*Official* England in Australia (2 T20 & 7 ODIs)

[Jono]

There is just no way any chase where you get the winnings runs off the last over with 1 wicket in hand, having been in a situation where you were 9 down with 4 runs to win, is the right approach.

And I was saying this throughout the entire chase too, well before England collapsed.

 

[Uppercut]

Pietersen's was terrible.

Trying to clear mid-on off a spinner in the last over of a powerplay chasing 160~ is fair enough, though. By the time Morgan played his shot, staying out there would have been easily enough to win the game (in part thanks to KP and co taking care of the run rate).

 

[Uppercut]

There is just no way any chase where you get the winnings runs off the last over with 1 wicket in hand, having been in a situation where you were 9 down with 4 runs to win, is the right approach.

And I was saying this throughout the entire chase too, well before England collapsed.

But teams nearly always make the opposite error so I'm inclined to forgive them .

 

[vcs]

Trying to clear mid-on off a spinner in the last over of a powerplay chasing 160~ is fair enough, though. By the time Morgan played his shot, staying out there would have been easily enough to win the game (in part thanks to KP and co taking care of the run rate).

Not when you've already taken 10 off it, TBF. It's not like this is the first time KP has done something daft and got out to an innocuous-looking spinner.

 

[Furball]

By the same token, Watson taking 26 off a Swann over was stupid.

 

[Uppercut]

Not when you've already taken 10 off it, TBF. It's not like this is the first time KP has done something daft and got out to an innocuous-looking spinner.

Why does it matter that he'd already taken 10 off it? If it's the right move, it's the right move.

Could argue that it was the wrong move but not by pointing to the irrelevant number of runs that had already come off that particular over.

 

[Redbacks]

The wrong move of the night was giving Lee the 19th over

Dussey definitely missed a trick off Swann, constantly driving to the only man on the onside in close, a nice caress of the wrists and he would have got a single. The original shot down the ground was 1 at best also. Perhaps a limitation in his game that he has to play this way to eventually cash in on the spinner dropping one short.

 

[vic_orthdox]

If the field is back, then it's understandable to milk the rest of the over and take 14-16 off it. But with the field up, you may as well keep on going mental.

With Watson, and the team being 0-down, then again you can keep on chancing your arm.

 

[zaremba]

Why does it matter that he'd already taken 10 off it? If it's the right move, it's the right move.

Could argue that it was the wrong move but not by pointing to the irrelevant number of runs that had already come off that particular over.

Great point.

The number of runs you happen already to have scored off the particular over you're facing is (or should be) completely irrelevant. You shouldn't set out to nick a single just because you've just hit 4 boundaries; nor should you set out to smash a boundary because you've just faced 5 dot balls. Each ball is an independent event, and broadly speaking the only context which matters is (a) the target, and (b) how many balls you've got left in which to reach it. If that means you premeditate a nurdle, or premeditate an enormous smear for 6, that's fine; but you shouldn't be influenced by how many runs you've already scored that over.

Now, I realise that this is all very well in theory, and in practice batsmen find it useful to break the innings into discrete overs. I would suggest that in an innings which lasts only 120 balls, such an approach is a mistake.

 

[vcs]

By the same token, Watson taking 26 off a Swann over was stupid.

When something risky comes off, great. But if you get out, you're an idiot. That's how it's always been.

Moreover, Watson was setting a target, not chasing one.

 

[Uppercut]

When something risky comes off, great. But if you get out, you're an idiot. That's how it's always been.

Only because assessing the value of a risk independent of its outcome is something humans naturally suck balls at.

 

[Prince EWS]

Only because assessing the value of a risk independent of its outcome is something humans naturally suck balls at.

Haha that's almost sig-worthy. Gun post.

 

[Jono]

But teams nearly always make the opposite error so I'm inclined to forgive them .

They didn't win by 1 wicket with 18 balls to go though.

They got it off the last ball.

It's not like they batted themselves into a position where if they definitely batted 20 overs they'd win. It was quite possible that they'd have batted 20 overs and not won.

It was a weird chase.

 

[vcs]

I'm questioning whether there was a necessity to take a risk at all, given the situation was under complete control.

That, and I like criticizing Pietersen in general..

 

[Furball]

I'm questioning whether there was a necessity to take a risk at all, given the situation was under complete control.

That, and I like criticizing Pietersen in general..

I'd far rather a batsman got themselves out like Pietersen did than the way David Miller's just gotten himself out.

 

[Uppercut]

I'm questioning whether there was a necessity to take a risk at all, given the situation was under complete control.

Now you're making more logical points .

Still don't agree though. A comfortable-looking required run rate in T20 still requires you to hit boundaries at some stage and you probably won't get as good an opportunity to do so as you have when a batsman as good and aggressive as KP is facing a spinner playing his second international in the powerplay overs.

 

[Jacknife]

By the same token, Watson taking 26 off a Swann over was stupid.

Exactly, it doesn't make sense to criticize KP, at the end of the day he got England well above the rate and into a good position and in this form of the game especially with the fielders up you do try to score over the top and obviously one miss hit your out, but I don't see how you can criticize him for playing his shots and trying to make the game easier for his team mates.

 

[social]

Australia really ****ed that game up

Hardly took any great risks with the bat and ended up 4 down

Dropped catches and misfields also cost them plenty

Yet they still drew it out until the last ball

 

[Ausage]

Because he's a top order batsmen, so needs all his mental energy to concentrate on batting long periods of time. Otherwise he'll be too tired and so will get a good start and then throw it away instead of making big hundreds.

Made me lol good this did.

 

[Jarquis]

I will eat my scrotum if Australia lose this.

That is all