Seam v Spin? - In Sri Lanka>

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

Pietersons positive footwork was due to his positive mentality. If you look to score of every ball you will find that more often than not your feet movement - either forward or back is also positive and you are in the correct position to attack, block or leave the ball.

Though it abuses the idea of "positive" cricket, that's a very Australian way of looking at cricket... and is the mindset that is, to my mind, responsible for the dire batting in modern cricket: it's an attitude that works best when the game massively favours the batsmen.

The approach you advocate tends to be associated with looking to get on the front foot and with high hands and a high backlift (optimal for playing through the ball).. and whilst the likes of Lara might be light enough on his feet to retain perfectly level eyes and have the genius to slow the bat, play late and demonstrate great touch despite the ball being some way from his hands... when lesser batsmen try it the results tend to be shocking.

Most common problems arise from this approach: in many cases we see players not getting into line with the back foot, planting the front foot and playing around it, falling over to the off side and playing whilst not perfectly still; others avoid this only by failing to really move their feet at all; either way, many find themselves able to control the high backswing, and unable to cope with the distance between their hands and the ball - they end up unable to adjust to movement and to keep the ball down with soft hands... and give up, going hard at the ball with the bat ahead of the pad and hoping their powerful bat will ensure any mis-hits land safely.

There's a damn good reason why the classical approach to batting involves lingering on the back foot, with minimal backlift, looking to play with low hands and trusting that runs will come off careful placement into gaps - it's an approach that's perfectly suited to playing a ball that swings, seams and can leap high/ keep low... which is pretty much everything that's distinctive about cricket.

Ps. I do actually agree entirely on playing positively... I just dispute that playing positively means playing aggressively.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Though it abuses the idea of "positive" cricket, that's a very Australian way of looking at cricket... and is the mindset that is, to my mind, responsible for the dire batting in modern cricket: it's an attitude that works best when the game massively favours the batsmen.

I'm advocating a batsman having the mindset of going out there and scoring runs. It is the basis for a sound technique. If you are positive in your intentions then usually your foot movement is positive and if that is correct then your head naturally follows meaning you are in the correct position to play a shot.

The main flaw in modern techniques is the lack of positive footwork either way. Witness Cook today, he was nervous and just wanted to hang around so he half planted his foot down the wicket..... If he'd been positive in his mindset he'd have played later moved his feet more positivley and probably scored a run or 2 off that deleivery. Because to my mind a test class batsman should be able to cope with that particular deleivery with ease (straight full length and no movement)

Originally Posted by Rachael

The approach you advocate tends to be associated with looking to get on the front foot and with high hands and a high backlift (optimal for playing through the ball).. .

No, not really, I'm just advocating good footwork (off either foot) and looking to be positive! Afterall if you are in the correct position its easier to play a good defensive shot when the need arises. In my eyes the best way to play spin/medium place is use your feet and work the ball around.

Originally Posted by Rachael

There's a damn good reason why the classical approach to batting involves lingering on the back foot, with minimal backlift, looking to play with low hands and trusting that runs will come off careful placement into gaps - it's an approach that's perfectly suited to playing a ball that swings, seams and can leap high/ keep low... which is pretty much everything that's distinctive about cricket.

I'm not sure that thats the classical approach to batting. If you linger on the back foot to a good swing bowler you'll soon find yourself in the pavillion. Playing the ball late and using positive foot movements i.e right forward or getting correctly back and across is the way to play swing/seam.

If the pitch is slow then yes, there is merit in keeping a low backlift and working the ball around as firm footed hitting through the line is dangerous in those conditions,but playing like this makes it difficult to use your feet to a spinner and hit him over the top( the classical way to play spin). It also makes it difficult to play quicker bowling as faster pitches and you have to consider not all pitches are slow and thankfully so, cricket would be a boring game is all wickets were the same. This to me is what sorts the wheat from the chaff, only a few batsman or bowlers can impress in all conditions.

Edit: Just noticed your PS. It looks like we do agree on playing positively anyway. My biggest bugbears in test cricket are batsman throwing their wickets away by playing too agressively or getting out playing defensively by not being positive in their footwork.

[Rachael]

If you are comfortable that one can be looking to score whilst also having a technique based around a short backlift and trying to play the ball high on the bat then we're basically saying much the same thing... but I fear too many batsmen and would be (armchair) batsmen think you are only looking to score if you prepare with the bat lifted high enough to allow a full swing... and that you're only REALLY looking to score if you aim to use the sweetspot or toe of the bat to maximise the impact of the shot when you open your shoulders.

I don't go to the other extreme of saying the low backlift and low hands are the ONLY way to play... but I really do think the other way is best reserved {a} for truly outstanding batsmen of the callibre of Lara and Ponting (who can overcome the disadvantages of their approach through sheer virtuosity) and {b} guys playing in positions that see them protected (most commonly) from the new ball.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

... but I fear too many batsmen and would be (armchair) batsmen think you are only looking to score if you prepare with the bat lifted high enough to allow a full swing... and that you're only REALLY looking to score if you aim to use the sweetspot or toe of the bat to maximise the impact of the shot when you open your shoulders.

I agree with you there. Good attacking batting should be about looking to disrupt the bowler and fielders by constantly looking to work the ball around picking up ones and two's, not blocking 5 balls then belting one for 4.

But good batsman can use a variety of approches depending upon the condition of the wicket. i.e Thorpe. I remember watching a fantastic knock on a slow wicket in Pakistan when he scored a ton with only one boundary in it. But I've also seen him on faster pitches up his backlift and look to take the bowlers on.

When he was batting well he always had good positive footwork though.

[acker]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Would you agree acker that had England had Hoggard, Sidebottom, Broad as the England pace attack in 2005, that England would not have reclaimed the ashes?.

I strongly agree Ern.

Interestingly injuries aside and I put Jones in that category. Something changed in the mind's and personalities of England's key bowlers after the 2005 ashes win. Flintoff and Harmison appear to be content dining out on the fame that series win gave them. Yet appear to me half a world away not being interested in preparing themselves mentally or physically like they did prior to the 05 ashes win, for any subsequent series.

They have a swagger about them that suggests that cricket still owes them something and they owe it nothing.

Fame went to their head and they both seem to be stuck in each ones individual private life version of "Absolutely Fabulous"

A strong minded straight talking coach, captain or ex player maybe able to bring them back, but who would you send on the mission ?

Derek Randall

[greg]

Not really much point in trying as Flintoff has probably played his last test due to injury and Harmison is slipping down the pecking order with his diabolical performances and apart from an 18 month spell when everything went well his career has been very ordinary.

[south beds mikey]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Ashley Giles.

                     Mat  Runs  HS   BatAv 100  50   W    BB  BowlAv 5w  Ct St
 
unfiltered            54  1421  59   20.89   0   4 143  5/57   40.60  5  33  0
filtered               6    89  18   11.12   0   0  25  5/116  33.92  1   2  0

Monty Panesar.

                    Mat  Runs  HS   BatAv 100  50   W    BB  BowlAv 5w  Ct St
 
overall              20   124  26    7.29   0   0  73  6/129  30.80  6   3  0

For all the stck that Ashley Giles has taken, looking at his record v Panesar, they are almost identical in terms of bowling.

Giles about 3 wickets a match, with Panesar slightly more.

The filtered stats for Giles is his record in Sri Lanka.
Both players have good econ rates, and Panesar with a strike rate in the 60's, surley that means that with Englands depleted seam attack - both Swann and Panesar should bowl with Hoggard and Broad as England's main seamers in the coming first test in Sri Lanka.

I would not normally advocate playing two spinners in any circumstances, but due to Flintoff - Harmison and Anderson being injured - then it must make sence to vary the attack rather than play a one paced seam attack.

Anyone agree?.

Are you trying to slip this one past my Bedfordshire radar Ern?!!

Almost identical bowling records? An average of 40 against 30? How is that identical? 5 5fers in 54 against 6 5fers in 20? An average of 2.6 wickets per match to 3.6 wickets per match identical? Not even almost my old friend. The truth is in any BOWLING comparison Panesar is head and shoulders above Giles.

Can't tell you however how strongly I agree both Panesar and Swann should have payed in this game.

We are right up against it now and without some major break through early on tomorrow its yet another set of away day blues for us I'm afraid.

We should definately be playing our 2 spinners here and whilst as we all know the mighty Ern and I disagree on our captains merits why on Earth has he not bowled a few himself Today?!!

[acker]

Originally Posted by greg

Not really much point in trying as Flintoff has probably played his last test due to injury and Harmison is slipping down the pecking order with his diabolical performances and apart from an 18 month spell when everything went well his career has been very ordinary.

If those two players are washed up at this stage of their career's (which is very premature to retirement)

England has far deeper problems in it's Cricket than coaching and leadership issues.

Further down the England tree player motivation, physical conditioning and medical treatment must be looked at because you can not afford to have talented players who are few and far between not playing out their full careers.

Lately England seems to have become big on sourcing new talent, but also seems big on letting existing talent in the team wane.

I suggest you seriously look at high performance management. And the physical and mental preparation of existing talented players. I don't think England can afford the luxury of having Flintoff, Jones, Vaughan, Harmison and Tresothwick out of soughts either with their body or their mind.

England needs to manage these elite players better, today it's these guy's tomorrow it may be Bell, Pieterson and Panesar.

Ponting, Gilchrist, Clarke, Symonds, Hayden and Lee have their share of injury and form slumps with Australia. But notice they are usually only temporary glitches lasting a few months. England's stars seem to suffer near on permanent ones.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Re the the last line of that acker, between the last ashes series and the next the aussies will have played 6 or 8 test matches - england 21. And then add about a million ODIs. No wonder they're knackered.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child

Re the the last line of that acker, between the last ashes series and the next the aussies will have played 6 or 8 test matches - england 21. And then add about a million ODIs. No wonder they're knackered.

Spot on Rich - you said it all.