uvelocity
International Coach
Don't see the difference this makes, what if we won the toss and batted you'd be upset with 5 down? Most of the wickets have been wafts at wide balls..... not seam or bounceKeeping in mind we were sent in,
Don't see the difference this makes, what if we won the toss and batted you'd be upset with 5 down? Most of the wickets have been wafts at wide balls..... not seam or bounceKeeping in mind we were sent in,
Yeah, I know that, but the issue is a fast bowler's genuine aggression often bleeds runs. The logic of having the rule is understandable, but like some others, I feel that limiting the number to 3 fielders would be better.It's been that way for decades. All the great Windies attacks operated under it, as an example, unless I'm mistaken.
No I'd take five down at stumps in day one of a test most times.Don't see the difference this makes, what if we won the toss and batted you'd be upset with 5 down? Most of the wickets have been wafts at wide balls..... not seam or bounce
So you could in theory have all 9 guys on the leg side with only 2 behind square?2 behind square is all i can think of, off the top of my head
Which is where the discipline part comes into the picture. If the top order doesn't have the discipline to convert starts, the team suffers.Still 200 runs up though. Wait for everyone to get 40 odd and get out, you're not winning any matches some time soon.
In theory.So you could in theory have all 9 guys on the leg side with only 2 behind square?
Yeah I think you can. I recall playing years back with a restriction of no more than six, but not sure if that was a local condition or an MCC Law.So you could in theory have all 9 guys on the leg side with only 2 behind square?
fair enough. I'd rather 5/280 not 5/230 but yeah.No I'd take five down at stumps in day one of a test most times.
Yes, that's true. The basic purpose of that rule was that a bowler shouldn't be able to tuck up the batsmen with short-pitched stuff and prevent him from nudging/hooking behind square on the leg side.So you could in theory have all 9 guys on the leg side with only 2 behind square?
I mean in bowling. If all the opposition are getting 40-odds, you're still conceding too much.Which is where the discipline part comes into the picture. If the top order doesn't have the discipline to convert starts, the team suffers.
Yeah, on this track, I agree. In Galle, on the first day, three 40s from the top order would have been golden. Assuming that Hussey inevitably would have anyway got his 90-odd!I mean in bowling. If all the opposition are getting 40-odds, you're still conceding too much.
Me too. Still, SL, from what I've seen, have bowled pretty well.fair enough. I'd rather 5/280 not 5/230 but yeah.
Did a lot wrong in the first test here according to you. Batted too slowly wasn't it?Punter keeps talking about how he is inspired by likes of SRT and Dravid but seriously he just needs to look at Hussey for all the inspiration he needs, the guy was so dead and buried prior to the Ashes that even his biggest supporters too didn't give him much of a chance but since then he just couldn't do no wrong.
i lol'dDid a lot wrong in the first test here according to you. Batted too slowly wasn't it?
Yeah I shudder to think what's gonna happen when we face SA. Just hoping that for some miraculous reason our batsmen will rise to the occasion.Not sure what to make of that. 5 down isn't the worst position to be, and the bowling was tight and probing, but **** me some of the batting was of the lowest quality.