The problem against cook wasn't the plan, it was the fact that his judgement was so absurdly good Boult had such a small margin for error. Anything straight was dealt with under the eyes or flicked away for runs, anything not hitting the stumps was left.@charleslara
Then perhaps they hire incompetent people as the correct plans are often noted by both fans and commentators e.g dry up warner's scoring areas and yet teams seem to have other ideas such as trying to get him to nick off. And why didn't boult make adjustments to cook and allow him to make 160 and then look unmoveable in the second test first innings until Craig got him. Where were boult's advisors and computer analysis then. Both hadlee and bond would have reacted to that cook inning and been ready with a new game an for the second test. Instead we had nothing up our sleeve.
As for the rest of your post Why are you on captain grumpy's side.
As to why my views haven't evolved
I personally don't think the game is much different in tests since the 1980s. Don't ask me to say that about odis they are completely different. So I have evolved my thinking about limited overs.
John wright and Bruce Edgar would be good players today. Maybe more john than Bruce as Edgar's average was quite low.
Craig McDermott would be a very fine bowler in today's day and age.
Back then a score of 300 was middling and it still is middling.
People do score faster in tests but not dramatically so. The same principles apply. Out think the batsman as a bowler and bowl in good areas.
That's what the game plan was in the 1980s as well.
The only difference in test match play is the arrival of Dilshan sehwag and Warner on scene. Because those players represent less than 1% of the playing population I choose to regard them as anomalies rather than a trend. I also don't believe that style of play is sustainable. There were ways of bowling to sehwag that started to emerge near the end of his tenure and ways to deal with Warner will arise.
I am on my phone so there will be no checking for typos or grammatical errors. Apologies for the length.
Indeed. I'd go as far to say . . . why worry.No shame to losing to NZ's sultans of swing though.
This coming from the guy who feels every test side should pick the best 6 batsmen and best 4 bowlers, no exceptions.You appear to be quite conservative in your approach to test cricket and instinctly reject any playing strategy that is outside the Wisden cricket manual circa 19th century.
Just because a player doesn't fit your theory as to how Test openers must bat doesn't mean he's secretly rubbish and waiting to be found out.@charleslara
Then perhaps they hire incompetent people as the correct plans are often noted by both fans and commentators e.g dry up warner's scoring areas and yet teams seem to have other ideas such as trying to get him to nick off. And why didn't boult make adjustments to cook and allow him to make 160 and then look unmoveable in the second test first innings until Craig got him. Where were boult's advisors and computer analysis then. Both hadlee and bond would have reacted to that cook inning and been ready with a new game an for the second test. Instead we had nothing up our sleeve.
As for the rest of your post Why are you on captain grumpy's side.
As to why my views haven't evolved
I personally don't think the game is much different in tests since the 1980s. Don't ask me to say that about odis they are completely different. So I have evolved my thinking about limited overs.
John wright and Bruce Edgar would be good players today. Maybe more john than Bruce as Edgar's average was quite low.
Craig McDermott would be a very fine bowler in today's day and age.
Back then a score of 300 was middling and it still is middling.
People do score faster in tests but not dramatically so. The same principles apply. Out think the batsman as a bowler and bowl in good areas.
That's what the game plan was in the 1980s as well.
The only difference in test match play is the arrival of Dilshan sehwag and Warner on scene. Because those players represent less than 1% of the playing population I choose to regard them as anomalies rather than a trend. I also don't believe that style of play is sustainable. There were ways of bowling to sehwag that started to emerge near the end of his tenure and ways to deal with Warner will arise.
I am on my phone so there will be no checking for typos or grammatical errors. Apologies for the length.
Yeah, uhh, Cook played really well that innings. Sometimes batsmen are just better.
I will play if the debate stays dispassionate and not with personal exclamations or gifs of people banging their head's against walls.The problem against cook wasn't the plan, it was the fact that his judgement was so absurdly good Boult had such a small margin for error. Anything straight was dealt with under the eyes or flicked away for runs, anything not hitting the stumps was left.
I you, Hurricane.I will play if the debate stays dispassionate and not with personal exclamations or gifs of people banging their head's against walls.
So any bowler not as good as Hadlee is a pile of faeces? Or Boult is a pile of faeces for not being as good as Hadlee?I will play if the debate stays dispassionate and not with personal exclamations or gifs of people banging their head's against walls.
It was Boult's job as our left handed swing bowler to get rid of Cook in both the first test and the second test. That was his job. It was not a bonus and a pat of the back if he got Cook out. It was his job. Hadlee had men on the other team who he made it his business to get out. He took personal responsibility when they got centuries. They say there is no "I" in team but there is personal responsibility and accountabilities.
My post was poorly worded and there was an error in it. It was nobody's fault that Cook scored 160 in the first test. He played well and he deserved a century.
But it is not ok that he scored 75 in the first inning of the second test. It was 177-0 at one point in that inning, we are fortunate we bundled them out from that position.
We should have strategised before the 2nd test. We knew he was going to leave the ball outside off stump. Instead Boult's response was just to keep bowling outswingers outside off stump which he left merrily.
There is a counter strategy for batsman like Cook and it has been around for donkey's years. Go wide of the crease and angle the ball in and swing it away. It becomes harder to judge what to leave. Maybe he still makes 75 and maybe the score is still 177-0. Or maybe it isn't and maybe it works and we dismiss him cheaply but we didn't try that strategy. I was expecting us to use that strategy before the test started, and Michael Holding was expecting it as well and began to question as to why Boult wasn't trying it. A brief discussion took place where people conjectured why Boult wasn't using the crease. They threw out some reasons, but the only real reason is that Boult and his advisors didn't think of that tactic. In fact they didn't think of any new tactics to try on Cook between the two tests. Why they didn't come up with any new tactics befuddles me but is one reason why I made the quip that perhaps our video analyst and bowling advisors are a bit hit and miss.
I have told this final story before - David Boon scored 142 run out against us in a test. If it weren't for the run out he would have made a triple. He left everything outside off stump with impeccable judgement.
Hadlee recalibbrated before the next test and went wide of the crease and got him out for 9.
Hadlee was a thinking man's bowler. Southee is a thinking man's bowler. Trent Boult is improving and will be better in 18 months from now.
I like this post!I will play if the debate stays dispassionate and not with personal exclamations or gifs of people banging their head's against walls.
It was Boult's job ...... snap ........... Trent Boult is improving and will be better in 18 months from now.
the ways of bowling to sehwag didn't really emerge, they were always there. he just lost his superb hand eye coordination towards the end there I believe.The only difference in test match play is the arrival of Dilshan sehwag and Warner on scene. Because those players represent less than 1% of the playing population I choose to regard them as anomalies rather than a trend. I also don't believe that style of play is sustainable. There were ways of bowling to sehwag that started to emerge near the end of his tenure and ways to deal with Warner will arise.
Yup this re Sehwag.the ways of bowling to sehwag didn't really emerge, they were always there. he just lost his superb hand eye coordination towards the end there I believe.
Warner's off-side technique is excellent. There are some issues hitting through the leg side, serious ones.Warner's technique is excellent. People hating on it are just assuming it must be one thing based on his SR when in fact it's very different.
He actually very rarely gets out nicking off, and gets out LBW a lot less than I thought he would.
I'm not on anyones side.@charleslara
Then perhaps they hire incompetent people as the correct plans are often noted by both fans and commentators e.g dry up warner's scoring areas and yet teams seem to have other ideas such as trying to get him to nick off. And why didn't boult make adjustments to cook and allow him to make 160 and then look unmoveable in the second test first innings until Craig got him. Where were boult's advisors and computer analysis then. Both hadlee and bond would have reacted to that cook inning and been ready with a new game an for the second test. Instead we had nothing up our sleeve.
As for the rest of your post Why are you on captain grumpy's side.
As to why my views haven't evolved
I personally don't think the game is much different in tests since the 1980s. Don't ask me to say that about odis they are completely different. So I have evolved my thinking about limited overs.
John wright and Bruce Edgar would be good players today. Maybe more john than Bruce as Edgar's average was quite low.
Craig McDermott would be a very fine bowler in today's day and age.
Back then a score of 300 was middling and it still is middling.
People do score faster in tests but not dramatically so. The same principles apply. Out think the batsman as a bowler and bowl in good areas.
That's what the game plan was in the 1980s as well.
The only difference in test match play is the arrival of Dilshan sehwag and Warner on scene. Because those players represent less than 1% of the playing population I choose to regard them as anomalies rather than a trend. I also don't believe that style of play is sustainable. There were ways of bowling to sehwag that started to emerge near the end of his tenure and ways to deal with Warner will arise.
I am on my phone so there will be no checking for typos or grammatical errors. Apologies for the length.
Hence the LBW comment. Doesn't get out that way too often, though, which makes it not such a problem because it's not like he has a lack of scoring options.Warner's off-side technique is excellent. There are some issues hitting through the leg side, serious ones.