Ponting's solution: Bat second

[GIMH]

Well... yes... to an extent.

Personally I'd never feel confident defending even 350 against Australia until you'd got them 90\4.

Personally, I don't feel confident until it's over. Even then I have a nervy half-hour where I think they may decide it was 60 overs aside after all. TBGT, as long as Hussey's in there, I could be batting at the other end on a bad day (on a good day I may defend for a couple of overs, edge a boundary, before deciding to slog one and being c&bd) and still wouldn't bet against those Aussies. Those damn Aussies.

And in all honesty, I can't believe that Ponting would decide what to do at the toss until the day of the game, when the conditions can be assessed.

 

[Slow Love™]

Well, a few things worth noting:

1) According to the original post ('cause I haven't seen this quoted elsewhere up to this stage), Ponting said "We're going to come up against some small grounds in the WC, so the consideration of batting second in odi cricket is something to think about,". It's not a pledge to bat second every match, just a comment that he may be more willing to do so than he has been (up to this point, from my memory, he's shown an overwhelming preference to bat first upon winning the toss). Doesn't seem that ridiculous a comment.

2) I really don't think the attitude in the Aussie camp would be "hey guys, seeing as I'm planning to bat second if we win the toss, we can not bother thinking much about what we've been getting wrong attempting to defend 300+ totals. Does anybody?

3) I'm not presuming it's necessarily a choice between setting 300+ ourselves or chasing 300+ down. Part of what I wonder about is whether this is simply a mental thing rather than an issue of skill - so it's quite plausible that if we were to bowl first, we may well roll other sides for moderate totals on grounds that are conducive to very high scoring. Further to this, I don't really think we're absolutely beholden to the toss. Yes, we've shown a definite weakness in this context in that we've had a number of high scores we've been unsuccessful in defending, but it's not like we lose every game in that context, and I would think that, considering we tend to win at a very healthy percentage, we're certainly capable of winning games defending high to quite high totals.

4) I don't really think we're at that much risk of being sent in by all opposition teams in the light of Ponting's comments. Most teams in friendly batting conditions would probably still prefer to bat first and set a target, I would think, though one or two might be more amenable to chasing (ie the WI) in general.

 

[Richard]

Good stuff, just 1 thing...

How can failing to defend large totals be a mental thing? You think the prospect scares the bowlers?

I'd guess the more you have on the board, the less a bowler tends to worry and the more he just performs "normally".

 

[Slow Love™]

Good stuff, just 1 thing...

How can failing to defend large totals be a mental thing? You think the prospect scares the bowlers?

I'd guess the more you have on the board, the less a bowler tends to worry and the more he just performs "normally".

I would think exactly the same in normal circumstances. Getting a big total on the board ought to obviously give the bowlers the best confidence to defend it. I'm just speculating on why this is something of a recurring phenomena to this team, and I lean towards something psychological because to my recollection they don't seem to be conceding huge totals in the first innings in the same way.

Bracken seems to have a capability to handle either situation pretty well though, when faced with such an assault.

 

[Richard]

I would think exactly the same in normal circumstances. Getting a big total on the board ought to obviously give the bowlers the best confidence to defend it. I'm just speculating on why this is something of a recurring phenomena to this team, and I lean towards something psychological because to my recollection they don't seem to be conceding huge totals in the first innings in the same way.

But why does that make it more likely to be mental? I'd say there's only one explanation for it - the fact that (mostly when the attack consists of poor bowlers - it's no coincidence McGrath's missed a fair few of those games) the oppo has to and does simply go for it, and smash the ball virtually from the start.

A (enforced) change in opposition approach, not a problem with Australian bowler attitude IMO.

 

[Slow Love™]

But why does that make it more likely to be mental? I'd say there's only one explanation for it - the fact that (mostly when the attack consists of poor bowlers - it's no coincidence McGrath's missed a fair few of those games) the oppo has to and does simply go for it, and smash the ball virtually from the start.

A (enforced) change in opposition approach, not a problem with Australian bowler attitude IMO.

Haha, I guess I'm not ready to dismiss these bowlers as poor yet. I don't know that I'd say there's only one possible explanation for it - I acknowledged the opposition's nothing to lose attitude in an earlier post, but these guys seem to demonstrably wilt once the target being chased starts looking remotely feasible (remembering that in the last game, they'd reduced the Kiwis to 4/40 at the start of their innings). I think it has to be mental to some degree - in some cases it probably just comes down to being less experienced at international level.

 

[pup11]

Look guys it won't have been a big deal if every team was failing to defend such big targets(then we could have said that the bar of a standard target has got raised with time), but teams with far poor bowling attacks then australia are defending such targets on flat decks without much fuss. So the problem basically is with the aussie bowling mindset, which they need to get rid of as quickly as possible.

 

[honestbharani]

That "chasing 300+" is the real killer, though, ain't it hbh...

Scoring 300 batting first against McGrath, Bracken et al ain't the easiest thing in The World.

It isn't, but as I said, I tend to think (and have thought for a no. of years now) that India has a better chance of beating Australia if we bat first than batting second.

 

[Richard]

Haha, I guess I'm not ready to dismiss these bowlers as poor yet.

Haha, you've got to be joking! How on Earth have White, Lewis, Johnson, Tait, Watson et al not been poor in said games? (And more often than not in their careers?) That doesn't mean none of them will improve, but their paucity to date has beyond question IMO contributed to the unexpectedly large number of huge chases.

I don't know that I'd say there's only one possible explanation for it - I acknowledged the opposition's nothing to lose attitude in an earlier post, but these guys seem to demonstrably wilt once the target being chased starts looking remotely feasible (remembering that in the last game, they'd reduced the Kiwis to 4/40 at the start of their innings). I think it has to be mental to some degree - in some cases it probably just comes down to being less experienced at international level.

Well Brett Lee played in most of the games and he's experienced enough...

I honestly think if you look at the games where Aus have bowled first (or where the oppo have been chasing a smaller target) you can see a not-too-dissimilar pattern in the performance of said bowlers. I don't think the psyche of "Oh, God, here we go again - massive chase pulled-off against us" really comes too far into that.

 

[Richard]

It isn't, but as I said, I tend to think (and have thought for a no. of years now) that India has a better chance of beating Australia if we bat first than batting second.

Because Australia so often manage to pile-up huge scores batting both first and second against India?

 

[Slow Love™]

Haha, you've got to be joking! How on Earth have White, Lewis, Johnson, Tait, Watson et al not been poor in said games? (And more often than not in their careers?) That doesn't mean none of them will improve, but their paucity to date has beyond question IMO contributed to the unexpectedly large number of huge chases.

Well Brett Lee played in most of the games and he's experienced enough...

I honestly think if you look at the games where Aus have bowled first (or where the oppo have been chasing a smaller target) you can see a not-too-dissimilar pattern in the performance of said bowlers. I don't think the psyche of "Oh, God, here we go again - massive chase pulled-off against us" really comes too far into that.

For crying out loud, Richard, if you're gonna debate something, at least read the posts properly. There's a big difference between dismissing these bowlers as poor, and denying that they were poor in those games. I've no argument that Lewis and White are poor period, but Lewis is long gone and White is barely asked to roll his arm over. And pointing out that Brett Lee is "experienced enough" hardly makes "in some cases it probably just comes down to being less experienced at international level" an invalid statement.

Anyhow, I'm not permanently wed to the theory that the problem with these bowlers in these situations is a mental one (although I always think that if you lose your line/length when under attack, there's always an aspect of that that is psychological), but I really don't see it as unfeasible as you seem to.

 

[Slow Love™]

It isn't, but as I said, I tend to think (and have thought for a no. of years now) that India has a better chance of beating Australia if we bat first than batting second.

Yeah, but Ponting probably didn't have India in mind when it came to winning the toss and bowling first.

 

[Richard]

For crying out loud, Richard, if you're gonna debate something, at least read the posts properly. There's a big difference between dismissing these bowlers as poor, and denying that they were poor in those games.

Eh?!?!

You've lost me.

I know that you've never dismissed all mentioned bowlers as poor-for-ever-more - and neither have I. Nor did I suggest either of us have. But you seemed to me to be saying that they hadn't been very, very poor to date. Which, as far as I'm concerned, they have. If they get better, we'll likely see a decrease in the number of massive chases Australia concede.

 

[Slow Love™]

Eh?!?!

You've lost me.

I know that you've never dismissed all mentioned bowlers as poor-for-ever-more - and neither have I. Nor did I suggest either of us have. But you seemed to me to be saying that they hadn't been very, very poor to date. Which, as far as I'm concerned, they have. If they get better, we'll likely see a decrease in the number of massive chases Australia concede.

Sorry, I'd read "dismissed as poor" as just saying they were bad bowlers, period. I'm probably stating the obvious, but you can be highly idiosyncratic in your definitions. This aside, apart from Lewis and White, I don't think all the rest have been very, very poor to date, these chases aside. Maybe Tait, though TBF he's only played four games.

 

[pup11]

In the last game in the C-H trophy where black caps chased down 346, watson gave 88 runs at an eco. of 8.8 rpo and johnson gave 81 runs at eco. of 8.1 rpo.
Tait gave 60 runs at an eco. of 6.0 rpo taking 2 wickets so how is that so bad for a man playing in his 4th odi.

 

[Slow Love™]

In the last game in the C-H trophy where black caps chased down 346, watson gave 88 runs at an eco. of 8.8 rpo and johnson gave 81 runs at eco. of 8.1 rpo.
Tait gave 60 runs at an eco. of 6.0 rpo taking 2 wickets so how is that so bad for a man playing in his 4th odi.

*hangs self*

Your avatar is strangely fitting, BTW.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, but Ponting probably didn't have India in mind when it came to winning the toss and bowling first.

I know and I wasn't assuming that he was just gonna blindly bowl first every time he won the toss, either. I was just saying that IF he does choose this tactic against India, that would increase India's chances of winning against them. That's all.

 

[Richard]

In the last game in the C-H trophy where black caps chased down 346, watson gave 88 runs at an eco. of 8.8 rpo and johnson gave 81 runs at eco. of 8.1 rpo.
Tait gave 60 runs at an eco. of 6.0 rpo taking 2 wickets so how is that so bad for a man playing in his 4th odi.

Err... well, it's bad. Playing your 4th ODI is no excuse. Sure, Tait can't really help but get better, but there's no two ways about the fact that, to date, he's been utterly woeful in 3 games out of 4.

 

[Richard]

*hangs self*

*Copies in Sid Vicious-esque tribute to his hero*

 

[pup11]

Good to hear sehwag say that aussies are still good enough to win their 3rd world cup in a row, he feels the recent slump in form for the aussies would make them a far determined team at the world cup and they would get back to their usual consistency.