauss does his best to get his customary dismissal, but blows it by finding a gap this time.

 

[Richard]

Some batsman are able to play shots to balls that batsmen wouldn't normally be able to play an attacking shot to, though; see Pietersen, Kevin P.

As I said - such batsmen are 1 in several hundred-thousand.

 

[grecian]

Yeah, as explained by the fact you were banging-on in the Second Test about how England weren't being aggressive enough, basically that England not being aggressive was the cause of all the trouble. Along with things like rating Trescothick a better Test opening batsman than Atherton - because he played shots, Atherton "allowed himself to be dictated to".

Sorry, to me you don't really understand the game of cricket, because you place too much emphasis on strokeplay, and don't realise that the bowler, not the batsman, has the biggest control over the number of strokes that can be played.

We lost that match didn't we?

Tres has a better record then Athers, scored at a much healthier average. He didn't get out early as much, Aths still holds the record for most noughts for England, so he didn't do his job of using up the new ball very often, I couldn't even work out why he opened, tbf. So there are other reasons for preferring him.

I Think Boyks was a better opener then Tres, despite him being as slow as plate movements.

I feel you know nothing about cricket because your blinded by your love of average 90s players, who you clearly idolise. So you invent increasingly odd reasons as to why you think they were better.

Yet, it's all about opinions ain't it?

 

[Goughy]

Richard,

Where do you stand on batsmen that dont take advantage of loose bowling?