***Official England in India***

[Precambrian]

The point is that Yuvraj can be smacked any time; Harbhajan is very difficult to hit in non-Powerplay and it's best for the team to take advantage of that. What's best for the player is also best for the team, because if a player does well it benefits his team.

And of course Yuvraj now concedes just 1 that over.

And it is no guarantee that Harby be smashed like Yuvraj. In other words, chances of going at 10 p.o during powerplays are 95% for Yuvraj, compared to 40% for Harby,

 

[Precambrian]

Damn, so lucky Kevin

 

[Richard]

And it is no guarantee that Harby be smashed like Yuvraj. In other words, chances of going at 10 p.o during powerplays are 95% for Yuvraj, compared to 40% for Harby,

This series it's been considerably more than that for Harbhajan.

In fact I'd say it'd be very high for any spinner in a late-overs (ie, 35-onwards) Powerplay.

 

[Precambrian]

This series it's been considerably more than that for Harbhajan.

In fact I'd say it'd be very high for any spinner in a late-overs (ie, 35-onwards) Powerplay.

Because the grounds he played on have been absolute roads. One -off.

 

[Richard]

Dunno about Nick Knight, but for me no fielder should ever go for a catch at the expensive of almost certainly losing a boundary if you miss it, unless it's right at the start of the game.

 

[gettingbetter]

This guy speaks the truth, its a bit like England having specialist batsmen at 7/8:

'Saurabh: What is the point of having an allrounder like Yusuf and not giving him a bowl? I think Dhoni needs to change a few things here and get Yusuf on instead of Yuvi.'

 

[Richard]

Oddly, Shah averages 48 in his last 12 ODIs (9 innings') before this game. Similar at both three and five\six.

 

[WhatisRight]

Is it just me or does everyone else here think that pietersen is scared of batting up the order at crunch times??? the last time when he batted at 3 in this series was when england openers gave them a really solid start, now again when the series is lost he comes at 3. He should have lead from the front in other matches.

 

[social]

Dunno about Nick Knight, but for me no fielder should ever go for a catch at the expensive of almost certainly losing a boundary if you miss it, unless it's right at the start of the game.

Makes no sense whatsoever

It's a very, very, very occasion that you wouldnt gladly sacrifice 4 runs for a wicket

 

[Richard]

The point is you have a very high chance of conceding four and a very low chance of taking the catch. So play the percentages. Do what you have a good chance of.

 

[Richard]

Pathan back on, thought that would probably be coming soon.

 

[Richard]

Is it just me or does everyone else here think that pietersen is scared of batting up the order at crunch times??? the last time when he batted at 3 in this series was when england openers gave them a really solid start, now again when the series is lost he comes at 3. He should have lead from the front in other matches.

I doubt it, I imagine Pietersen simply decided to bat three as of the third game, then changed the order given the fourth was in effect a Twenty20 match.

As I've said before, this game is of little less significance for England than any earlier game. Dead ODIs and dead Tests are completely different things.

 

[Prince EWS]

The point is you have a very high chance of conceding four and a very low chance of taking the catch. So play the percentages. Do what you have a good chance of.

Couldn't agree less. If there's a minute chance of catching it, the catch should be attempted. Obviously there are exceptions, like the last ball of an ODI innings, when a team needs three to win, when Chris Martin is in etc, but as a general rule, you go for the catch.

 

[wpdavid]

The point is you have a very high chance of conceding four and a very low chance of taking the catch. So play the percentages. Do what you have a good chance of.

You also take into account the potential reward though, otherwise you'd never go for anything in those circumstances.

 

[social]

The point is you have a very high chance of conceding four and a very low chance of taking the catch. So play the percentages. Do what you have a good chance of.

Run in, make an effort to take the catch and the bowler will be happy irrespective of whether it goes for 4 or not

Stay on the back foot, let it bounce and every one of your team-mates will stare daggers at you despite hypothetically having saved 3 runs

 

[wpdavid]

Oddly, Shah averages 48 in his last 12 ODIs (9 innings') before this game. Similar at both three and five\six.

Where does that go back to - start of the NZ series in England?

 

[Richard]

No, the Fourth ODI of that series. Shah did poorly in the opening three.

 

[Richard]

Run in, make an effort to take the catch and the bowler will be happy irrespective of whether it goes for 4 or not

I wouldn't, nor would any bowler who understands one-day cricket. I've said before that there are times when you don't, you mix it and the longer game up too often.

 

[Richard]

Couldn't agree less. If there's a minute chance of catching it, the catch should be attempted. Obviously there are exceptions, like the last ball of an ODI innings, when a team needs three to win, when Chris Martin is in etc, but as a general rule, you go for the catch.

I'd say only go for the catch if you've a good chance of taking it, and you'll lose three runs if you miss it.

 

[Richard]

You also take into account the potential reward though, otherwise you'd never go for anything in those circumstances.

The only time when stopping a boundary is less valuable than the small possibility of taking a wicket is the opening 15-20 overs, IMO.