***Official*** England in India

[Arjun]

Pictures are back but they haven't showed a replay of the dismissal.

Irfan got a reverse-swing and Cook inside-edged it on the stumps.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Late bit of reverse-inswing gets through the gate off an inside edge. Very good ball, actually!

Liking this reverse swing. If only Jonah wasn't broken.

 

[Jono]

Yeah just saw it! Beaut of a ball. Hopefully he can use the swing well here.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Flintoff expertly picking out whichever gap in the slip cordon doesn't have a fielder in it.

 

[Jono]

Argh!

Freddy edges it to second slip, but there isnt one! Only a 1st and 3rd. Shocking.

LOL! Now he edges it through 4th slip!

 

[tooextracool]

Do you understand english or not? I am not arguing regarding the delivery.

I KNOW they are different players.

It surprises me you do not know regarding valuing your wicket in test cricket, whatever type of player some one is.

so you're saying that aggressive players should block poor balls then? thats about as ludicrous as anything else ive ever heard. were pietersen to smack that ball for four, you would probably be up with praise about how he gave the delivery exactly what it deserves.

 

[Pratters]

gah just when i was quite enjoying shree sanths spell, he gets replaced with pathan who releases all the pressure by bowling complete rubbish.

That is what I call jumping the gun based on 1 over of a new spell.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, the bowler did really well. But, given their lack of cricket, the batsmen should be more selective about going for their shots at this stage, especially when they're still getting used to the pace of the wicket. If KP had 30 or 40 to his name, he'd have probably executed the shot no problem. Thing is, that's how he started his test career at Lord's. Took a long look at it before trying to set about the bowlers. Nowadays he seems intent on attacking from the start, and it just doesn't work very often at this level.

most players like to hit poor deliveries for 4 especially when they first come in, because it gives them some well needed confidence. Yes so Pietersen does have the tendency to play his shots before he gets set, but this was not one such occasion. and honestly Pietersen today is doing nothing different from the Pietersen in the ashes. When aggressiveness pays off it always looks brilliant to watch.

 

[Pratters]

so you're saying that aggressive players should block poor balls then? thats about as ludicrous as anything else ive ever heard. were pietersen to smack that ball for four, you would probably be up with praise about how he gave the delivery exactly what it deserves.

Fact: Pieterson got out to a shot he mistimed completely.

Players should play shots when they have confidence to do so. Else you know what happens? They get OUT and do damage to their team cause like Pieterson did there.

Reality Check: Selective shot making is common sense and not ludicrous.

Maybe he could have played more agressively later in his inning if he wanted to up the tempo.

If you think EVERY poor bowl which is poor needs to be whacked, you are living in fantasy land. Because you know what, if you try to whack a ball not knowing your limitation, form, how well you are seeing the ball, you are going to get OUT stupidly. Like Pieterson.

 

[tooextracool]

That is what I call jumping the gun based on 1 over of a new spell.

hardly, pathan has been miserable for the entire day, and the one over(or the one ball) is hardly going to change anything.

 

[Pratters]

hardly, pathan has been miserable for the entire day, and the one over(or the one ball) is hardly going to change anything.

So you haven't been watching the match?

Pathan was pathetic in his first spell. In his second spell he has been effective. Cases in point: The two balls to Flintoff shots which went in the air. He swung the ball well right through the second spell.

 

[tooextracool]

Fact: Pieterson got out to a shot he mistimed completely.

Players should play shots when they have confidence to do so. Else you know what happens? They get OUT and do damage to their team cause like Pieterson did there.

and you think that players like Pietersen will manage to get their confidence up without hitting a boundary? the odd single is hardly going to make Pietersen confident, what will however is a couple of balls right off the middle of the bat that go for four, especially when bowled to his strength.

Reality Check: Selective shot making is common sense and not ludicrous.

Maybe he could have played more agressively later in his inning if he wanted to up the tempo.

If you think EVERY poor bowl which is poor needs to be whacked, you are living in fantasy land. Because you know what, if you try to whack a ball not knowing your limitation, form, how well you are seeing the ball, you are going to get OUT stupidly. Like Pieterson.

rubbish, playing an aggressive shot to a poor delivery is hardly a mistake. whether you like it or not most aggressive players are expected to hit poor balls around the park irrespective of whether they are in the best of form. the definition of an aggresive player itself refutes your argument.

 

[tooextracool]

So you haven't been watching the match?

Pathan was pathetic in his first spell. In his second spell he has been effective. Cases in point: The two balls to Flintoff shots which went in the air. He swung the ball well right through the second spell.

neither of those deliveries were anything special, mostly being poor shots to balls outside the off stump. pathan has bowled about 1 good over all day, give him a medal.

 

[Pratters]

and you think that players like Pietersen will manage to get their confidence up without hitting a boundary? the odd single is hardly going to make Pietersen confident, what will however is a couple of balls right off the middle of the bat that go for four, especially when bowled to his strength.

I know what going for shots with no apparent clue (as shown by the shot) does - it gets a player out.

rubbish, playing an aggressive shot to a poor delivery is hardly a mistake. whether you like it or not most aggressive players are expected to hit poor balls around the park irrespective of whether they are in the best of form. the definition of an aggresive player itself refutes your argument.

All I can say is that you do not know much about cricket or at least this aspect.

 

[Pratters]

neither of those deliveries were anything special, mostly being poor shots to balls outside the off stump. pathan has bowled about 1 good over all day, give him a medal.

So you suit your stance, despite proven wrong, you are going to try to change facts? Also why variate. First you say 1 ball. Then when I mention the swinging aspect, you say he bowled 1 good over.

If you saw the match or tried to see it with a bit of objectivity, you could have seen he was swinging the ball and was bowling quite well in the second spell.

 

[Jono]

I'm not getting in to this argument, but Pathan's second spell barring the first few balls of his first over has been very good. He's beaten Collingwood's bat on plenty of occasions and that ball that naturally came back in and then swung away late was a very good ball.

His ball to Cook was great, and if I had a medal I'd give one to Pathan, Sreesanth, Strauss and Pietersen because Sehwag and Laxman don't have to score many more runs in the first innings to be ahead of Pietersen so far, putting me in a good position for my avatar challenge

 

[tooextracool]

I know what going for shots with no apparent clue (as shown by the shot) does - it gets a player out.

no apparent clue? because you obviously need some sort of clue to be able to put poor balls away? these are things you do at the grade level of cricket.

 

[Pratters]

no apparent clue?

No apparent clue considering how poor the shot execution was evident by the result.

 

[tooextracool]

So you suit your stance, despite proven wrong, you are going to try to change facts? Also why variate. First you say 1 ball. Then when I mention the swinging aspect, you say he bowled 1 good over.

If you saw the match or tried to see it with a bit of objectivity, you could have seen he was swinging the ball and was bowling quite well in the second spell.

err let me be more specific. by saying 'about one good over'(and i think the word 'about' is a big give away), i mean that hes bowled about 6 good balls all day, not restricting it to any one particular over.
as far as his second spell is concerned i can hardly see how it was anything more than ordinary.

 

[tooextracool]

No apparent clue considering how poor the shot execution was evident by the result.

what was wrong with the shot execution then? he was late on the ball yes, but if someone deserves to be given a kick on the backside for playing a shot late, then you'd have sore knees by the end of the day. as i said earlier, the result of the shot does not matter given that it could quite easily have gone for 4, the fact is whether it was the right shot to play to that ball.