***Official*** Stanford Super Series

[Richard]

Nah, it's played by individuals. It's a team sport, but it's played by individuals.

Only 1 batsman at a time can face, and no-one but he can deal with it. Similarly, only 1 bowler at a time can bowl and if he's not good enough to put it in the right place no other bowler can do a thing to change that.

This is different to football or rugby where teamwork is done and the inadequacy of one player can be genuinely disguised, rather than simply covered-up for, by the skill of his fellows.

 

[GIMH]

This is true, but bowlers need fielders, wicket-keepers etc to help them take wickets. Batsmen can thrive off having a partner that they bat well with at the other end.

 

[Jamee999]

That's only one angle on it though - an over of cricket is not the same as the roll of a dice, nor 50 overs the same as 50 die-rolls. Cricket is played by individuals.

Same principle though really. The more balls bowled, the more likely the best team is to win.

 

[Richard]

This is true, but bowlers need fielders, wicket-keepers etc to help them take wickets. Batsmen can thrive off having a partner that they bat well with at the other end.

But that batsman can't make them bat better, that's all down to the striker, and fielders can only do what's expected of them - ie, make sure that when a bowler gets a ball hit in the air near them it results in a wicket. They can't help him bowl the ball.

 

[Richard]

Same principle though really. The more balls bowled, the more likely the best team is to win.

Yes but as I say - the team isn't all there is to cricket. There is more, so much more.

 

[GIMH]

But that batsman can't make them bat better, that's all down to the striker, and fielders can only do what's expected of them - ie, make sure that when a bowler gets a ball hit in the air near them it results in a wicket. They can't help him bowl the ball.

Well, I am sure if you asked some batsmen they would tell you that they feel they bat better with certain people at the other end. Pietersen & Collingwood spring to mind. And how much better was Strauss when he partnered Trescothick.

As for the fielders, well how often do fielders take catches from rank deliveries. Or catches like Strauss's off Flintoff's bowling to Gilchrist @ Trent Bridge 05. Flintoff himself says that he sees that as Strauss's wicket.

 

[Richard]

Well, I am sure if you asked some batsmen they would tell you that they feel they bat better with certain people at the other end. Pietersen & Collingwood spring to mind. And how much better was Strauss when he partnered Trescothick.

Yeah but it's not like these players were hopeless with other batsmen. Strauss and Collingwood have both scored heaps of runs in partnership with others. It's just a slight raising of the bar, not a wholesale change.

As for the fielders, well how often do fielders take catches from rank deliveries. Or catches like Strauss's off Flintoff's bowling to Gilchrist @ Trent Bridge 05. Flintoff himself says that he sees that as Strauss's wicket.

Well yeah but as I say - this isn't the same as football. The fielders aren't making the bowlers bowl better, nor are they doing something right where the bowler has done something wrong with catches off rubbish balls. Fielders are expected to take catches. Any time they don't it's letting down the bowler - not the other way around. As I say - no fielder can make the bowler bowl better.

 

[GIMH]

It is different to football, of course. But it's still a team sport, and I think you are underestimating the difference individuals can have on other individuals in a team game. The reason Strauss looked better when Tresco was there was because Tresco would force the pace and as such allow Strauss to settle, this is clear evidence of teamwork IMO

 

[Richard]

Well actually I think it was because Strauss unneccessarily put pressure on himself to score quickly when there was no Trescothick - and we've seen in recent times that he and Cook can work juuuuuuuuust fine when both just play their natural games, Strauss doesn't need to score quickly at all.

I often think many people overestimate the difference cricket players have on other cricket players TBH - as I say it's not like anyone is going from hopeless to brilliant. A good batting partner for you can help you raise the bar slightly, but no more than that. Likewise fielders can only stop the ball - they can't help the bowler bowl it better.

 

[GIMH]

I think team spirit can make a big difference to the invidual, tbh I felt this when I used to do Athletics, which is an individual sport. Motivation from my team-mates inspired me to run PBs in both the 400 and 800 one Sunday afternoon, I then went on to run third leg in both relays. Anyway, erm.

I'm not all that happy with Strauss & Cook, it has been remarked by others that I have been too harsh on them though, and I've typed too much today so cbf at this point! It's always going to come down to opinion, cricket is certainly more focused on the individual than any other similar sort of team sport, but at the same time I believe that the team players can have major influence on the performance of individuals. You don't, obv, and that's fine.

 

[Richard]

I think team spirit can make a big difference to the invidual, tbh I felt this when I used to do Athletics, which is an individual sport. Motivation from my team-mates inspired me to run PBs in both the 400 and 800 one Sunday afternoon, I then went on to run third leg in both relays. Anyway, erm.

True - but again this is simply an example of something intangible. "Team spirit" can't turn bad players into good ones, merely help good ones express themselves best.

I'm not all that happy with Strauss & Cook, it has been remarked by others that I have been too harsh on them though, and I've typed too much today so cbf at this point! It's always going to come down to opinion, cricket is certainly more focused on the individual than any other similar sort of team sport, but at the same time I believe that the team players can have major influence on the performance of individuals. You don't, obv, and that's fine.

Strauss and Cook are both potentially excellent openers, far better than Trescothick.

(IMO)

 

[GIMH]

True - but again this is simply an example of something intangible. "Team spirit" can't turn bad players into good ones, merely help good ones express themselves best.

That's exactly the point, though, for mine.

Strauss and Cook are both potentially excellent openers, far better than Trescothick.

(IMO)

Yeah, possibly, but conversions please. I was talking more as a partnership, anyhow, than ranking the individuals, as I genuinely believed we have missed Trescothick's impetus at the top of the innings, and some of Cook's best cricket has come at 3 , funnily enough (not that I'm saying he should bat there as I believe that to be no more than a coincidence).

edit - averaged 52 at 3, ten above his career average. Averages 40.7 as an opener. Obv this has a lot to do with all of the innings at 3 coming in his honeymoon season, etc, but ITSTL, nonetheless
Now that I think about it, Cook only played the one summer at 3. Will look up his stats shortly.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, possibly, but conversions please. I was talking more as a partnership, anyhow, than ranking the individuals

But the partnership is only as good as the individuals. And provided they both play to their own strengths rather than trying to be Marcus Trescothick, I think they can be a fantastic pairing. Trouble is for ages Strauss was trying to play a way that didn't suit him, and for quite a while now Cook's been having technical issues.

If they both sort themselves out at the same time I can see 100-partnerships abounding against poor bowling and the new-ball regularly being seen-off against better ones.

 

[GIMH]

Any team is only as good as its individuals, it's how the individuals work together that matters. The key word for mine is "partnership" - if teamwork didn't come into it then it'd just be called "two people out in the middle at the same time".

 

[Richard]

Linguistics is often as important as anything y'know.

As I say, I'm not saying having two people who bat especially well together is completely sans-use. But provided most players get on (which is emphatically the case in all bar a small minority of teams, and certainly has rarely failed to be the case in England of late) there shouldn't be any major problems or inequities. The odds of two good players batting well together will always be roughly equal. I think some people are prone to overstate the importance of teamwork in batting. Being able to run quick singles and relax in between overs is important, but it doesn't touch the importance of being able to see the ball and play the right shot, and no-one at the other end can do that for you or help you do it in the slightest. It's all, 100% down to the man on strike.

 

[andyc]

Hope this gets stickied soon... there's no stickied threads in CC. Looks bizarre.

 

[Perm]

This thing looks like an absolute joke.

To be predictable and un-original, it's just not cricket.

 

[Richard]

Hope this gets stickied soon... there's no stickied threads in CC. Looks bizarre.

Looks unbelievably magnificent IMO. I've lived all my CW life waiting for this moment, and finally it arrives. Must be cherished for the short while it lasts.

 

[GIMH]

I don't see what is good or bad about having no stickied threads tttt

 

[four_or_six]

Every time I think about this match it gets another > in the IPL >>>>>>> Stanford in my brain.

Would love England to lose tbh. Would be hilarious after all this fuss.

Would also love Strauss to smack at 60-ball 100 for Middx.