Test Cricket "Brands"

[Captain_Cook]

In the aftermath of England's horror tour of Australia there has been much discussion about the "brand" of cricket England play. Michael Vaughan in particular has been very vocal about Cook and Flower taking the team in a new direction and develop a "brand" that can beat South Africa.

I think that Vaughan makes a pertinent point. Australia played extremely exciting and aggressive cricket and blew England away but to suggest that England should try and play more aggressive cricket for the sake of it seems pointless. There is huge rift in terms of natural talent between the best Australian players and the best England players. While batting looks terribly easy for most of the Australians except Rogers, only KP and Bell look the part when they play aggressively.

Sadly, I don't think England players are good enough to play like Australia. Cook wouldn't have achieved what he has by playing like Warner, he's simply not good enough to play like that. He's a limpet who waits for bad balls, he would undone if he attacked a bowler.

As much as I yearn for successful and aggressive England cricket team I just don't think its possible. Flower will see this as a blip, after his "rational and logical" review of the tour it's not unreasonable to see the tour as an anomaly, and Project Attrition will resume. There needs to be repeated failure because of the success of the tactic in the past. Two whitewashes against Pakistan and Australia are some of the few blemishes of the Flower regime and while Flower stay surely the attrition will continue.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The way that they won in India, where you do have to use a more attritional type, seemed to show them a blueprint on how to play, rather than acknowledge that they had adjusted to those conditions, and now they needed to change to what was put in front of them later on.

 

[Unomaas]

After 15 years of watching SAF cricket I don't think we've consciously adopted a "brand" of cricket and if someone had to really press me on an answer to the question of cricketing brand, I would say that the overriding philosophy that defines our cricket is "cautious conservativism". More than anything, I think that our cricketing pitches have a great deal to do with our brand constantly producing cricketers who are more resilient to adverse conditions. This is more than evident in our away cricketing success. Of course, individual cricketers stamp their mark on the SAF game like Herchelle Gibbs, Graeme Smith, Dale Steyn, ABdV where you can see naked aggression on display but they are by far the minority group in the SAF camp. What I'm trying to say is that our environment determines our brand, not the other way around.

I'm venturing into uncharted waters here talking about the aussies but I think that Australia is a unique case as far as national psychological make up goes because they have a unique social history which was defined in their relationship with England. During the birth of their country, they were the rejects, convicts and unwanteds and for many, showing that could be superior and better that the Pom's was a lifetime ambition...an ambition that would drive them to excellence and so prove that they could be better...sought of like a big brother little brother relationship. This is most probably one of the reason's that the ashes is such an intense event. We often hear the word "mongrel" thrown around when talking about the aussies but far from being insulting, its a source of strength and inspiration, often elevating their whole country to sporting greatness. This history and national psychology imprints itself onto the cricket team which is why I had a WTF moment when CA appointed Mickey Arthur as coach. What does a Saffa know about being Australian?

 

[hendrix]

Think the "brand" thing is a smokescreen for not wanting to believe that good players either massively underperformed or are simply not that good.

 

[Adders]

.

Cook wouldn't have achieved what he has by playing like Warner, he's simply not good enough to play like that. He's a limpet who waits for bad balls, he would undone if he attacked a bowler.

This is just so wrong it's not funny.

Sure Cook and Warner are very different players but to say Cook is not "good" enough to play like that is a nonsense. You can just as well say that Warner is not good enough to play like Cook.

If either player tried to adapt the others style they'd come undone very quickly. I don't know what the future holds for either of them or where their career trajectories are going to head from here. But FMD CC, Cook is the youngest player to pass 8000K test runs and has had an outstanding career to date, there is nothing in the world that would make me want to swap Cook for Warner in any team (I'll take him as our second opener in a flash mind).........and you're saying Cook isn't good enough to play like Warner. It doesn't make sense mate.

And the real axe to your argument for all this is that Cook is by far the better ODI player out of the two.

Seriously man, OK that you've jumped ship and are off the Cook train.........I get that and that's fine. But change your ****ing nick and Avatar FFS. It is beyond annoying that every post of yours is trashing the bloke whos image and name you were displaying so proudly a few months back.

 

[SteveNZ]

I think you're a touch too personally affronted by that post. I read it as he's not good enough, as in he doesn't have the tools to play the power game that Warner does. No slight on him, just a fact.

England probably do need to adopt a new brand of cricket - whether they have the personnel is another story. The attritional style is all well and good when you're winning/posting decent results, but as soon as it goes awry in this disfunctional, every man for himself environment that England seem to have at the minute (I realise that is not the case for all 11) it's a recipe for disaster.

 

[Adders]

I think you're a touch too personally affronted by that post. I read it as he's not good enough, as in he doesn't have the tools to play the power game that Warner does. No slight on him, just a fact.

I didn't take it as a personal affront but anyway.......

I do have a problem with using the term "not good enough" though. Just because Hashim Amla can't hit a 6 as far as Chris Gayle would anyone use the term "not good enough" in the same sentence as Amla when comparing him to Gayle?? It's also rather ironic that Cook despite his poor series was probably one of only 3 Eng bats (KP and Stokes) that looked capable of upping the anti.

I totally agree that England need to adopt a new brand of cricket but I don't think Cook is the major problem (in batting, his captaincy is another matter) and I certainly don't think it's relevant to compare what we've been doing to what David Warner does.

 

[Maximas]

Adders talking **** about someone else's avatar, lol

 

[Flem274*]

"Brand" sounds like typical management speak born from over analysis. Picking one style and sticking to it is a recipe for disappointment, whether it's "selfish and boring" or "intent/that's the way he plays". Test cricketers need to adapt to the situation in front of them, not the one in the marketing department or at the press conference. Attack when needed, defend when needed.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yup, and it's why a lot of people cringed when Mickey Arthur came out talking about a "sustainable brand", referring to Brad Haddin. If you're talking to cricketers like that, there's a fair chance that you won't keep their ear for long.

But every team will talk about how they want to play their cricket, what they want to be known for, and how they see themselves winning most of their games of cricket. It's virtually the same thing as a brand, you just look at it a different way; and a team that doesn't have that shared understanding (or when there needs to be an adjustment) falls apart

 

[Captain_Cook]

If either player tried to adapt the others style they'd come undone very quickly. I don't know what the future holds for either of them or where their career trajectories are going to head from here. But FMD CC, Cook is the youngest player to pass 8000K test runs and has had an outstanding career to date, there is nothing in the world that would make me want to swap Cook for Warner in any team (I'll take him as our second opener in a flash mind).........and you're saying Cook isn't good enough to play like Warner. It doesn't make sense mate.

I'm talking about being aggressive and intuitive when batting. Cook's concentration sets him apart from others, every shot looks like it's a drill that he's spent years refining. Warner's strokes look natural. Cook isn't talented enough for it to look natural, it all comes down to aesthetics which Cook wouldn't give a toss about.

And the real axe to your argument for all this is that Cook is by far the better ODI player out of the two.

I like to keep aggressive Test batsmen and aggressive ODI batsmen separate. Bailey's ODI vs Test record shows that most comparisons between the formats are meaningless.

Seriously man, OK that you've jumped ship and are off the Cook train.........I get that and that's fine. But change your ****ing nick and Avatar FFS. It is beyond annoying that every post of yours is trashing the bloke whos image and name you were displaying so proudly a few months back.

I'm not off the Cook train at all. I'm like a football fan who sees everything wrong with his club after an unexpected loss. I'll get over it and be calling him the greatest opener ever in couple of weeks.

 

[Maximas]

I'm not off the Cook train at all. I'm like a football fan who sees everything wrong with his club after an unexpected loss. I'll get over it and be calling him the greatest opener ever in couple of weeks.

no doubt

 

[Daemon]

Gayle deposits them in the stands like few others. Amla is simply not good enough to play like that.

 

[GIMH]

I'm talking about being aggressive and intuitive when batting. Cook's concentration sets him apart from others, every shot looks like it's a drill that he's spent years refining. Warner's strokes look natural. Cook isn't talented enough for it to look natural, it all comes down to aesthetics which Cook wouldn't give a toss about.


I like to keep aggressive Test batsmen and aggressive ODI batsmen separate. Bailey's ODI vs Test record shows that most comparisons between the formats are meaningless.


I'm not off the Cook train at all. I'm like a football fan who sees everything wrong with his club after an unexpected loss. I'll get over it and be calling him the greatest opener ever in couple of weeks.

At least you're honest!

 

[BeeGee]

Gayle deposits them in the stands like few others. Amla is simply not good enough to play like that.

Lack of brand recognition, imo. Needs to get back on message and grow his brand.

 

[SteveNZ]

I'm talking about being aggressive and intuitive when batting. Cook's concentration sets him apart from others, every shot looks like it's a drill that he's spent years refining. Warner's strokes look natural. Cook isn't talented enough for it to look natural, it all comes down to aesthetics which Cook wouldn't give a toss about.


I like to keep aggressive Test batsmen and aggressive ODI batsmen separate. Bailey's ODI vs Test record shows that most comparisons between the formats are meaningless.


I'm not off the Cook train at all. I'm like a football fan who sees everything wrong with his club after an unexpected loss. I'll get over it and be calling him the greatest opener ever in couple of weeks.

I'm sorry what...not talented enough to look natural? The guy who scored 214 off 238 balls as a 20-year-old v Australia (Lee Gillespie Tait Kasprowitz MacGill no less) isn't talented enough? Interesting.

 

[GIMH]

I'm sorry what...not talented enough to look natural? The guy who scored 214 off 238 balls as a 20-year-old v Australia (Lee Gillespie Tait Kasprowitz MacGill no less) isn't talented enough? Interesting.

An oft-forgotten innings, that. Good reference.

 

[L Trumper]

I'm sorry what...not talented enough to look natural? The guy who scored 214 off 238 balls as a 20-year-old v Australia (Lee Gillespie Tait Kasprowitz MacGill no less) isn't talented enough? Interesting.

He is not gonna score like that now or in future is he?

Regarding OP, when Hussain was captain ENG were a bit similar. But at that time they were terrible and needed to scrap their way for results. After Vaughan made captain there was a big change on how england played their cricket. The way they played was sustained one way or other since then. Now they are back to the turgid displays that are so common during gooch and atherton's era.

 

[L Trumper]

Gayle deposits them in the stands like few others. Amla is simply not good enough to play like that.

I know you are being tongue in cheek, but yes Amla is not good enough to play like that. Luckily depositing balls in the stand is not the only way to measure how good a batsman is. Besides OP's point was quite different. Cook is not gonna score a quick fire hundred to give impetus to the innings, he is better than warner as batsman, that doesn't mean he is good enough to do all things that warner can do.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Conversely Warner isn't good enough to score any of cooks great hundreds in India, which brings us to swings and roundabouts for the "not good enough" argument