**Official** Tour Matches

[scorpiogal]

You do have to practice in the nets, but match practice is also invaluable. They're not mutually exclusive, but the most valuable lessons you learn in cricket are those learned while you are in the middle. You can get lots of time bowling and batting in the middle too, possibly more than you'll get in the nets if you're having a good day. What's important in my opinion is what you do with your time. Mentally you'll learn a lot more in the middle than you will in training, as it's hard to replicate a match situation fully in the nets.

100% correct.

What a ridiculous argument, really.

What Son Of Coco said. Really, there isn't much more to be said.

 

[JimmyGS]

The only way you get better at batting or bowling is to bat or bowl. In a game, your aim is to bowl or play the next ball and contribute to trying to win that present game, and if you look too far beyond that you're in trouble.

So you need lots and lots of time bowling, or lots of time batting. The only way to get that is in a non-match situation.

If you're not good enough to play at a certain level, you must improve before you earn the right to do so. Not the other way around.

So what you're saying, is that if I'm seen as having potential when I'm 5, and I do nothing but net and net and net until I'm 25, I can then make my Test debut. Not only will I be Test class, but I'll be better than If I had been playing games consistently up until that point.

Rubbish.

 

[Nate]

Are you suggesting that we replace Hughes, the most exciting cricketing prospect in recent memory with North, a guy that has been in awful batting form and isn't even an open batsman (as far as I know)?

I think you'll find he was just talking about the next tour match. As it is, Hughes is a dead cert, in form and has clearly gotten used to English conditions, as his Middlesex stint shows. There's not really much to be gained from playing him in the next tour match, especially as it means that someone like North or Watson who needs to prove themselves would miss out. That said, if they weren't going to play Hughes, they'd probably be more likely to open with Hussey.

This. See my signature aswell.

 

[Richard]

So what you're saying, is that if I'm seen as having potential when I'm 5, and I do nothing but net and net and net until I'm 25, I can then make my Test debut. Not only will I be Test class, but I'll be better than If I had been playing games consistently up until that point.

Rubbish.

No, I'm saying nothing of the sort, so yes, what you manufactured is indeed rubbish.

 

[Richard]

You do have to practice in the nets, but match practice is also invaluable. They're not mutually exclusive, but the most valuable lessons you learn in cricket are those learned while you are in the middle. You can get lots of time bowling and batting in the middle too, possibly more than you'll get in the nets if you're having a good day. What's important in my opinion is what you do with your time. Mentally you'll learn a lot more in the middle than you will in training, as it's hard to replicate a match situation fully in the nets.

Of course match time (any match is by definition not practice) is indeed important, but you cannot expect to be actively getting better by bowling in the middle. All you're doing is putting into practice the skills you have.

You can indeed get lots of time bowling in the middle - if you bowl well - but with batting that's just the point. One mistake (sometimes not even that) can end it all for that time. If you need improvements in your batting, because you're coming-up short at the level you've been attempting, you won't solve matters just by continuing to play at that level, you'll solve it by netting and (and this is the key) analysing.

I've always said the mental and physical side of cricket is notoriously not-mutually-exclusive (because it is) but clearly no nets are going to allow you to get an idea of what playing a match is like.

 

[oitoitoi]

It's different for different players, but at that level I think nets are only really useful if you haven't played in a while to get some confidence or to iron out kinks in you're technique (or learning a new shot). At the end of the day there are just so many factors not taken into account in the nets, the pitch, the field placements, the match situation, the tactics the bowler's using against you, who you're batting against, the fact that you face the same bowler 6 balls in a row (helps me, harder facing a variety), your ability to find the gaps, matches highlight the importance of being a 360 degree player, stamina from running (it's a lot harder to bat when you're still out of breath). I'm usually rubbish in the nets but score plenty in matches, always been that way tbh and it kept me out of a few sides for a while. I've a friend who's a fantastic batsmen, but his tactical knowledge, reading of the pitch and in particular match awareness are pretty poor and as a result he's hideously inconsistent for a player of his quality. I reckon the Aussies need match practice far more than they need nets, even if the opposition isn't that strong.

 

[zaremba]

The answer to all of them is "who knows?" There is absolutely no way anyone can be certain whether Wright's career would've turned-out better, worse or exactly the same had he stayed where he was. You cannot say his decision has been a mistake, certainly not, but nor can you say it was essential.

Ambrose was always, in my view, potentially a better wicketkeeper-batsman than Prior. He may have hinted at his promise in his early Sussex years, but the fact that he fell behind Prior at all says it all. Had he developed earlier, he'd have beaten Prior to a first-team place and kept it. As it was, though, he was never a first-team regular after his dreadful 2004, despite having not a few opportunities to force his way back in (10 games in 2004, 7 in 2005, 9 in 2006). And it was only in 2007 that he begun to fulfull his potential - after moving to Warwickshire.

With Wright you say "who knows?" and seek refuge in the fact that speculation is hopelessly futile. With Ambrose, however - lo and behold! - the mists suddenly clear and you find yourself able to assess with absolute clarity what might have been...

With Ambrose, more importantly, you may be falling into the trap of substituting your own judgment for that of the people that, as far as Ambrose's career choices were concerned, really mattered, namely the management at Sussex. It doesn't actually matter whether they were right or wrong, they took a different view than you did of Ambrose's and Prior's respective merits and that's all that mattered.

His career move, just like Wright's, was quite plainly the right one for him to have taken.

 

[zaremba]

As you know, I disagree that you get better by gaining experience of playing for a county, playing international cricket etc. The only way you get better is by practising, mostly in the nets.

The England football team got dumped out of major tournaments as a result of thinking that, just because you can't replicate the tension of a penalty shoot-out, it wasn't worth practising penalties. This was shockingly negligent and half-witted. Penalties in shoot-outs are hard enough to take without having honed your skills beforehand. A world cup semi final is not the place to attempt your first penalty kick.

To that extent, I agree with you.

However it doesn't follow that you don't learn and improve through experiencing match situations. A ridiculously high percentage of the game is played in the mind, and the mind is not honed in the nets in the same way that's it's honed and toughened by playing in testing, tough, real-life situations.

 

[pskov]

Of course match time (any match is by definition not practice) is indeed important, but you cannot expect to be actively getting better by bowling in the middle. All you're doing is putting into practice the skills you have.

You can indeed get lots of time bowling in the middle - if you bowl well - but with batting that's just the point. One mistake (sometimes not even that) can end it all for that time. If you need improvements in your batting, because you're coming-up short at the level you've been attempting, you won't solve matters just by continuing to play at that level, you'll solve it by netting and (and this is the key) analysing.

I've always said the mental and physical side of cricket is notoriously not-mutually-exclusive (because it is) but clearly no nets are going to allow you to get an idea of what playing a match is like.

It depends really. You can't improve on your technique in the middle but you can't develop the mental side of your game in the nets.

Personally I believe that at the very highest levels of cricket, and indeed almost all sports (with perhaps athletics the exception), the difference between an average test cricketer and a great one is more about mental strength than technique or talent. For example, you wouldn't say Carl Hooper was a significantly less talented player than Lara if you were watching them bat in the nets, they were both fabulously talented stroke players with a flashy and aesthetically pleasing style, but it was the mental difference that separated them. And that is an aspect that I think is difficult to develop without match experience. Although of course it is to a large extent something you are either born with or you aren't, but you could say the same thing about physical talent so that point is rather moot.

 

[Uppercut]

It depends really. You can't improve on your technique in the middle but you can't develop the mental side of your game in the nets.

Personally I believe that at the very highest levels of cricket, and indeed almost all sports (with perhaps athletics the exception), the difference between an average test cricketer and a great one is more about mental strength than technique or talent. For example, you wouldn't say Carl Hooper was a significantly less talented player than Lara if you were watching them bat in the nets, they were both fabulously talented stroke players with a flashy and aesthetically pleasing style, but it was the mental difference that separated them. And that is an aspect that I think is difficult to develop without match experience. Although of course it is to a large extent something you are either born with or you aren't, but you could say the same thing about physical talent so that point is rather moot.

Regarding your example, i think it's wrong. Carl Hooper may have been mentally weaker than Lara, but what really made him a lesser player was that he made more mistakes. Similar with a lot of players dubbed mentally weak- Ian Bell, for instance. And because one error gets a batsman out, the batsmen who make the least mistakes are by and large the best.

It's why I'm in favour of a more statistical approach to selections regarding batsmen than bowlers. You can tell how dangerous a bowler is by watching him to some extent, but you certainly can't tell how many mistakes a batsman is likely to make over the course of a test career. (Unless of course there's an obvious big technical flaw).

 

[Son Of Coco]

Of course match time (any match is by definition not practice) is indeed important, but you cannot expect to be actively getting better by bowling in the middle. All you're doing is putting into practice the skills you have.

Well, you can because you'll learn things in a game that are important and you can take those away with you to improve upon. If you're good, you'll also take note of what's happening and make the adjustments while you're playing. You have to be able to adapt to the wicket you're playing on, not just stick to what you've been doing in practice.

Here in Australia at quite a few clubs (around my area anyway) you transfer skills honed on synthetic pitches in practice to turf wickets in real matches. So obviously the only way to really learn how to play on turf wickets is through playing on them in games.

 

[NUFAN]

Richard is your favourite Cricketer Ian Pont's young Indian?

 

[pskov]

Regarding your example, i think it's wrong. Carl Hooper may have been mentally weaker than Lara, but what really made him a lesser player was that he made more mistakes. Similar with a lot of players dubbed mentally weak- Ian Bell, for instance. And because one error gets a batsman out, the batsmen who make the least mistakes are by and large the best.

Yes of course, but is not making a mistake a mental error?

 

[pup11]

Well moving onto other things, Watto seems to be more or less out of the 1st test now, he is very unlikely to take part in the game against the Lions, which would pretty much rule him out of contention for the 1st test.

Good opportunity for North though, can make the most of his absence and nail the no.6 position for a long time to come.

 

[Burgey]

Well moving onto other things, Watto seems to be more or less out of the 1st test now, he is very unlikely to take part in the game against the Lions, which would pretty much rule him out of contention for the 1st test.

Good opportunity for North though, can make the most of his absence and nail the no.6 position for a long time to come.

He should be sent home, and another batsman sent over there to replace him, imo.

Aren't the tests back-to-back? If so, he's realistically out of the first two tests, isn't he? There's no opportunity for him to present a case for selectionthen until the third test FFS.

 

[Top_Cat]

He should be sent home, and another batsman sent over there to replace him, imo.

Aren't the tests back-to-back? If so, he's realistically out of the first two tests, isn't he? There's no opportunity for him to present a case for selectionthen until the third test FFS.

Who to replace him I wonder? Hodge the logical one but he apparently ran over Hildich's dog so....

 

[duffer]

Loving that Fox are showing the Aussies vs Lions match live. So seriously amped for this Ashes tour.

 

[social]

He should be sent home, and another batsman sent over there to replace him, imo.

Aren't the tests back-to-back? If so, he's realistically out of the first two tests, isn't he? There's no opportunity for him to present a case for selectionthen until the third test FFS.

A replacement should be sent now as we literally have no backup but I wouldnt send Watto home just yet as the psychological damage from such a move could be harder to get over than the injury

 

[Burgey]

Hmm, a fair point that. Who's carving it in county cricket atm? Any one in with a shot?

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

God will hate me for this, but Mark Cosgrove is averaging 70+. Admittedly it is Divi 2, but don't Glamorgan play at Cardiff...?