Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 17 of 17

Thread: The Pat Symcox theory

  1. #16
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Marburg, Germany
    Geez guys, no need to be so pedantic. Some analogies don't bear close scrutiny but all of the contradictions don't invalidate the idea either. It's true that;

    1) Winning three sessions in a row and/or;
    2) Winning the first session of a Test

    make it more likely that you're going to win said Test. It's not an iron-clad 'Idiots Guide For Winning test match Cricket' but just an observation followed by, as Goughy said, breaking the business of winning a Test down into achievable short-term goals. That's all.

    I haven't heard Symcox talk about it, but if it does have this theory it's hardly an amazing idea or anything. Pretty common sense that winning sessions helps you win the game.
    Indeed it is but that's the point of an idea like this; players often get caught up in worrying about winning an entire game when there's so much to happen between the toss and the final wicket. If your aim is to score 400 in your first innings, the weight of that amount of runs puts pressure on whereas if you aim for 80 per session, it's far easier on the brain. Seriously, it's a relatively new way of looking at winning games of cricket. Same has happened with ODI's; I suggest SA won that 400+ game with Australia because they broke down their scoring into 10-over blocks or something similar because before that point scoring 400 in a ODI would have been through impossible, let along hauling in a total like that to win.

  2. #17
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Yeah, just like the ten run partnerships between batsmen should aim like commentators used to say, aim for the first ten runs, and then the next, and so forth.
    Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick once and you suck forever...

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi, a true legend of CW

    Quote Originally Posted by Boobidy View Post
    Bradman never had to face quicks like Sharma and Irfan Pathan. He wouldn't of lasted a ball against those 2, not to mention a spinner like Sehwag.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Anyone have a theory on why.....
    By ttm in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 22-11-2007, 06:39 AM
  2. A theory
    By cover drive man in forum Twenty20 World Cup
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 26-07-2007, 10:39 AM
  3. Favorite Conspiracy Theory
    By Sanz in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 02-02-2006, 10:32 PM
  4. Nelsons ? What a theory !!!
    By FRAZ in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 30-09-2004, 01:57 AM
  5. My Theory
    By Paid The Umpire in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 29-07-2002, 02:42 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts