• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official Third Test at Edgbaston

Top_Cat

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
GeraintIsMyHero said:
Hypothetical question.

The pitch is greener than green, the sky is overcast. Ponting wins the toss. Does he bowl, or are the scars of four years ago too much to bear?

I'm not trolling, I genuinely wonder whether Ponting would even dream of bowling first here after last time.
Click to expand...
If you win the toss, bat first. If you have any doubts, bat.
 
Top_Cat

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Richard said:
Cricket cliche which has taken the longest length of time between becoming obselete and being realised to be obselete, of all.
Click to expand...
*Obsolete.

Quite right it's obsolete, though. On today's pitches, it should be amended to "If you win the toss, bat." Glad we cleared that up.
 
Last edited:
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Prince EWS said:
"99 times out of 100, you bat first. The other time you think about bowling and then bat anyway."
Click to expand...
There's several different variants on it, but it basically implies the same thing - to field first is always wrong.

And in reality, in today's game, and the game that's been being played for the last 30-40 years, batting first is merely something that is adviseable in perhaps 50% of occasions. On perhaps 20% of occasions fielding would be best, and on another 30% it won't make the blindest bit of difference. On such occasions batting first is adviseable not because it'll improve your team's chances, but because those who still swear by obsolete cliches will thus criticise you far less.
 
Top_Cat

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Richard said:
There's several different variants on it, but it basically implies the same thing - to field first is always wrong.

And in reality, in today's game, and the game that's been being played for the last 30-40 years, batting first is merely something that is adviseable in perhaps 50% of occasions. On perhaps 20% of occasions fielding would be best, and on another 30% it won't make the blindest bit of difference. On such occasions batting first is adviseable not because it'll improve your team's chances, but because those who still swear by obsolete cliches will thus criticise you far less.
Click to expand...
Disagree with the above.

:cool:
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
We know - you've already said that. There's not really any need to make posts simply re-stating what you stated 10 minutes earlier.

If someone could ever give me a reason why fielding first is always a mistake I'd listen, but no-one ever does. Same as any number of passed-on testimonies about past players - it's only ever "X was better than Y because everyone said so", never "everyone said X had __________ and ___ over Y so they always put him ahead" - people just say "the maxim always used to be bat first regardless so therefore that's the way it is".

Fielding first pays-off with fairly considerable regularity in modern cricket, and there's a reason for that. Batting first is a genuine advantage no more (and quite possibly less) than half the time.
 
O

oitoitoi

State Vice-Captain
Does Ponting ever choose to bowl first these days? Unless it's May I reckon it's always bat first in England, or pretty much anywhere to be honest. Ian Chappell's predictions regarding the Australian squad and it's lack of options of come pretty much true, difficult to see how the Aussies are going to turn things around. Serves 'em right for leaving out Hodge...again. Clarke should move upto 4, they need to get Ponting and Clarke in together. Watson to come in for North, Clark's just got to come in, probably for Johnson who isn't showing any signs of improvement.

Reckon Bell should bat at 3, Bopara 4. Bopara just looks a natural number 4, in the same way Pietersen looks a natural no. 5 (IMO). Promote Swann ahead of Broad, he's clearly the better bat.
 
Last edited:
zaremba

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Do England really have the bowlers to exploit a proper old-fashioned greentop? There was a time not that long ago when we would encounter that kind of pitch with some regularity at Headingley, and we'd pick a "horse for the course" like Steve Watkin who'd know exactly how to extract the maximum from it. I'm not sure any of our current bowlers really have that ability. They all tend to try either to swing it or to bang it in; no-one looks to bowl seamers on a full length.

Whereas Australia have Stuart Clark who fits the bill perfectly. I predict a very big performance from him.
 
Last edited:
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
zaremba said:
Do England really have the bowlers to exploit a proper old-fashioned greentop? There was a time not that long ago when we would encounter them with some regularity at Headingley, and we'd pick someone like Steve Watkin who'd know exactly how to extract the maximum from it. I'm not sure any of our bowlers really have that ability. They all tend to try either to swing it or to bang it in; no-one looks to bowl seamers on a full length.

Whereas Australia have Stuart Clark who fits the bill perfectly. I predict a very big performance from him.
Click to expand...
Me too, 0-231
 
superkingdave

superkingdave

Hall of Fame Member
zaremba said:
Do England really have the bowlers to exploit a proper old-fashioned greentop? There was a time not that long ago when we would encounter that kind of pitch with some regularity at Headingley, and we'd pick a "horse for the course" like Steve Watkin who'd know exactly how to extract the maximum from it. I'm not sure any of our current bowlers really have that ability. They all tend to try either to swing it or to bang it in; no-one looks to bowl seamers on a full length.

Whereas Australia have Stuart Clark who fits the bill perfectly. I predict a very big performance from him.
Click to expand...
We usually picked a horse for the course who then failed to do anything. We're definitely better off with Flintoff, Onions & Anderson but maybe not Broad. Onions as his seasons FC performances suggest, would be the best option anyway.
 
T

tooextracool

International Coach
zaremba said:
Do England really have the bowlers to exploit a proper old-fashioned greentop? There was a time not that long ago when we would encounter that kind of pitch with some regularity at Headingley, and we'd pick a "horse for the course" like Steve Watkin who'd know exactly how to extract the maximum from it. I'm not sure any of our current bowlers really have that ability. They all tend to try either to swing it or to bang it in; no-one looks to bowl seamers on a full length.

Whereas Australia have Stuart Clark who fits the bill perfectly. I predict a very big performance from him.
Click to expand...
Either one of the Durham duo could exploit a green top. Btw, I don't think you necessarily bowl a full length on a pitch that offers excessive seam movement. In fact, you're more likely to bowl just short of a good length and look to hit the top of off stump. You only really want to bowl a full length when the ball is swinging, because you want to give the ball as much time as possible to get as much swing as it can possibly generate in the air. When the ball is seaming around though, you'd want to give it some time after it pitches to move in either direction and if you pitch it up too full, batsmen can easily get on the front foot to negotiate any movement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top