Shot making and test match batting approaches. Interesting concepts until reality sets in.
Overnight, New Zealand against Pakistan. New Zealand declared at some point in the third innings and now Pakistan is chasing 280 runs on day 5. I pick it up about 30 or so minutes after the AM session began.
(The graphics on the tube were maddening. They showed how many overs Pakistan used, but not whether Pakistan started the day at bat, making it hard for me know how many overs were left. About an hour later, there was a graphic that summarized each of the innings, but if I could have added the over subtotals and then subtracted that from 450 in the amount of time the graphic appeared, I would be doing something with life besides watching sports on tv all night.)
But with most of the day left, 280 seemed like a number that left the outcome in very much in doubt.
Pakistan got 518 against them in one innings last week, and about 340 in their first innings in the ongoing match. Surely they could score.
On the other hand, getting 10 wickets (one already down when I turned it on) on rough fifth day pitch seemed doable.
And the potential for either or both teams to waste overs (intentionally or not) to keep the match from finishing at all seemed highly possible.
Then I observed Pakistan batting.
On the face of it, they are following the advice given above: being patient, not pressing or forcing their way to runs. They are defending the wicket so each batsman survives a while longer, rarely swinging, and mostly tapping away any ball that is not perfectly placed for a scoring hit. They are looking at any number of bowls that were bounced well over the wicket. Maidens and one and two run overs come and go. The deficit narrows by singles and occasional doubles. To me as a noob, each passing over seems like Pakistan is shortening the game without getting really closing in on the target.
Still, the conventional wisdom of their approach is confirmed by a tv announcer who chastised a batsman for stepping into a bowl that was not perfect by asking "What was he thinking?" even after it was a double.
Yet they are so passive with their batting that that they manage to bat their way into, if I'm not mistaken, three tips that were caught and an LBW without really even swinging their bats and trying score. Their adherence to the conventional wisdom has pushed the game further and further from their grasp. It was essentially Game Over at the lunch break, when they were still more or less 200 runs behind, and the possibility of making up the deficit was now close to nil just on the number of overs that were left, much less who the remaining batsmen were. I didn't bother watching the rest, but the end of the Pakistan lineup went all out in about 36 overs and the result wasn't close. I expect the Pakistan batsmen after lunch just weren't good players to avoid being out long enough to salvage a draw.
So what happened? Did Pakistan cave to pressure? I suppose some would argue for that. But it seems incongruous to think that a team that employed the right strategy caved to pressure.
Did it not cave, maintaining the right batting discipline to the end, but simply getting beat by a better team or a team that executed better? I suppose some would argue for that.
Did it cave by relying on conventional wisdom when its history suggested it could score at will if it hit away? Maybe.
Was it just off its game? Perhaps, though the odds don't favor the possibility that all 11 players on a team or even most of them are coincidentally having bad physical days or batting slumps.
From the outside, it just looked like there were as many as three different problems.
First, it seemed like the Pakistan players didn't show up after their first batsman went down on the first bowl of their second innings and that they threw in the towel after that. Most of their guys looked beaten and as if they would rather be doing something else. The appearance of discipline while batting masked lack of effort, focus, and intent to win.
That doesn't relate to pressure. It relates to professionalism.
Second, if they still had their heads in the game, it seemed like their strategy was designed to fail and their refusal to adjust from a losing strategy was more about their thought process than their skills. They had a winning hand; if teams can score 140 in t10 -- and I know it is easier to bat in that league than in tests -- then 280 runs in more or less 90 overs probably should be converted to a win more often than not. But when it became 230 or so runs in about 60 overs, winning got more an more doubtful and the prospect that something good was bound to happen later got further and further away, and that Pakistan made no attempt to change its luck by changing its approach is pretty telling about their mindset.
Or third, Pakistan played like cowards by trying playing in a fashion that tries to make it seem like they are not cowards. Batting just to survive is a lot different than having the mindset of "Just Give Me the Damn Ball."
https://www.amazon.com/Just-Give-Me-Damn-Ball/dp/0446521450
People on this board keep insisting the game is about pressure. I'm not buying that unless you are defining pressure in a way that links it to desire.
I don't think the outcome was caused by Pakistan giving in to pressure. It was the result of the absence of pressure. They were playing not to lose with the result they could not win.
I get it that teams in all sports occasionally throw in the towel and don't play hard. But that usually is associated with either being over matched, getting bad breaks, getting routed on a particular day, or exhaustion in a travel heavy grueling schedule.
But not being able to turn it on at the end of a close, important contest and chucking a game away without even trying? That's bizarre. It gets coaches fired after the game, and teams immediately torn down.
If that is a normal feature of cricket, I'm not sure how people watch it.
