*Official* Second Test at Lords

[Matt79]

Never understood this. Bowlers should decide their own strategy and think for themsleves. Captains are supposed to be inferior at understanding the art of bowling than bowlers, because they're mostly batsmen. If bowlers are told to do something and feel it's not in their best interests they should say "no that's wrong, I need to bowl ____, I'm not going to be following those silly instructions". Equally, if a bowler needs to be told the best way to bowl in such obvious circumstances, you have to worry about his bowling intelligence.

Actually, pretty sure captains are supposed to be superior in their understanding of tactics. They may not know more about a bowler in how to achieve a type of delivery, but they should know as well as the bowler (in most cases) what kind of delivery they want.

 

[zaremba]

Anderson sledging Ponting when his on 130 not out and Australia were 300-1 in the last Test was also pretty dire.

Angus Fraser's got a good story about how when Brian Lara played and missed in Antigua, Fraser began to open his mouth to have a word but then realised that he could hardly call him a lucky ****er given that he was 347 not out at the time.

 

[Richard]

Sachin could just inform him that his prized assets aren't parked on Alan Stanford's lap

Well actually he couldn't have, unfortunately, because that happened 18 months after said Prior-Tendulkar alleged-sledge.

 

[Richard]

Actually, pretty sure captains are supposed to be superior in their understanding of tactics. They may not know more about a bowler in how to achieve a type of delivery, but they should know as well as the bowler (in most cases) what kind of delivery they want.

Why? Bowlers are supposed to understand bowling best, not batsmen.

I know I understand how to bowl far better than any batsman I've ever met. Unfortunately I'm not very good.

 

[Matt79]

Angus Fraser's got a good story about how when Brian Lara played and missed in Antigua, Fraser began to open his mouth to have a word but then realised that he could hardly call him a lucky ****er given that he was 347 not out at the time.

Nice counterpart to the famous story about the Aussies foolishly sledging Lara and snapping him into focus.

 

[91Jmay]

Better from Broad.

 

[Richard]

When's play resuming?

Now - and it's raining again already.

Onions finally on, unfortunately on at the same time as Broad. Hopefully Broad will be taken off for Anderson next over.

 

[duffer]

Well actually he couldn't have, unfortunately, because that happened 18 months after said Prior-Tendulkar alleged-sledge.

Killjoy....

 

[91Jmay]

They going to play through it?

 

[Richard]

Angus Fraser's got a good story about how when Brian Lara played and missed in Antigua, Fraser began to open his mouth to have a word but then realised that he could hardly call him a lucky ****er given that he was 347 not out at the time.

Nice counterpart to the famous story about the Aussies foolishly sledging Lara and snapping him into focus.

Atherton alleges in his own book that Fraser said "arsey bastard" after said Lara play-and-miss on 347*.

Anyway there's many stories about how Lara was annoyed by something and played better as a result. You'd have thought teams would've learned, but apparently they never did.

 

[superkingdave]

grrr...why is Stuart Broad on?

 

[pasag]

Intriguing passage of play here

 

[zaremba]

Never understood this. Bowlers should decide their own strategy and think for themsleves. Captains are supposed to be inferior at understanding the art of bowling than bowlers, because they're mostly batsmen. If bowlers are told to do something and feel it's not in their best interests they should say "no that's wrong, I need to bowl ____, I'm not going to be following those silly instructions". Equally, if a bowler needs to be told the best way to bowl in such obvious circumstances, you have to worry about his bowling intelligence.

Just because a bowler may have intelligence doesn't mean he can't be given, and accept, instructions by his captain. Just like a batsman who's told to hit out, or to dig in and protect his wicket at all costs, or to give the strike to his partner, or whatever else it may be.

A captain is more than entitled to have a view, and indeed a strategy, about how he wants the bowler to bowl.

 

[zaremba]

Atherton alleges in his own book that Fraser said "arsey bastard" after said Lara play-and-miss on 347*.

Anyway there's many stories about how Lara was annoyed by something and played better as a result. You'd have thought teams would've learned, but apparently they never did.

He fell just 28 runs later, though, so Fraser's sledge obviously shattered his fragile concentration.

 

[Matt79]

Why? Bowlers are supposed to understand bowling best, not batsmen.

I know I understand how to bowl far better than any batsman I've ever met. Unfortunately I'm not very good.

Nah, you're missing my point. A bowler should understand HOW to bowl the relevant types of delivery better, but supposedly you become a captain in part because you have a superior ability in assessing what kind of delivery is required, and setting a field to it. The captain doesn't have to understand HOW a bowler does what he does, as long as he understands WHAT the bowler can do, and WHAT he wants the bowler to do.

What you're arguing is equivalent to saying that because a tank driver knows how to drive a tank better than a general, he is better placed to direct an army than that general.

It won't always be the case, for instance no captain would tell Warne how to bowl, but generally a captain should be giving guidance to a bowler - especially an relatively inexperienced one like Broad.

 

[wpdavid]

Nice counterpart to the famous story about the Aussies foolishly sledging Lara and snapping him into focus.

On a related matter, wasn't it Dean Jones who thought it might be fun to ask Ambrose to remove his wristbands? 7 wickets and 1 run later ....

Then we have Mark Waugh being outsledged by Jimmy Ormond, which takes a bit of doing.

The other really lousy sledge was, I think, from Greg Thomas after Viv Richards had played and missed a couple of times, helpfully pointing out that the ball is round, red and 3.5 inches wide. After his next delivery had disappeared out of the ground, Viv's response was 'you know what it looks like, so you go and find it.'

 

[Richard]

Just because a bowler may have intelligence doesn't mean he can't be given, and accept, instructions by his captain. Just like a batsman who's told to hit out, or to dig in and protect his wicket at all costs, or to give the strike to his partner, or whatever else it may be.

A captain is more than entitled to have a view, and indeed a strategy, about how he wants the bowler to bowl.

But the bowler's more likely to know how best to bowl. It's completely different to telling a batsman to hit out or dig in - that should be basic to the most absurdly basic. Even then captains don't tell batsmen which shots to play.

Telling a batsman "hit out" or "score quickly" is akin to telling a bowler "try to get this guy out". It's just the sort of thing you should know without being told.

Like you don't tell a batsman which shots to play, you shouldn't be telling a bowler how to bowl. He should know that better than you, and I know I wouldn't appreciate any captain telling me how to bowl. Fortunately such a thing has never yet happened.

 

[Matt79]

But the bowler's more likely to know how best to bowl. It's completely different to telling a batsman to hit out or dig in - that should be basic to the most absurdly basic. Even then captains don't tell batsmen which shots to play.

Telling a batsman "hit out" or "score quickly" is akin to telling a bowler "try to get this guy out". It's just the sort of thing you should know without being told.

Like you don't tell a batsman which shot s to play, you shouldn't be telling a bowler how to bowl. He should know that better than you, and I know I wouldn't appreciate any captain telling me how to bowl. Fortunately such a thing has never yet happened.

But a lot of bowlers seem to be pretty dumb. You need to remember that.

 

[91Jmay]

Broad is dreadful. Get him off, give Swanny a go.

 

[Richard]

Nah, you're missing my point. A bowler should understand HOW to bowl the relevant types of delivery better, but supposedly you become a captain in part because you have a superior ability in assessing what kind of delivery is required, and setting a field to it. The captain doesn't have to understand HOW a bowler does what he does, as long as he understands WHAT the bowler can do, and WHAT he wants the bowler to do.

What you're arguing is equivalent to saying that because a tank driver knows how to drive a tank better than a general, he is better placed to direct an army than that general.

It won't always be the case, for instance no captain would tell Warne how to bowl, but generally a captain should be giving guidance to a bowler - especially an relatively inexperienced one like Broad.

Well I'd say if you become a bowler you have a responsibility to talk to people (mostly former bowlers) who know how to assess a batsman's weaknesses, your own strengths, and work-out how to bowl. And I'd say that if you do, you're better-placed than any captain.

Almost all of the best bowlers have always said they don't appreciate captains telling them how to bowl or setting their fields. And equally, people seem to think that inexperience means no-one has a clue of their own strengths and weaknesses, which simply makes no sense. You'd think 23-24-year-olds had just taken-up cricket the previous day the way people go on about inexperience sometimes.