• 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*** Australia in India ODIs/T20s 2017

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Try Mendis being good at LO cricket for a lot longer than he was in test cricket. Shaun Tait for a while in T20s and LO cricket. Sometimes when mystery spin and extreme pace are all you got, its harder to get you away for runs but in a foramt where there are no over restrictions, you can actually play those bowlers out defensively and still stay in and score off the others.


Really weird why a concept this simple needs so much explaining though. Remember in 1998 when the Windies got Rawl Lewis to bowl legspin from around the wicket during a tourney at Sharjah. Geoff Boycott went on and on about how intelligent it was as it was easier to block or pad away the ball from that line but extremely difficult and risky when you have to look to score off that option.
Shaun Tait's a bad example. He was only ordinary in Tests because he was ****ed after a few overs and ended up bowling 130s for most of the innings.

Definitely agree with the point re. Mystery spin though. It's a lot harder when you have to score consistently of it that when you can just play it out and wait for the loose ball.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Tait would have been good for a short while in tests, but that short while was wasted on first class cricket. By the time he made the test side his body was already giving out on him.
 

burr

State Vice-Captain
Australia need to get a clear strategy for their one day side in place as a matter of urgency. They are in danger of bombing at the next WC. Establishing Peter Handscomb as a permanent part of the one day set up should be an immediate priority as far as I'm concerned. Also, is Lehmann coaching this side or isn't he? A decision needs to be made and then the appointed coach needs to do just that. Coach.
 

Justo

U19 Debutant
Australia need to get a clear strategy for their one day side in place as a matter of urgency. They are in danger of bombing at the next WC. Establishing Peter Handscomb as a permanent part of the one day set up should be an immediate priority as far as I'm concerned. Also, is Lehmann coaching this side or isn't he? A decision needs to be made and then the appointed coach needs to do just that. Coach.
Don't think our current state is any different than usual at this stage of a world cup cycle. Normally we're doing funky things with the side until 12 months out from the world cup when we start to settle things down. We seem to have plenty of decent all rounders for the format and IMO it's just a matter of determining which batsmen we want at 4 to help solidify things. IMO it'd be good if we could find a keeper who could open to replace both Wade and Finch(Ben Dunk maybe?). Probably a bit harsh on Finch but if you could do that with our all rounders you could shore up the batting a bit further. Starc and Haze when they start playing regularly will improve the bowling so we should be well set.

Something like the below adjusting positions as desired. Could always replace one of the all rounders with a front line bowler on flatter pitches.

Warner
Keeper+
Smith*
Handscomb/Head
Handscomb/Head/Whoever else
M Marsh
Maxwell
Stoinis
Starc
Cummins/Spinner/Hastings
Haze
 
Last edited:

Howe_zat

Audio File
Surprised to see that Dhoni is getting the majority of praise here when Hardik won the game.

I know there's a certain amount of hype aversion but the man is legit. Hype away
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Try Mendis being good at LO cricket for a lot longer than he was in test cricket. Shaun Tait for a while in T20s and LO cricket. Sometimes when mystery spin and extreme pace are all you got, its harder to get you away for runs but in a foramt where there are no over restrictions, you can actually play those bowlers out defensively and still stay in and score off the others.


Really weird why a concept this simple needs so much explaining though. Remember in 1998 when the Windies got Rawl Lewis to bowl legspin from around the wicket during a tourney at Sharjah. Geoff Boycott went on and on about how intelligent it was as it was easier to block or pad away the ball from that line but extremely difficult and risky when you have to look to score off that option.
?

Last night was a great example. If it was a test match I don't think Australia would be looking that clueless and inept against the spinners. The fact that they needed 10 an over made them look ridiculous.

I think it was KP who said during commentary that he played Narine with so much ease in Tests but the minute he faced him in a T20 he was lost.
I literally cannot think of a single case in which this is true.

Like, the only thing I can think of is mediocre spinners coming into the game in shorter formats because the batsmen have to go hard at them, when they'd milk them for 4 an over in Tests without an issue.
None of this is accentuating weaknesses of batsmen. This is narrowing the gap between good and rubbish bowling.

Narine doesn't get wickets because T20 cricket exaggerates someone's inability to play spin. He gets wickets because the batsman has to attack him, when in Tests he'd get milked all day. Weaknesses against the short ball aren't exaggerated in a format where you can bowl one per over and the overhead wide legitimately costs you, and the batsman knows you have to go full for the rest of the over. Weaknesses against swing aren't exaggerated in a format where the ball swings for the first ball and a half and you rarely see slips after the fifth over.

Look at someone like Guptill -- he can block-bash for days in white ball cricket; the structure of the game means bowlers can't really take advantage of his obvious technical shortcomings. Look at Mitch Marsh -- white ball hero because hard handed nicks that would be swallowed by third slip in a Test are safe, easy singles to third man. Raina knows he can duck one short ball and make up for the dot by belting a six when the next one is length on middle peg.

As for Australia looking clueless and inept vs spin, you were watching the same Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and India tours as the rest of us, right? Par for the course.
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
I also love the idea that people 'played out' the extreme pace of Shaun Tait. That Test economy rate of, what, 4.3 an over? FC at 3.66?

And that Rawl Lewis bowling negative lines to dot it up is exaggerating a technical weakness against spin (which he didn't even do that well; with economy rates of 3.8, 5.66, 3.8 and 5.66 for the 1997 Sharjah tournament, he was outbowled by Carl Hooper).

It is far, far easier to hide a technical weakness in limited overs cricket than it is in Tests.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
None of this is accentuating weaknesses of batsmen. This is narrowing the gap between good and rubbish bowling.

Narine doesn't get wickets because T20 cricket exaggerates someone's inability to play spin. He gets wickets because the batsman has to attack him, when in Tests he'd get milked all day. Weaknesses against the short ball aren't exaggerated in a format where you can bowl one per over and the overhead wide legitimately costs you, and the batsman knows you have to go full for the rest of the over. Weaknesses against swing aren't exaggerated in a format where the ball swings for the first ball and a half and you rarely see slips after the fifth over.

Look at someone like Guptill -- he can block-bash for days in white ball cricket; the structure of the game means bowlers can't really take advantage of his obvious technical shortcomings. Look at Mitch Marsh -- white ball hero because hard handed nicks that would be swallowed by third slip in a Test are safe, easy singles to third man. Raina knows he can duck one short ball and make up for the dot by belting a six when the next one is length on middle peg.

As for Australia looking clueless and inept vs spin, you were watching the same Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and India tours as the rest of us, right? Par for the course.

This was pretty much the gist of my (and Daemon's, if I may take that liberty) point. What I meant when I said "accentuates" their weakness is that its harder to face a type of bowling you are uncomfortable against when there is also the added pressure that you HAVE to get some runs off them, which is not the case in tests. Of course if your defence ain't good enough you will get out in a test match against any type of bowling.


And I understand Tait was a poor example for the point I was making, but it does not mean the point is not valid. I recall India struggling against the Aussie pace in the mid 2000s in ODIs but we were quite ok in tests. Short rising balls (not bouncers) at pace were harder to score off but was something our batsmen could just avoid in tests.

And I dont think any of us were saying anything about mediocre batsmen getting away with it in LO cricket than they do in test cricket. That is just as true as some less effective test bowlers being more effective in ODIs because they are harder to score off, esp. mystery spinners and the odd genuinely fast but "little else" bowler.
 
Last edited:

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I feel like players who are crap against spin can usually still slog against it okay and therefore it's not that big a deal in limited overs. Theyll just completely misread a ball sooner rather than later so in tests when they need to build a long innings or block out day 5 they look useless
 

Gnske

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeah tbh TJB I don't appreciate you slandering the Indian version of Brisbane in this thread.

Disappointing
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
I feel like players who are crap against spin can usually still slog against it okay and therefore it's not that big a deal in limited overs. Theyll just completely misread a ball sooner rather than later so in tests when they need to build a long innings or block out day 5 they look useless
I think part of this is that spin bowling, and the fields you set to it, are very different in Tests compared to ODIs, much more so than pace bowling.
 

cnerd123

likes this
oooh spin bowling talk.

Yea Spin for Limited Overs cricket and Spin for Multiday Cricket are both essentially their own skills. In both the main goal of the spinner is to deceive the batsman. But in Multiday Cricket you wan't to find the edge or beat the bat. In Limited Overs you just don't want to be hit clean. This leads to subtle changes in the way they bowl.

In multi-day cricket, spinners aim to bowl a line/length that requires the batsman to reach for the ball. They also bowl with a lot more flight/loop. This is done to make the batsman to pop the ball up in the air for a catch. Bowling a slower pace with more loop also allows for more drift and spin off the pitch, which in turn increases the chances to beat the bat. Finally, this also encourages a batsman to use their feet more and leave their crease. Variations are used sparingly, and only after setting a batsman up for them. This includes variation in the speed and the flight. This is why you'll see batsman stay deep in their crease and play the ball late against spinners - it's an attempt to nullify all their main wicket-taking options. The more skillful ones will take on the challenge and use their feet to get right to the pitch of the ball. As a spinner in this context, you really aren't worried if a batsman hits you for a few boundaries, because you know it creates a chance for you to take his wicket.

In limited overs cricket, spinners tend to be quicker in the air, and either bowl a fuller or shorter length, because they do not want the batsman to get under the ball and hit in the the air. The lines also tend to be tighter to the stumps, as to avoid giving the batsman the freedom to swing their arms. There is a lot more frequent use of variations, as to not let the batsman line them up. The challenge posed to the batsman in limited overs cricket is to generate enough power on a shot to clear the field. This is hard to do when the spinner doesn't give enough pace to work with, and denies them the freedom of lunging at the ball and swinging their arms through it. Add to that the subtle variations in movement off the pitch and in flight -making it hard to use your feet to generate power- and it can be very tricky to hit the spinner clean. As a spinner in this context, you aren't worried with beating the batsman's bat, as long as you can build pressure by drying up the boundaries and get them occasionally caught at the boundary.

Bowling a multiday style in limited overs cricket gives the batsman plenty of opportunity to hit the ball clean - they can either reach for the ball and swing their arms through the shot, or they can use their feet and generate power coming down the wicket. They can also rock back deep and generate power off the backfoot. Bowling a limited overs style in multiday cricket allows a batsman to just see the spinner off and milk runs when they come, as they aren't doing enough with the ball to beat the batsman.

Ofcourse, in modern day cricket, these lines have become blurred. We've seen bowlers use multiday bowling strategies in limited overs cricket and be successful as wicket-taking bowlers. We've seen batsman bring limited overs batting strategies to multiday cricket and have success by hitting spinners out of the attack in good batting conditions. Pitches like those in India allow spinners like Jadeja to bowl a limited overs style and be absolutely lethal. So the distinctions aren't as clear as they used to be.
 
Last edited:

cnerd123

likes this
As for the Test/ODI weakness/strengths Dan/HB discussion - for what it's worth, I think both sides are right.

If you struggle with scoring runs against certain types of bowlers, you can get away with that in Tests but not ODIs
If you struggle with rotating the strike, you can get away with that in Tests but not in ODIs
If you struggle to survive against a certain style of bowling/bowling strategy (ie, Spinners, Short Balls), you can get away with that in ODIs but not in Tests

And for bowlers it's different - if you struggle to contain batsmen, that's more forgiven in Tests than ODIs. If you struggle to dismiss batsmen, that's more forgiven in ODIs than Tests.

Basically, ODIs and Tests are different games that call for different skill sets, and there are players out there with the skills to succeed in one but not the other.

Feels like I'm stating the obvious. But hey, atleast this time you didn't have to read a wall of text to get here.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Anyone mentioned that dustbowls are much more common in Tests than ODIs? If you can't play spin on dustbowls you're more likely to get away with it in ODIs simply because, even if spin-friendly, they're not as bad in that regard as Test wickets on average,
 

Top