Are Test captains becoming too defensive and too early?

[Craig]

Yes IMO.

As I type, I'm watching the Australia New Zealand Test match and despite having a 265 run lead on New Zealand, Ricky Ponting started to put guys at deep point and and deep backward square in the 3rd over after a bright start by New Zealand (Jamie How hit Stuart Clark through backward square for four and next ball there was a man there). With the lead he has, would you not think he has runs to play with, so he could afford to give some runs away, espcially through the covers as you can get wickets caught in the slips or if you encourage him to bowl straight then bowled, caught behind and LBW comes into play? We saw it on day 2 as Daniel Vettori was going on the defensive quite early, as if to try and strangle the Australians (not that it worked) and hope they get out. In Nagpur, MS Dhoni went out and strangled the Australians and got 8/166 on day 3.

So my question is: If you do not get early wickets you go on the defensive to limit the runs conceded and hope they get out to a bad shot or (if your in the case of Ponting and the lead he has as my example) you be prepared to give away some runs for wickets? Or indeed is this a new trend amongst Test captains?

 

[Rant0r]

i ****ing hate the deep point ploy

that's all i have to say about that

 

[Rant0r]

mind you the dhoni ploy worked, i still don't like having a sweeper in tests though

 

[Richard]

I think a man at deep point is often a fine idea, would almost always prefer a third-man either instead or as well however.

But it does seem a bit extreme to go to it as early as some captains do sometimes, yes.

 

[The Ken Legends]

Test captains are becoming far to defensive to early.
The worst culprits are the Indians,they have had a sensational side over the last decade or so.They have played in so many draws over the years.

The stats on that would be very interesting.
I think there total drawn games is about 192 the same as Australia but Australia has played a lot more Test match cricket.

 

[Richard]

The fact India have played of late on plenty of pitches which were decidedly not result-friendly is rather more of a factor however.

 

[Uppercut]

And had far better batsmen than bowlers.

I think they often do, yes, but a bigger factor is that Ponting hasn't a clue how to defend properly. He just gives runs away, tells his bowlers to bowl all of the show and thinks hes limiting the scoring.

 

[Precambrian]

Test captains are becoming far to defensive to early.
The worst culprits are the Indians,they have had a sensational side over the last decade or so.They have played in so many draws over the years.

The stats on that would be very interesting.
I think there total drawn games is about 192 the same as Australia but Australia has played a lot more Test match cricket.

AWTA above on the fact that India and Pakistan have played some of the most defensive cricket in the last quarter of the 20th century. But since then, India have played moderate to aggressive cricket.

Many people are at the throat of Ricky Ponting, but give the guy a break, NZ were off to a flyer at over 10 p.o, and would have likely stayed there if not for Ricky spreading fields. This tactic works against lesser batsmen and has backfired against very good batsmen like Sehwag, Tendulkar etc.

As Chappell said, no point in setting defensive field against quality batsmen because regardless of it they will find boundaries.

 

[The Ken Legends]

The fact India have played of late on plenty of pitches which were decidedly not result-friendly is rather more of a factor however.

If you have a look at the last series between the 2 countries it was ordinary captaincy by Dohni to set a 8-1 field & bowling 2-3 feet outside off stump.There was only 1 slip & 1 gully on the third morning of the final test match.For the first 90 minutes no wickets 25 runs that was boring test match cricket.India are a better team than that.

 

[Rant0r]

they ended up winning though, so it couldn't have been too defensive

 

[Precambrian]

If you have a look at the last series between the 2 countries it was ordinary captaincy by Dohni to set a 8-1 field & bowling 2-3 feet outside off stump.There was only 1 slip & 1 gully on the third morning of the final test match.For the first 90 minutes no wickets 25 runs that was boring test match cricket.India are a better team than that.

But it fetched India 8 Aussie wickets on a flat pitch for just 180 odd runs, and India won the match.

No tactic is defensive if it contributes to a team's victory.

 

[The Ken Legends]

But it fetched India 8 Aussie wickets on a flat pitch for just 180 odd runs, and India won the match.

No tactic is defensive if it contributes to a team's victory.

They could of won the game a lot earlier had they been more attacking as they they could of won a lot more Test matches with the brilliant sides that they have had over the years if they had played a more attacking style of play.

 

[Precambrian]

As Rich said above, India have had a brilliant batting lineup but a poor to medicore bowling lineup till recently. So that's reason mainly for the dull draws as well as the pitches.

As regards to Nagpur game, you're forgetting it was a belter of a track on which Aus ended Day 2 at 189/2 from just 49 overs, when India had put the usual field. Katich and Huss were running away with the game and some control had to be brought over the RR, and set a 8-1 field trap into which both walked into. And also note that the defensive fields were in operation only for the first session, and rather than trying to overcome that, both Katich and Hussey played ultra defensive game.

 

[Top_Cat]

But it fetched India 8 Aussie wickets on a flat pitch for just 180 odd runs, and India won the match.

No tactic is defensive if it contributes to a team's victory.

You surely mean 'no tactic is negative if it contributes to a team's victory'. Because no matter which way you slice it, Dhoni's tactics were extremely defensive but as they were in pursuit of a win, they weren't negative (even if I hated watching them, personally).

 

[Top_Cat]

And also note that the defensive fields were in operation only for the first session, and rather than trying to overcome that, both Katich and Hussey played ultra defensive game.

As if they had a choice! If they'd tried stepping outside off-stump, whacking the ball into the on-side, they'd have been pillored for turning the game into a Twenty20 match. If they'd gotten out during same, people would have given them crap for that too. Their only choice was to wait it out and they weren't up to it.

 

[Precambrian]

As if they had a choice! If they'd tried stepping outside off-stump, whacking the ball into the on-side, they'd have been pillored for turning the game into a Twenty20 match. If they'd gotten out during same, people would have given them crap for that too. Their only choice was to wait it out and they weren't up to it.

Not that every delivery was a foot outside the off stump. Both batsmen became over cautious and there were some close leaves also. Even half volleys which otherwise would have been comfortably driven along the ground were left alone.

India were defensive, but Australia were ultra defensive. Made watching paint dry better but contributed to test cricket justifying its name.

 

[Precambrian]

You surely mean 'no tactic is negative if it contributes to a team's victory'. Because no matter which way you slice it, Dhoni's tactics were extremely defensive but as they were in pursuit of a win, they weren't negative (even if I hated watching them, personally).

Yep.

 

[The Ken Legends]

As if they had a choice! If they'd tried stepping outside off-stump, whacking the ball into the on-side, they'd have been pillored for turning the game into a Twenty20 match. If they'd gotten out during same, people would have given them crap for that too. Their only choice was to wait it out and they weren't up to it.[/QUOT
I agree with you 100%

 

[Rant0r]

it was a tactic which won the game, the australian batsmen just weren't able to counter it, just because they had 8-1 doesn't mean there were no gaps, it might have looked ugly and boring, but glenn mcgrath made a career on bowling boring

 

[Rant0r]

a sweeper however i do consider negative, you couldn't ever consider getting a wicket there, and any batsmen worth a pinch of **** will just keep punching it out there for single after single.

a ring field could also be considered negative, but you need to be a bit creative on certain pitches. it wouldn't be inconcievable to see a batsmen frustrated out by a ring field and hole out to mid off.

short cover, 2 gullies, 2 square legs, short mid wicket, short leg silly mid off can all be variations to slips when the ball isn't moving. which is a lot these days