*Official* New Zealand in England 2015

[hendrix]

I do think that when both Sanga and Cook scored those runs Boult didn't pitch it up enough. But yeah they obviously both played exceptionally well.

Strengths are also often weaknesses. Sometimes if a batsman is overly reliant on a shot you want him to keep playing it e.g. Rutherford's drive/cut. But sometimes it's better to just block off that area or not bowl anywhere near there.

With Cook the perception is that you can't bowl straight, but you have to get him playing somehow. I don't know why they had a leg slip for Lyth but not for Cook.

You need a bit of luck, anyway.

 

[Hurricane]

I'm not on anyones side.

I just think you are underrating the behind scenes work that goes into these cricketers to enable to them perform at optimum levels. As you obviously know professional sport is a big business and the decisions these guys make are generally very well informed.

With regards to having a plan for Cook, you think NZ wouldn't have had multiple plans for Cook? Cook's judgement was back to its impeccable best, thus reducing the margin for error. Sometimes the opposition meets and rises to the challenge. Full credit to Cook.

Those general principles apply to any format of cricket to be honest but thats a fair point. I would say that its moreso how the outsmarting the batsman that has evolved. There was an audio series I remember listening to with John Buchanan during the world cup where would be given stats and data and explain how coaching stuff would turn that into a full blown plan for a specific batsman in certain periods of play. So amount of resources to hatch these plans are unmatched in todays super professional era.

They didn't appear to the naked eye to have any new plans for Cook in the 2nd test. If they did have plans they were not persisted with long enough to be noticeable.

Based on the "plans" or lack thereof we put in place for Cook in the 2nd test I think we have a video analyst who is hit and miss.

Hat's off to all concerned for coming up with the plans to Ballance. You could see that right from ball one that he faced there was a definite method in store for the batsman. I also could see that we had given appropriate thought to Ian Bell.

Hit and miss.

 

[Immenso]

BTW. 'Tasting it' for my negativity before second test and after day 1 of second test.

Baz and co are better and smarter than I gave them credit for.

 

[Bahnz]

Or maybe Cook is just a great batsman who'll go through patches were he's really really difficult to get out?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

They didn't appear to the naked eye to have any new plans for Cook in the 2nd test. If they did have plans they were not persisted with long enough to be noticeable.

Based on the "plans" or lack thereof we put in place for Cook in the 2nd test I think we have a video analyst who is hit and miss.

Hat's off to all concerned for coming up with the plans to Ballance. You could see that right from ball one that he faced there was a definite method in store for the batsman. I also could see that we had given appropriate thought to Ian Bell.

Hit and miss.

our plan in the second test was to throw all our good bowlers at him, fail, and then confuse the **** out of him by bowling KW

 

[Hurricane]

Or maybe Cook is just a great batsman who'll go through patches were he's really really difficult to get out?

To use a cw ism which I find confrontational and unnecessary you are missing my point. Whether they could have successfully dismissed cook or not is not the issue, my point is essentially that I would have like to have seen some cerebral effort to create a new strategy even if that strategy didn't come off.
Most of all, as I have already mentioned it is a tried and tested method to come wide of the crease to batsman who are leaving everything and that tactic should have been amongst our plans.

 

[Hurricane]

Just because a player doesn't fit your theory as to how Test openers must bat doesn't mean he's secretly rubbish and waiting to be found out.

He will crash as soon as people figure him out. Strangely he is more intelligent than the people concocting plans against him.
Occasionally individual bowlers figure him out and they get his wicket and the world doesn't pay attention to these dismissals and instead in the next series people bowl outside off stump which to him is money for jam.

 

[Spark]

He will crash as soon as people figure him out. Strangely he is more intelligent than the people concocting plans against him.
Occasionally individual bowlers figure him out and they get his wicket and the world doesn't pay attention to these dismissals and instead in the next series people bowl outside off stump which to him is money for jam.

Again, why do you assume he'll be "figured out"? What exactly is there in his technique that bowlers should "figure out"?

Or is this just a silly assumption based on the fact that he scores quickly and therefore rubbish?

Or perhaps, just maybe he's actually as good as all the runs he's scored in a wide variety of conditions against good bowlers suggests...

 

[OverratedSanity]

Hurricane's point may have actually applied to Sehwag a bit more as the flaws in his technique were more apparent (throwing his hands at the ball, zero footwork to swinging deliveries, etc), yet being a freakishly talented batsman, no one really "figured out" how to exploit these weaknesses in all conditions. Warner doesn't seem to have any weaknesses as obvious as Sehwag's, he's got a pretty good all round technique, but he's just way more aggressive than the typical opener. I really don't think there's some huge chink in his armour waiting for someone to figure out and exploit constantly.

 

[Hurricane]

@ Spark yes it is a silly assumption thank you for that considerate and piercing insightfulness

I don't rate his temperament to be adaptable enough if you dry up his scoring areas.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Again, why do you assume he'll be "figured out"? What exactly is there in his technique that bowlers should "figure out"?

Or is this just a silly assumption based on the fact that he scores quickly and therefore rubbish?

Or perhaps, just maybe he's actually as good as all the runs he's scored in a wide variety of conditions against good bowlers suggests...

Doesn't fit the textbook Hurricane read as a child about openers. Must be rubbish.

Hurricane would have a heart attack with Viv Richards long on and mid wicket play to balls outside off stump let alone his "inside out" lofted off drive to balls heading down leg stump from bowlers such as Lillee and Thommo.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

@ Spark yes it is a silly assumption thank you for that considerate and piercing insightfulness

I don't rate his temperament to be adaptable enough if you dry up his scoring areas.

Dry up David Warner's scoring areas?

 

[GIMH]

Thank god there is a game today. Apparently you aren't allowed to be spoken to politely if you have an opinion.

 

[Spark]

Hurricane's point may have actually applied to Sehwag a bit more as the flaws in his technique were more apparent (throwing his hands at the ball, zero footwork to swinging deliveries, etc), yet being a freakishly talented batsman, no one really "figured out" how to exploit these weaknesses in all conditions. Warner doesn't seem to have any weaknesses as obvious as Sehwag's, he's got a pretty good all round technique, but he's just way more aggressive than the typical opener. I really don't think there's some huge chink in his armour waiting for someone to figure out and exploit constantly.

As far as I can tell his most obvious weaknesses are a) occasionally he gets cramped up straight of a length, so he can be discomfited by extra bounce or balls moving into him, but good luck bowling short at him to try and exploit that and b) he cuts it in the air on the offside sometimes.

Yeah Sehwag just declined. If there really was a surefire way to get Sehwag out (when the ball wasn't swinging) you'd have thought bowlers like Steyn and McGrath wouldn't have allowed Sehwag to get massive scores against them.

He had weaknesses, sure, but they only really became massive stumbling blocks when the ball swung a lot and when he lost his eye and had those shoulder problems.

His weakness happened to be in exactly the same spot, line-wise, as his strength, which made it kind of a lottery. Batsmen who are like that can get away with a hell of a lot more, technique-wise, than batsmen whose technical weakness (from a "getting out" POV) are in the same spot as their scoring zone weaknesses (Gary Ballance, to use a topical example). The latter are the ones you can really control by bowling at their technique so-to-speak.

 

[Flem274*]

Warners dayboo ton on a second dig greenie against us showed off his awesome technique and ability to play in hard conditions

 

[Spark]

Warners dayboo ton on a second dig greenie against us showed off his awesome technique and ability to play in hard conditions

Made three hundreds against SA in SA as well, which I'm fairly sure no other opener has ever done in a single series. Certainly not against Steyn/Morkel.

 

[Prince EWS]

His weakness happened to be in exactly the same spot, line-wise, as his strength, which made it kind of a lottery. Batsmen who are like that can get away with a hell of a lot more, technique-wise, than batsmen whose technical weakness (from a "getting out" POV) are in the same spot as their scoring zone weaknesses (Gary Ballance, to use a topical example). The latter are the ones you can really control by bowling at their technique so-to-speak.

Yeah this is a point I used to make a lot in relation to why I rated Hughes ( ) ahead of Khawaja. Khawaja is really easy to bowl to because his least profitable run-scoring area is also in the same sort of range as his get-out area (full, outside off). With Hughes you had to tuck him up to keep him quiet, and then he'd be hard dismiss.. or bowl outside off to threaten his wicket, but the he'd punish you if you were slightly off. Sehwag was an even better example of this than Hughes.

Warner is different because he just doesn't seem to have a defensive weakness, so to speak. He struggles to score when it's back of a length and straight, but there isn't a way to really target him defensively. He should be vulnerable to lbw theoretically, but that just hasn't happened.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think Boult vs Warner will be extremely interesting. Boult will cause him more problems than any other bowler he's faced so far imo. While obviously Warner did face him at Hobart during that hundred, this is a different Boult.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think Boult vs Warner will be extremely interesting. Boult will cause him more problems than any other bowler he's faced so far imo. While obviously Warner did face him at Hobart during that hundred, this is a different Boult.

Yup, Boult attacking the stumps a lot will be a very interesting test - looking to make Warner hit the ball back through mid-on if he has the ball swinging.

 

[Top_Cat]

Warner is different because he just doesn't seem to have a defensive weakness, so to speak. He struggles to score when it's back of a length and straight, but there isn't a way to really target him defensively. He should be vulnerable to lbw theoretically, but that just hasn't happened.

Additionally, he manages to get an absurd amount of the bat onto the ball when he jams down on balls coming back into him, turning what most would bunt or punch to mid-on into 4 wide of mid-off. Demoralising as a bowler.