View Single Post
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 26-01-2007, 09:11 AM in reply to pie_chucker's post starting "But at that time SA had a pretty strong..."
Rachael Rachael is offline
Administrator
WAT selector
Selector-World XI (1980 onwards)
(ENG-captain) Passed Mike Atherton's 7728 Test runs
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Norfolk
My main national team: None - I support cricket in general
Posts: 7,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by pie_chucker
a bit differant from SA's negativity in the second innings, where they would probably never lose a game but by their negative batting would certainly never win
Getting a result in any individual match is not something that should concern any STRONGER team: be tough to beat, make sure the other guy gets no chance... and sooner or later (in this series, in the next, in the one after that) the difference in strength generally shows through.

Weaker teams, in desperation, might see the odd moment for a desperate, all or nothing lunge for glory... especially once they are trailing in a series... but that's why you need to make sure you NEVER go behind: so you're not put in the sort of a desperate situation that makes a glory-bid a higher percentage option than playing tough cricket.

I'm sick and tired of teams worrying about results: they should just bat as long and hard as possible and then see what happens when they bowl. If the game peters out then sobeit: go away and think about whether the bowlers could have done better... if the answers yes, make a plan to do ensure they do perform better next time and move on... and if not... credit the opposition batsmen, curse the groundsman and... move on.

Last edited by Rachael : 26-01-2007 at 09:14 AM.
Reply With Quote