Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pie_chucker if SA are batting second and looking to set a fourth innings target whereas most teams would look to accelerate their run rate to give themselves time to bowl out the opposition, SA would just plod along at 2 an over making sure they couldnt lose the game, but costing themselves a chance of winning it. |
There's a time and a place for aggression in cricket: when you are confident of stuffing a side over the course of a series you can be pretty aggressive at any time... but the moment you face decent opposition you've got to accept that going all-out for a win in one game can actually give the opposition the opportunity to steal the series.
Ponting took the aggressive option at Edgbaston in 2005: if he'd looked to sit on his Lords-Test lead by just batting England out of the game rather than hoping his McGrath-depleted attack would roll England over the Ashes would almost certainly not have been lost.
Flintoff took the aggressive option at Adelaide in 2006. Had he not declared his side would have gained the psychological boost of simply batting Australia out of the game and would have gone to Perth just one-down on the Aussies (needing just one win from three Tests to retain the Ashes) and with confidence high - bad call.
Hussain put England back on the Test map by making them "tough to beat": he can witter all he likes about Woolmer.. but winning the TOUGH Test series will always be about not giving the opposition a sniff of a chance.