• 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* New Zealand in Bangladesh 2023/24

Aritro

Aritro

International Regular
Athar Ali Khan appears to have sent an email to the Cricinfo summariser under the pseudonym "Chris":

Chris : "Why are both teams playing like it is a 50 over game.. Plenty of time left in the test match to stay in and build an innings." -- The ball has done all sorts off the surface, and maybe both teams just want to get as many runs on the board before one of those wicket-taking deliveries (inevitably) come along. Plus, Phillips' innings did show that if you bat with the right intent, and choose the right balls to be hit, that is perhaps the way to go on this track.
Click to expand...
 
King Kane

King Kane

International Regular
Flem274* said:
Missed most of this game but after that World Cup how good is it to see a genuine minefield?

350 v 350 is fun in moderation and it's good to have a few in a 45-50 game tournament but the WC was ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Yeah test matches like this one on a minefield where there are a lot of wickets taken regularly can be fun to watch but I don't like to see test matches finished in 3 days which this test probably would have been if it wasn't for all the issues with rain and bad light.

The best test matches usually go down to the last session on the 5th day where all results are still possible, a win for either team or a draw or even a tie,
 
Owzat

Owzat

U19 Captain
RossTaylorsBox said:
Wrong, the best test matches are the ones that we win.
Click to expand...
the best Test matches are where both sides are in it from start to finish, a bit of to and fro but far too many are decided by conditions, big scores, all the kinds of things that are most level in low scorers

it's a psychological handicap to look at a Test as "5 days, it isn't a good Test match if it doesn't go late into day 4 at least if not 5 days" Sure you can get some classics go five days but low scorers test batsmen, bowlers and fielding

- batsmen don't get easy hundreds, next ball might have their name on it, do they stick (around) and hope to accumulate runs or bad balls, or twist, have a bit of a dart, push field back or at least make the captain of the fielding side decide if he is happy to give away runs in the quest for wickets

- bowlers have to bowl well, the lame theory is it is "easy" but actually you have to bowl well or conditions in your favour go to waste. Do you field a third man and fine leg where a lot of runs may come, do you sustain 3-4 slips, do you put a man to stop the drives for four (my preference) or do you leave them vacant to entice a drive with a "four or bust" approach for the batsmen

- fielding has to be good, any lapses, areas exposed, tactical flaws and those 20-40 runs, or more, you might write off in a Test where totals are 300-400 become a game changer. every extra, every dropped catch or missed LBW/review not chanced can make all the difference.


Give me that over one side posts 400+, the other ends 75+ runs shy on 1st innings, target set of 350+ and game ends in a predictable runs win on day 4 or day 5, or one side skittled for 180, concede a 100+ run lead and struggle. Sure in some of these scenarios 300-400 isn't decisive, but even if it were 300 plays 300 both innings, or bigger totals, it's rarely exciting bar for the partisans following it


Let's put it this way, wishing for a 5 day conclusion as a norm seems senseless when the one feature shown in this thread is noone can work out how the game is going to turn next, some forecast kiwis not reaching 100 let alone taking a lead, and given a total of 200 looks like better than par even if the deshis only set 150-170 (might not get that far) kiwis may not.

or maybe some just want to see "on paper" wins, and if playing deshis if it becomes 300+ vs 300+ you back their opponents...
 
Owzat

Owzat

U19 Captain
Meridio said:
It looks impossible to bat on this pitch. Bounce is all over the place. Total luck whether you actually time a shot or not. Fun to watch tbh
Click to expand...
whilst some of the cameos from the 90s for the likes of DeFreitas, Gough, Lawrence, Lewis and others didn't bring better results for England they were fun, great to watch and great for the game.

A cameo partnership of 40-50 or more off 8-10 overs makes for a far more interesting game when the scores are low than high, sides thinking they've done all the hard work like deshis must have thought they'd done at 55/5 suddenly disappear down the crapper as someone like Phillips dashes an 87 off 72 balls and turns the situation on its head

cricket boards and TV don't like low scorers as they want to see bums on seats and plan for 5 days of gate receipts and televising, I think the idea of 4 day Tests is far better than many give credit for as it forces sides to be positive and attack to produce a result in 4 days instead of going through the motions of regular scenarios and looking to build up to either bowling a side out on day 5 on a deteriorating pitch, or having enough time to build a first innings lead and chase down any runs needed

only down side in a 4 day Test is a lack of a spare 90 overs, in theory anyway, to counter any rain. if the powers that be don't like days left over, want eg 25 days of Ashes Test potential they can always fill the void with an ODI series (extension) or some T20is which may well bring more audience not less.

cue grouch grouch, tradition tradition (not from you, generally (dinosaurs will be what they are, don't like change and convince themselves of which set ups are "perfect" and which are blights on the game eg tundra, although that attempt to break away from an outdated counties set up is hardly such a bad thing)
 
R

RossTaylorsBox

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Owzat said:
the best Test matches are where both sides are in it from start to finish, a bit of to and fro but far too many are decided by conditions, big scores, all the kinds of things that are most level in low scorers

it's a psychological handicap to look at a Test as "5 days, it isn't a good Test match if it doesn't go late into day 4 at least if not 5 days" Sure you can get some classics go five days but low scorers test batsmen, bowlers and fielding

- batsmen don't get easy hundreds, next ball might have their name on it, do they stick (around) and hope to accumulate runs or bad balls, or twist, have a bit of a dart, push field back or at least make the captain of the fielding side decide if he is happy to give away runs in the quest for wickets

- bowlers have to bowl well, the lame theory is it is "easy" but actually you have to bowl well or conditions in your favour go to waste. Do you field a third man and fine leg where a lot of runs may come, do you sustain 3-4 slips, do you put a man to stop the drives for four (my preference) or do you leave them vacant to entice a drive with a "four or bust" approach for the batsmen

- fielding has to be good, any lapses, areas exposed, tactical flaws and those 20-40 runs, or more, you might write off in a Test where totals are 300-400 become a game changer. every extra, every dropped catch or missed LBW/review not chanced can make all the difference.


Give me that over one side posts 400+, the other ends 75+ runs shy on 1st innings, target set of 350+ and game ends in a predictable runs win on day 4 or day 5, or one side skittled for 180, concede a 100+ run lead and struggle. Sure in some of these scenarios 300-400 isn't decisive, but even if it were 300 plays 300 both innings, or bigger totals, it's rarely exciting bar for the partisans following it


Let's put it this way, wishing for a 5 day conclusion as a norm seems senseless when the one feature shown in this thread is noone can work out how the game is going to turn next, some forecast kiwis not reaching 100 let alone taking a lead, and given a total of 200 looks like better than par even if the deshis only set 150-170 (might not get that far) kiwis may not.

or maybe some just want to see "on paper" wins, and if playing deshis if it becomes 300+ vs 300+ you back their opponents...
Click to expand...
Nah
 
Moss

Moss

International Captain
Too easy to fall for the young blood narrative, especially when you have guys like Mitchell or even Ajaz debuting after turning 30 and putting in some solid performances. But Ravindra and Phillips have really been a breath of fresh air in the last couple of months amid a fair amount of staleness.
 
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
Moss said:
Too easy to fall for the young blood narrative, especially when you have guys like Mitchell or even Ajaz debuting after turning 30 and putting in some solid performances. But Ravindra and Phillips have really been a breath of fresh air in the last couple of months amid a fair amount of staleness.
Click to expand...
Mitchell shows that a lot of domestic cricketers have the raw talent to be at the highest level, just not always the method.

He was a fringe player for ND at one point. Even if he never scores another run and secretly sucked all along, his career has been a net gain for New Zealand.

Also if you're 6'3" or taller you should probably just develop a world class pull shot to keep yourself safe then walk down at the bowler every other ball to bosh him over his head. Proper batsmanship is for midgets. That's what I've learned from Daryl Mitchell to date.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top