*Official* South Africa in India

[Uppercut]

It's the complete opposite of the truth! The team that wins the cricket match is the team that scores more runs, not the team that is adjudged to have scored their runs more prettily!

 

[ret]

It's the complete opposite of the truth! The team that wins the cricket match is the team that scores more runs, not the team that is adjudged to have scored their runs more prettily!

Do you know what does 'this' and 'how' imply in that sentence?

 

[Jarquis]

Do you know what does 'this' and 'how' imply in that sentence?

Regardless of what they imply, how does making less runs ever make sense?

 

[ret]

Regardless of what they imply, how does making less runs ever make sense?

Did I say making less runs? This is even worse than I thought

In fact my point is that SA should have scored more!

Anyways, stay out of this. Unless you want to be dragged in to something that might not turn out to be too pleasant

 

[Uppercut]

Anyways, stay out of this. Unless you won't to be dragged in to something that might not turn out to be too pleasant

Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have ****ed with? That's me.

 

[Furball]

So what is abt this sentence? Do you know what does 'this' and 'how' imply in that sentence?

By your logic, South Africa would have been better if they were sitting 350/8, which is just mental.

 

[Athlai]

Conversely in a match like this it's going to take a lot to bowl India out so you need as many runs as you can get as fast as you can get them. Batting at 3 an over won't win this match barring a miracle.

It won't lose you the match either though (if you keep wickets).

 

[ret]

By your logic, South Africa would have been better if they were sitting 350/8, which is just mental.

If you had to pick a number then why 350/8? Why not 340/2?

 

[Jarquis]

Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have ****ed with? That's me.

Fantastic

 

[Jarquis]

Did I say making less runs? This is even worse than I thought

In fact my point is that SA should have scored more!

Exactly... so the important thing is how many!

 

[ret]

Conversely in a match like this it's going to take a lot to bowl India out so you need as many runs as you can get as fast as you can get them. Batting at 3 an over won't win this match barring a miracle.

It won't lose you the match either though (if you keep wickets).

on top of that, if SA lose a few quick wkts tomorrow, they would be struggle to be in the position they want to be in. In Ind matches can turn quickly

 

[silentstriker]

So the solution is to lose more wickets early by trying to play more aggressively than you feel comfortable. Makes sense.

 

[Jarquis]

on top of that, if SA lose a few quick wkts tomorrow, they would be struggle to be in the position they want to be in. In Ind matches can turn quickly

So it makes all the more sense to bat sensiblt rather than risk losing wickets and crumbling for 260 odd all out.

 

[ret]

Exactly... so the important thing is how many!

this discussion is going no where as one needs to understand that to get a result on pitches like this you have to balance runs with time!

In tests, scoring more runs doesn't always translate in to a victory duh, for example

Team A - 550
Team B - 400
Team A - 250
Team B - 250/ 6

Game draw, despite team A scoring more


As explained in one of my posts to you:

That's true (and a duh point). You do need more runs than your opponent. But in tests, you have the option to draw as well so at times on pitches where scoring is not an issue but time factor is, it becomes important at what rate you score (implied by how)

My opinion was based on after considering conditions and the relationship b/w 'many' and 'how' in this case wrt a win in mind. And from this perspective, I am saying that SA could have done better (and not that they have done badly)

 

[Athlai]

So the solution is to lose more wickets early by trying to play more aggressively than you feel comfortable. Makes sense.

If you want to win matches to be the best in the world, yeah reckon you may have to leave your comfort zone. Though I'm not saying hitting at 6 an over, just a bit over 4 to get some runs on the board and still have 270 overs to get India out (and maybe bat again)

 

[Uppercut]

If you want to win matches to be the best in the world, yeah reckon you may have to leave your comfort zone. Though I'm not saying hitting at 6 an over, just a bit over 4 to get some runs on the board and still have 270 overs to get India out (and maybe bat again)

Plenty of time to up the tempo tomorrow. De Villiers and Boucher in particular certainly won't have to leave their comfort zones to up the run rate.

 

[Athlai]

Plenty of time to up the tempo tomorrow. De Villiers and Boucher in particular certainly won't have to leave their comfort zones to up the run rate.

Oh I'm not criticizing the way SA have played so far as they've set a great foundation after that woeful start. Just weighing in on the runs and how you score them argument. As long as they move on a bit from here they've done well.

 

[ret]

So it makes all the more sense to bat sensiblt rather than risk losing wickets and crumbling for 260 odd all out.

Who is talking abt not playing sensibly and losing wkts by taking risks?! ..... I thought it's understood that I think SA could have done better by playing sensibly (and not taking risk)

Uptil now you have tried to discuss things which I haven't implied. This is getting hilarious

 

[ret]

Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have ****ed with? That's me.

Fantastic

Uppercut and Marccuss discussing cricket on their way to ....

Uppercut: "he thinks a team can score a slightly higher rate by playing sensibly"
Marcuss: "he even said that its not how many you score but also how you score them that matters"
Uppercut: "how stupid, it's actually the opposite"
Marcuss: "yeah how can scoring less make sense"
Marcuss: "If they had taken risk, they could have been bowled out for 260"
Uppercut: "yeah, what a dumb thing to say, my head exploded"
Marcuss: "and you posted that fantastic pic"
Uppercut: "yeah, cool"
Marcuss: "but seriously what did he mean"
Uppercut: "It's not what he meant is important, it's what we understand is important"
Marcuss: "we rock"
Uppercut: :hell yeah"

 

[Goughy]

It was this exact sentence:

"As I said, this game is not abt how many you score but how you score them."

I completely disagree with Ret that SA should have done better but I can see his overall point even if it is exaggerated.

A core concept of cricket was, and still is to a certain extent, 'winning time'. The idea that players who score quickly and bowlers that have a high strike rate are more important that those that dont as they give the team more time to force a victory. Cricket isnt played in a bubble. Every innings is framed by the game situation. 'How much' sometimes isnt as important as 'how' depending on the game situation. If SA crawl at 2 rpo in the first session today then this is an example of how 'winning time' is being eaten despite the score progressing.