*Official* Australia in decline thread

[Richard]

If there is IMO it's just coincidence.
Nothing is as important as the least number of runs possible.

 

[Swervy]

If there is IMO it's just coincidence.
Nothing is as important as the least number of runs possible.

well obviously...

 

[shankar]

The seamers and Tendulkar sprayed the ball enough. As per usual. And the spinners were far too slow and didn't turn the ball. Hence Inzamam-Ul-Haq and Youhana did what any batsman worth his salt would do - walk down the track and belt it.
Accurate seam bowling and the batsmen wouldn't have managed the runs they did.

Forget the example I gave (India's bowlers not the best example for accurate bowling!!!). But the point is, on a flat track , just bowling balls accurately on a good length is not enough. You will get thrashed by good batsmen sooner or later.

 

[Richard]

Try to hit accurate bowling, no matter how good you are, and you'll pay for it sooner rather than later in most cases.
Occasionally you'll get away with it but mostly you won't. That won't change on any pitch.

 

[age_master]

Try to hit accurate bowling, no matter how good you are, and you'll pay for it sooner rather than later in most cases.

if a team have 8 or 9 wickets left and 2 set batsmen thats when they will hit 100+ in the final overs, it wont matter how many wickets they lose in the process... but if a team is 6 down, they wont be able to take as many risks and wont usually score as many in the final overs....


look at the Aussie team as an example - at the moment they are the number 1 team by a good margin. lets look at the way they do things...

Brett Lee takes 2 wickets an innings (rough average, SR is about 28) and conceeds 45 or 46 runs - averages 22-23

McGrath takes 1.7 wickets per innings for just 38 or 39 wuns, averages 22-23

Gillespie takes 1.7 wickets an innings and conceeds 41 or 42 runs, average about 25

Warne also takes about 1.7 wickets per innings, but goes for about 42-43 runs per innings

between them they take about 8 or 9 wickets per innings and go for 169. pretty useful. but which bowler is the key? McGrath who goes for 4 or 5 runs less per innings or Brett Lee who might gte bit for an extra boundary or 2 but takes an extra wicket or 2 as well (and might hit a batsman in t he head for good measure). Brett Lee is, why, because he removed the batsmen. when batsmen are left there they are likley to score runs, when they are out, they cant score any more runs...


going for 4 runs per over for 40 overs gives them 160 to chase but going for 3.5 per over for 50 overs with a slog at the end will give them 200+ to chase. also it would give the other team more confidence if they didn't lose any or many wickets, and would lower the confidence of the aussie team...

 

[Swervy]

a great example as i type of wickets being a good weapon in the fight to keep a run rate down..Tendulkar out whilst India were flying....new batsman comes in...and all of a sudden India need over 8 an over to win

 

[Richard]

if a team have 8 or 9 wickets left and 2 set batsmen thats when they will hit 100+ in the final overs, it wont matter how many wickets they lose in the process... but if a team is 6 down, they wont be able to take as many risks and wont usually score as many in the final overs....


look at the Aussie team as an example - at the moment they are the number 1 team by a good margin. lets look at the way they do things...

Brett Lee takes 2 wickets an innings (rough average, SR is about 28) and conceeds 45 or 46 runs - averages 22-23

McGrath takes 1.7 wickets per innings for just 38 or 39 wuns, averages 22-23

Gillespie takes 1.7 wickets an innings and conceeds 41 or 42 runs, average about 25

Warne also takes about 1.7 wickets per innings, but goes for about 42-43 runs per innings

between them they take about 8 or 9 wickets per innings and go for 169. pretty useful. but which bowler is the key? McGrath who goes for 4 or 5 runs less per innings or Brett Lee who might gte bit for an extra boundary or 2 but takes an extra wicket or 2 as well (and might hit a batsman in t he head for good measure). Brett Lee is, why, because he removed the batsmen. when batsmen are left there they are likley to score runs, when they are out, they cant score any more runs...


going for 4 runs per over for 40 overs gives them 160 to chase but going for 3.5 per over for 50 overs with a slog at the end will give them 200+ to chase. also it would give the other team more confidence if they didn't lose any or many wickets, and would lower the confidence of the aussie team...

If your opposition scores 200 for 2 in 50 overs you should have a hell of a lot more confidence than if you bowl them out for 200 in 45!
And just because you've got 8 wickets in hand in over 40 doesn't mean you will score 100 in the last 10, it just means you can try to more than if you've only got 3 or 4. If the bowling is good, you won't, full-stop (well, unless you're very lucky with edges which is so unlikely it can be not bothered with).

 

[Richard]

a great example as i type of wickets being a good weapon in the fight to keep a run rate down..Tendulkar out whilst India were flying....new batsman comes in...and all of a sudden India need over 8 an over to win

And if they hadn't managed to tie the new batsman down like they hadn't been tying Tendulkar down, they'd not have lost control of the required-rate.

 

[Swervy]

If your opposition scores 200 for 2 in 50 overs you should have a hell of a lot more confidence than if you bowl them out for 200 in 45!
And just because you've got 8 wickets in hand in over 40 doesn't mean you will score 100 in the last 10, it just means you can try to more than if you've only got 3 or 4. If the bowling is good, you won't, full-stop (well, unless you're very lucky with edges which is so unlikely it can be not bothered with).

but 'lucky' shots in the final few overs make up a lot of the runs at the end, you cant just dismiss them

 

[Richard]

If the inside-edge or outside-edge gets just a single (which it will with sane field-placing - I really struggle to believe the number of times short-fine-leg is placed in the last 10 overs) then it's highly unlikely that the lucky shots will amount to more than about 20 runs in the last 10. 30 absolute tops.

 

[Swervy]

If the inside-edge or outside-edge gets just a single (which it will with sane field-placing - I really struggle to believe the number of times short-fine-leg is placed in the last 10 overs) then it's highly unlikely that the lucky shots will amount to more than about 20 runs in the last 10. 30 absolute tops.

20 runs equates to 0.4 runs per over in a 50 over game...quite a big amount

 

[Richard]

It equates to 20 runs in 10 overs (last 10, remember?)
Not really that much in the context of someone who apparently will be scoring at 10-an-over.

 

[age_master]

If your opposition scores 200 for 2 in 50 overs you should have a hell of a lot more confidence than if you bowl them out for 200 in 45!

how so, the more wickets you takethe better you have done... if the other team has wickets in hand, thats just batsmen they have watsed the use of.

And just because you've got 8 wickets in hand in over 40 doesn't mean you will score 100 in the last 10, it just means you can try to more than if you've only got 3 or 4. If the bowling is good, you won't, full-stop (well, unless you're very lucky with edges which is so unlikely it can be not bothered with).

no it doesn't mean you are certain to score 100 in the last 10 overs, but most teams will do alot better alot more of the time if they have more wickets in hand going into the last 10.

 

[marc71178]

And if they hadn't managed to tie the new batsman down like they hadn't been tying Tendulkar down, they'd not have lost control of the required-rate.

It's a hell of a lot easier to tie down a new man than one who's on 140* or so.

Hence the wicket has slowed the run rate.

 

[Richard]

You bowl what would in normal cricketing circumstance be good length at that stage of an ODI and the batsman will try to score.
Indeed, he'll try to score off almost any delivery. Whether new or having faced 250 deliveries.

 

[Richard]

how so, the more wickets you takethe better you have done... if the other team has wickets in hand, thats just batsmen they have watsed the use of.

No, the more economical you are the better you have done - and if you're economical on a good wicket, you've created a low total to chase without needing to take wickets. Therefore your batsmen have got an easier task as the pitch is the same on you've just bowled on and it's going to offer as little assistance to the opposition bowlers.
If you bowl someone out for 200 in 45 overs the chances are there's a hell of a lot more in the wicket for the bowlers, so your batsmen have got a much harder task in the chase.

no it doesn't mean you are certain to score 100 in the last 10 overs, but most teams will do alot better alot more of the time if they have more wickets in hand going into the last 10.

Yes, but good bowling will always see to it that the last 10 are not overtly expensive. This was what I was pointing-out is incorrect.

if a team have 8 or 9 wickets left and 2 set batsmen thats when they will hit 100+ in the final overs, it wont matter how many wickets they lose in the process

If the bowlers bowl well, even a team with 8 or 9 wickets left will still only score 50 or 60 in the last 10, even if they only lose 2 or 3 more wickets.

 

[Swervy]

You bowl what would in normal cricketing circumstance be good length at that stage of an ODI and the batsman will try to score.
Indeed, he'll try to score off almost any delivery. Whether new or having faced 250 deliveries.

but its a lot harder for a new batsman to come in and score quickly off good bowling (and bad bowling), than a batsman who has his eye in....Richard, it is just fundamental knowledge that in one day games, wickets go along way to slow a team down.

 

[Richard]

Right - I'll give you that they can be crucial in the last, say, 5 or 6 overs when you've got to go for everything. There, even 3 or 4 dot-balls can be crucial.
Otherwise they only slow the rate significantly if accompanied by good accurate bowling.

 

[marc71178]

You bowl what would in normal cricketing circumstance be good length at that stage of an ODI and the batsman will try to score.

Yes, but are you seriously telling me a new batsman will be as auccessful as one with 100 or more on the board?

 

[Richard]

There isn't anywhere near as much difference as you and many others seem to be trying to suggest, if you actually look at the situation.