• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official*** South Africa in New Zealand 2017

thierry henry

thierry henry

International Coach
Anyway....signs of a standard "two set batsmen against tiring bowlers" acceleration here which might make the conversation moot.
 
Immenso

Immenso

International Vice-Captain
Malcolm Jordan is very hard to listen to.

But as a positive he must be very easy for Erv McSweeney to co-commentate with. Just sit back and say nothing. Unless Erv is capable of putting across an expert opinion in 0.3 seconds.
 
thierry henry

thierry henry

International Coach
straw man said:
It's true in part, though he had a surprisingly good domestic T20 competition this year, so (unlike Richardson) he does have some ability to play an attacking style of innings.
Click to expand...
His overall LO record is pretty poor though and Rigor himself was a slogger of some note before he took his batting more seriously. I think Raval's best chance of international success is to keep playing this style anyway.
 
hendrix

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
thierry henry said:
Yeah the only reason to get aggressive here is if we reckon there's going to be a particular amount of rain that still gives us a chance but only if we score faster. And even if that's the case, we have no idea how much rain or how fast we need to score. Seems a spurious basis for a dangerous change of approach from a dodgy batting side.
Click to expand...
Completely disagree.

The rain delays in this test mean too things:

a) obviously lost time

but more subtly
b) constant interruptions mean that batsmen in the 3rd and 4th innings are far less likely to be mentally and physically fatigued than they would be after playing 4 full days of test cricket.

If we want to win this test, we have to push the pace from here.

With that said I think our rate has been fine so far, just that we'll have to take advantage of our situation and pick up the pace subtly from here on out.
 
thierry henry

thierry henry

International Coach
hendrix said:
Completely disagree.

The rain delays in this test mean too things:

a) obviously lost time

but more subtly
b) constant interruptions mean that batsmen in the 3rd and 4th innings are far less likely to be mentally and physically fatigued than they would be after playing 4 full days of test cricket.

If we want to win this test, we have to push the pace from here.

With that said I think our rate has been fine so far, just that we'll have to take advantage of our situation and pick up the pace subtly from here on out.
Click to expand...
Again though, if we're thinking we won't be able to bowl SA out in the 3rd innings because the batters aren't tired enough, that's sort of defeatist already. And predicting how many hours of rain we're going to get just seems nuts to me but maybe I don't have as much faith in the metservice as some of you.

The way I see it, we have time to win this test in a "conventional" way, best achieved by amassing a big first innings lead. We might be thwarted by more rain from this point on but then there's every chance that the amount of rain will completely ruin any chance of victory anyway. I just really don't want to complicate the job for our top order by having them making speculative weather-based calculations on what tempo they should bat at.
 
thierry henry

thierry henry

International Coach
Anyway it really is kind of a meh topic of discussion imo cos Kane is just gonna Kane regardless. Hopefully we rattle along at 4RPO on the strength of classy, safe batting and we're all happy.
 
hendrix

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
thierry henry said:
Again though, if we're thinking we won't be able to bowl SA out in the 3rd innings because the batters aren't tired enough, that's sort of defeatist already. And predicting how many hours of rain we're going to get just seems nuts to me but maybe I don't have as much faith in the metservice as some of you.

The way I see it, we have time to win this test in a "conventional" way, best achieved by amassing a big first innings lead. We might be thwarted by more rain from this point on but then there's every chance that the amount of rain will completely ruin any chance of victory anyway. I just really don't want to complicate the job for our top order by having them making speculative weather-based calculations on what tempo they should bat at.
Click to expand...
It's not at all defeatist. It's making the best use of the situation and resources we have at hand, combined with the knowledge we're 0-1 in the series.

9 times out of 10 I agree that you bat once, bat big to win. I just don't think that's the case in this situation. We need to get them batting when it's the best time for us to bowl at them, limit the amount of time they have to recover.

Brilliant work to grind them so far, now try to take advantage of moderately tired bowlers.

Tomorrow if there are rain interruptions in the afternoon, it's better for us to be bowling, so our fast bowlers get the full advantage of being fresh throughout the day, and have the chance to constantly re-evaluate bowling plans.
 
hendrix

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
Spark said:
Someone have a tl;dr on what Faf et al are whining about this time?
Click to expand...
They were throwing in on the bounce the whole innings, the ball became disfigured (didn't fit through the circle), so was changed. I guess that's limited their reverse swing.
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
NZ really piling it on today. Good stuff from them. Probably the only side which can win from here unless they lose nine for virtually nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top