2nd Test at Adelaide - 16 to 20 Dec

[trundler]

Buttler should play his natural game

He's naturally **** in tests

 

[Gob]

Buttler should play his natural game

We all should

 

[Spark]

i'm not saying play a shot a ball. i do think if you employ a negative mindset the whole day through on a 5th day there's no way you'll survive, just delay the inevitable

playing defensively has drawn or newly drawn quite a few tests that otherwise seemed hopeless in the last decade, i think most teams have examples of it working. "Play your natural game" i don't think has worked at all.

 

[ashley bach]

just like the one in the Vatican eh?

not that big a fraud!

 

[OverratedSanity]

i'm not saying play a shot a ball. i do think if you employ a negative mindset the whole day through on a 5th day there's no way you'll survive, just delay the inevitable

Why did AB-Faf-Amla save or nearly save so many games on the last day? It wasnt by playing their natural game.

 

[Spark]

Why did AB-Faf-Amla save or nearly save so many games on the last day? It wasnt by playing their natural game.

it's not like they've been the only ones too! England have done it, Aus have done it, I'm sure others have to. Shockingly, if you limit the ways bowlers can get you out then it's harder to get you out.

 

[mr_mister]

Stokes kept looking like pushing one to slip or bat pad today, the boundary shot seemed like a lower risk in this context

 

[Spark]

Stokes kept looking like pushing one to slip or bat pad today, the boundary shot seemed like a lower risk in this context

i think it's definitionally impossible for it to be lower risk when runs literally don't matter.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

India have done it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

i'm not saying play a shot a ball. i do think if you employ a negative mindset the whole day through on a 5th day there's no way you'll survive, just delay the inevitable

I kind of think it's actually the opposite . . . mostly

 

[Spark]

India have done it.

That's a more complex example that doesn't fit well into any category. Pant was trying to win the game, but yes Ashwin and Vihari definitely shut up shop very successfully.

 

[mr_mister]

i think it's definitionally impossible for it to be lower risk when runs literally don't matter.

I didn't talk about risk v reward. My initial comment was due to the amount of fielders around the bat compared to in the deep

 

[Arachnodouche]

India have done it.

Only after Pant counterpunched like a maniac to put Aus off their step. All-day blockathons are exceedingly difficult to pull off; you need to have a judicious mix of attack and defense to save a game on the last day.

 

[Spark]

I didn't talk about risk v reward. My initial comment was due to the amount of fielders around the bat compared to in the deep

yeah but there are risks involved in having a big swing that don't involve getting caught in the deep, and there is literally zero value to be gained in doing so. if anything you give the bowler massive encouragement because you're saying you don't think your defensive game is good enough to last.

 

[Spark]

Only after Pant counterpunched like a maniac to put Aus off their step. All-day blockathons are exceedingly difficult to pull off; you need to have a judicious mix of attack and defense to save a game on the last day.

Pant was trying to win that game though. And he still got out with the best part of two sessions to go, which is not exactly safe territory (I was really critical of how he batted post lunch iirc)

 

[trundler]

"Bat naturally" is the "just be yourself" of batting advice. Avoid.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

That's a more complex example that doesn't fit well into any category. Pant was trying to win the game, but yes Ashwin and Vihari definitely shut up shop very successfully.

Only after Pant counterpunched like a maniac to put Aus off their step. All-day blockathons are exceedingly difficult to pull off; you need to have a judicious mix of attack and defense to save a game on the last day.

Nah. It ended up the sort of situation where the commentators would normally be banging on about the need to 'play your natural game' and you'll just get out if all you do it defend. Ponting goes on an incredible amount about it at any point of the match. And yet for that last session, after four or five overs of hopping around, the batsmen hardly ever looked like getting out until Starc finally pitched one up (and Paine dropped it), and that was too late anyway.

If anything, by attacking, Pant may have been taking the riskier approach, though Australia have shown difficulty dealing with either one as the next test showed.

 

[Arachnodouche]

yeah but there are risks involved in having a big swing that don't involve getting caught in the deep, and there is literally zero value to be gained in doing so. if anything you give the bowler massive encouragement because you're saying you don't think your defensive game is good enough to last.

Few modern captains care to persist with five fielders around the bat for a spinner if he takes some stick, regardless of the total they're defending. Making your space as a batsman less crowded by bopping a few can only improve your chances of long-term survival imo. Risk-reward situation.

 

[Flem274*]

I think it comes down to percentages really. If you can block well, then do it. If your defensive technique is really dodgy, then you need to focus on just enough attack to put the opposition off their lengths.

 

[Spark]

Nah. It ended up the sort of situation where the commentators would normally be banging on about the need to 'play your natural game' and you'll just get out if all you do it defend. Ponting goes on an incredible amount about it at any point of the match. And yet for that last session, after four or five overs of hopping around, the batsmen hardly ever looked like getting out until Starc finally pitched one up (and Paine dropped it), and that was too late anyway.

If anything, by attacking, Pant may have been taking the riskier approach, though Australia have shown difficulty dealing with either one as the next test showed.

I mean it was definitely the riskier approach if the only consideration was the draw, but I think it was pretty clear (especially after Brisbane) that Pant fully intended to chase that score down.