Soth Africa's boring tactics

[Richard]

so what would u say about Gilchrist he also bats almost the similar way sehwag does and he dont have to face the best bowling attack in the world
and i know why u dont like his style of play even though i like sehwwags stly i dont like that of Gilli or flintoff

Err, sorry, I really don't get this.
Something I think I might need to clarify is I most certainly get sick of Gilchrist being at the crease after, oh, one ball or so. And I most certainly think he's a very lucky batsman, too.

and by the way if u dont know he is ranked second best in the worldbehind dravid at the moment and if he bats like this he would be on top after this match

I do know.

 

[twctopcat]

I'll take Graeme Smith over him 500 times.

That's nice, i wouldn't.

 

[marc71178]

Maybe... just maybe... he's not that bad a player?

That's impossible though.

He's often said there's no greater judge of the game than the game itself.

Except when the game judges someone to have ability (as indicated by the volume of runs some of these "rubbish" players make)

 

[Richard]

That's nice, i wouldn't.

I know - plenty of people can't take that he has limitations in his game that don't actually make him a lesser player the way they think it should.
People also don't like his looking-after-number-one attitude.

 

[Richard]

That's impossible though.

He's often said there's no greater judge of the game than the game itself.

Except when the game judges someone to have ability (as indicated by the volume of runs some of these "rubbish" players make)

Except that the scorebook isn't the only part of the game. There is more to success and failure than what is inked in the book.

 

[biased indian]

I know - plenty of people can't take that he has limitations in his game that don't actually make him a lesser player the way they think it should.
People also don't like his looking-after-number-one attitude.

ya i know one limitation that he has, he cannot bat for a long time with out scoring runs

 

[Langeveldt]

I remember a time when South Africa were my second most fav cricket team. But of late, they have been totally boring. They have been very defensive in this tour to India and also in the previous tour of Sri Lanka. It seems as if they don't want to force a win and are happy to draw right from the first day itself. What's up with that? For example, even after losing 8 wickets in this match, they still didn't go for their shots....they were happy to bat for as much time as possible.

As a SA fan, im not too fussed about it..

Id rather see them admitting they arent so hot as they were, play carefully, and get stuck in.. A draw on the subcontinent isnt a bad thing

And also the oppo should up their game and try and blast them out, if they arent willing to play their shots..

If you want fours and sixes, stick to your ODI's... There was a time when SA's tactics were called "good old fashioned test cricket".. Gilchrist and Sehwag have since brainwashed everyone

 

[Neil Pickup]

That time was called the 1950s, and it nearly killed the world game.

 

[Neil Pickup]

ummm i don't get your logic behind that. you'd rather watch a spiness SA playing for a draw from the first ball itself than virender sehwag who's trying to play positive cricket and going for a result? can you explain what's going on inside your brain?

There'll be a lot less going on after he's had serious chin music from myself to deal with after Christmas.

 

[Pratters]

As a SA fan, im not too fussed about it..

Id rather see them admitting they arent so hot as they were, play carefully, and get stuck in.. A draw on the subcontinent isnt a bad thing

And also the oppo should up their game and try and blast them out, if they arent willing to play their shots..

If you want fours and sixes, stick to your ODI's... There was a time when SA's tactics were called "good old fashioned test cricket".. Gilchrist and Sehwag have since brainwashed everyone

An Indian fan should not think about how South Africa is playing. India should concentrate on winning. Its like how the English used to fuss about the sub continent tactics being negative which would end them no where.

South Africa is going through a low. They have lost a lot of series. Many key players are missing from what is often termed as the most difficult cricket tour in the world. Drawing the first test was as good as a win for them.

Ahead of the English series, a draw in India would be a huge boost for them.

A win would be a huge achievment. It would not have been impossible though considering Indian cricket has also been struggling (batting wise mainly). When Pollock was asked on TV when South Africa will declare, he said we would go on and not think of declaring after the first day.

South Africa is focussing on the English series. If India had collapsed in the first inning or if South africa ever find a hope of a win, they will try their best at it. But it is very much impossible.

Its India which loses much with a drawn series.

 

[Pratters]

Why do people consider Sehwag some one with no technique?

There is a flip side to it. He is so confident about his shots, his skill that he can play shots which go beyond technique.

He makes runs, he makes them fast and is better than most openers India had from Gandhi to Rathour to S.S.Das

Its not easy to make runs at international level and its time we give Sehwag the credit as a very good batsman.

 

[masterblaster]

Regarding Virender Sehwag:

'If it's working, then why the hell not'

We overanalyse all the time in cricket, so I'm just sitting back and enjoying the ride.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Too damn right.

Must admit to not being one of Sehwag's biggest fans, but it's great to see him clearly enjoying himself and making runs at the same time.

 

[Sehwag309]

195
309
155
165
70
82*

If it's effective for a No-footwork-hand-eye co-ordination batsman in a span of 12 months, then why not

 

[marc71178]

Except that the scorebook isn't the only part of the game. There is more to success and failure than what is inked in the book.

Like what?

The bottom line regarding success or failure can only be looked at by scores attained by individuals.

 

[Jono]

Look, not every game can possibly be run-fest-followed-by-collapse-followed-by-result. Which some seem to find entertaining.
Personally I'm getting thoroughly sick of getting-up at 12 and finding-out that yet again Virender Sehwag has opened the batting in Test-cricket and scored a load of runs.
I find South Africa's play far more satisfying than seeing Sehwag with runs against his name time and again.

Once again talking out of your 'you know where' without seeing a ball of the series bowled. Most ridiculous post I've seen in a long time.

 

[Jono]

Why do people consider Sehwag some one with no technique?

There is a flip side to it. He is so confident about his shots, his skill that he can play shots which go beyond technique.

He makes runs, he makes them fast and is better than most openers India had from Gandhi to Rathour to S.S.Das

Its not easy to make runs at international level and its time we give Sehwag the credit as a very good batsman.

Exactly. On top of that his balance at the crease is amazing. Why not take it to the bowlers? Since when is hitting 4s and 6s in test cricket a sin? Just because some other batsmen aren't able to do it consistently?

I love watching Sehwag bat. Why block and defend when you don't have to?

 

[shaka]

SA have been batting way to defensively and has meant the game is more likely to end in a draw

 

[Richard]

That time was called the 1950s, and it nearly killed the world game.

Rubbish.
For much of the time, Test-cricket has been played at 2.5-2.8-an-over, with occasional bursts of faster and occasional bursts of slower.
No bursts of slow scoring are ever going to kill the game.

 

[Richard]

Like what?

The bottom line regarding success or failure can only be looked at by scores attained by individuals.

No, it can (and should) be looked at by scores earned by individuals - if you or me scored a Test-century thanks to about 50 let-offs it would not be anything worth consideration.
If you don't have to score your runs - and the great skill in cricket, is it not, is scoring runs without getting out, you can't score runs without getting out - why bother?