Why ugly can be beautiful

[silentstriker]

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/377894.html

Who is this Christian Ryan and can I marry him?

I don't think its possible for me to agree with this guy any more. And it's pretty much what I've been arguing with Top_Cat and others about, though with much less eloquence.

 

[Top_Cat]

As I said to you before, I'm not arguing that defence doesn't have its place. I just won't be watching, personal preference and all that. And I'm not talking about hitting 4's all the time, I'm talking about attacking, aggressive cricket with both bat and ball. That's what I like to see.

 

[silentstriker]

As I said to you before, I'm not arguing that defence doesn't have its place. I just won't be watching, personal preference and all that. And I'm not talking about hitting 4's all the time, I'm talking about attacking, aggressive cricket with both bat and ball. That's what I like to see.

I know what you're saying though. I'm just saying that's not Test cricket. I don't want Test cricket to turn into the very thing it's threatened by.

Test cricket can be just as exciting when it seems to stumble along, and then it explodes in activity. It's part of the fun. Obviously its personal preference for you, I'm just saying it would not be in the game's best interest to try to turn it into a T20.

 

[silentstriker]

Err, I'm not saying you want Test cricket to turn into T20, by the way.

You won't find anyone who loves six men in the slips more than I do. But I think test cricket would lose a lot if it was always like that.

 

[krkode]

I'm talking about attacking, aggressive cricket with both bat and ball. That's what I like to see.

There is a form of cricket that is attacking and aggressive all the time and it's called 20-20. Or ODI cricket.

When it comes to test cricket, this is where you see tactics most skillfully employed, and yes, sometimes there will be slow bits but that, in the end, is what makes the twists and turns all the more exciting. Probably this is going too far, but I thought Dhoni's method of shutting the Aussie 4 RPO scoring rate down to turn the game and take the win was nothing short of genius.

Btw, read the article this morning, probably one of the best I've ever read on cricinfo.

 

[silentstriker]

Thinking about it:

I've actually defended Test cricket before and gave the reason that usually someone is attacking, whether its the batting team or bowling team, and I think that reason is fair enough. And I've lambasted middle overs ODI for the fact that the bowlers are containing and batsmen are just saving their wickets. So what Top Cat said is fair enough.

Though I must say I enjoyed the defensive cricket in the fourth test.

 

[Top_Cat]

Err, I'm not saying you want Test cricket to turn into T20, by the way.

Can everyone who replies to this thread and my post, please remember this?

If I can provide an example and be very general, I loved watching the 2005 Ashes because both sides were going balls-out at each other, Michael Vaughan even managed to turn in-out fields into an attacking weapon. The recent series was more of an attritional contest, both sides baiting the other into making mistakes. Prefer the former.

 

[Top_Cat]

Thinking about it:

I've actually defended Test cricket before and gave the reason that usually someone is attacking, whether its the batting team or bowling team, and I think that reason is fair enough. And I've lambasted middle overs ODI for the fact that the bowlers are containing and batsmen are just saving their wickets. So what Top Cat said is fair enough.

Though I must say I enjoyed the defensive cricket in the fourth test.

Yep, bloody good point. The middle-overs of ODI's, for me, generally, make me switch-off. That's, in fact, why I like Twenty20 so much; takes the best bits of a ODI (first 10 and last 10) and makes a game of them although, as I've said, there's far more tactical subtlety than is given credit too. As we've said before, blokes who stand there and swing don't last in Twenty20 and have almost universally failed.

 

[krkode]

Taking it further, are negative/defensive tactics justifiable as a means to an end and can that still be considered "strategy" or "tactical know-how?" What I mean is, had the Aussies kept up their scoring rate and scored 500-odd in their first innings, it's very likely the game would have ended in a draw, or an Indian defeat.

In that light, wasn't what Dhoni did, in a sense, "beautiful?" He basically negated the two undesirable outcomes with what some have argued was unattractive cricket. It is unfortunate the Australians didn't have a reply for it... I'm sure that if it was ever tried against them again, they will have some answer.

I suppose I don't feel as affected by what he did because I don't watch games anymore but am relegated to reading about it in cricinfo and on here.

*sniffle*

 

[slugger]

BRISBANE, NOVEMBER 2001
How often does a team hit three centuries in the first innings of a test and come within 10 runs of defeat? Australia rattled on 486 for nine declared, Justin Langer, Matthew Hayden and Adam Gilchrist hitting the treble. Stephen Fleming waited until the follow-on was averted before promptly declaring New Zealand at 287 for eight.

By this stage it was well into the final morning. Australia's captain Steve Waugh, preaching a push towards more positive, attacking cricket, declared Australia at 84 for two second time round. That left New Zealand 284 to win and they gave the Aussies a real fright.

Australia resorted to shabby tactics, having Glenn McGrath bowl full and wide outside the off stump late on as Fleming (57), Astle (49) and Chris Cairns, with 43 off 38 balls, pushed New Zealand to the point of an improbable win.

They finished on 274 for six and were left to ponder a game in which they'd been outboxed until the final afternoon. Waugh, having declared giving his team no chance of winning and copping plenty for it, breathed a sigh of relief and didn't make the same mistake again.


this game is an interesting game two captains keen on attacking and positive cricket.. one captain how ever had a larger pool of resources ie Waugh to push for a positive game Fleming obliged but when push came to shove Waugh shut the shop down... surely the diffention of a odi wide should be applied to test cricket... this rule change alone would create more attacking and positive cricket..

 

[krkode]

Can everyone who replies to this thread and my post, please remember this?

If I can provide an example and be very general, I loved watching the 2005 Ashes because both sides were going balls-out at each other, Michael Vaughan even managed to turn in-out fields into an attacking weapon. The recent series was more of an attritional contest, both sides baiting the other into making mistakes. Prefer the former.

Of course, Ashes 2005 was an amazing series. I think almost any series played in the last decade would pale in comparison. Because unfortunately, the way cricket is, to have a series like that we need two fairly evenly matched teams. An Australia without McGrath and England 2005 happened to be in just the right balance to provide for one hec of a series.

Would you agree that part of what made Nagpur day 3 unattractive was its one-sidedness? In the sense that Australia just didn't know how to reply? Because I agree, that one-sided contests make for dull cricket... Watching the Aussies roll through weak test teams in a 2-day test match is pretty boring, because it's kind of the same thing there - the other team just didn't know how to respond to the awesomeness that was McGrath and so they folded and the expected result came to fruition and what came to be at the end of the day was a dull test match that Australian fans didn't care for, and fans of the team that got rolled most certainly didn't care for.

I don't think it's realistic to expect conditions and teams to be as evenly matched as they were in Ashes 2005. And when one team is slightly better or slightly more in form or more comfortable in the playing conditions the longer games get, the more that team seems to pull away and the more the other team loses its way. I think it's the unfortunate reality behind test cricket, and part of why it is losing its following.

EDIT: y'know, this just sounds like rambling... I need sleep.

 

[silentstriker]

If I can provide an example and be very general, I loved watching the 2005 Ashes because both sides were going balls-out at each other, Michael Vaughan even managed to turn in-out fields into an attacking weapon. The recent series was more of an attritional contest, both sides baiting the other into making mistakes. Prefer the former.

You can prefer the former, but I don't think test cricket would be the same without the latter too.

 

[silentstriker]

surely the diffention of a odi wide should be applied to test cricket... this rule change alone would create more attacking and positive cricket..

No, no, please no. That would be terrible. I know Test cricket is suffering, but I don't think artificially changing the whole complexion of the sport is the right thing.

 

[nightprowler10]

No, no, please no. That would be terrible. I know Test cricket is suffering, but I don't think artificially changing the whole complexion of the sport is the right thing.

Yeah if anything the legside wide needs to be altered in the ODIs.

 

[Top_Cat]

You can prefer the former, but I don't think test cricket would be the same without the latter too.

Pretty sure I agreed it has its place. Like I said, I won't be watching though. Mind you, I've always preferred to be playing the game than watching anyway so if the cricket isn't appealing on the box, I'll head out for a hit at the nets or a game.

 

[Top_Cat]

Of course, Ashes 2005 was an amazing series. I think almost any series played in the last decade would pale in comparison. Because unfortunately, the way cricket is, to have a series like that we need two fairly evenly matched teams. An Australia without McGrath and England 2005 happened to be in just the right balance to provide for one hec of a series.

The cricket was top-shelf too, though. The sides being evenly-matched is one factor but that they went for the throat most the series was what was appealing. Aggressive quick bowling coupled with aggressive batting, even when they were in trouble.

Would you agree that part of what made Nagpur day 3 unattractive was its one-sidedness? In the sense that Australia just didn't know how to reply? Because I agree, that one-sided contests make for dull cricket... Watching the Aussies roll through weak test teams in a 2-day test match is pretty boring, because it's kind of the same thing there - the other team just didn't know how to respond to the awesomeness that was McGrath and so they folded and the expected result came to fruition and what came to be at the end of the day was a dull test match that Australian fans didn't care for, and fans of the team that got rolled most certainly didn't care for.

That wasn't what I didn't like. What I didn't like was that the contest was really only equal because the pitches were flat. I reckon Dhoni really responded with negative tactics not just because he wanted to win but because the pitches being so bland didn't allow him to attack. Annoys me that the pitches, rather than sheer skill, were the 'equaliser' in this series. If the pitches were even a little more spicy, I'd suggest that India wouldn't have needed to resort to defensive tactics because they probably would have really hammered the Aussies, even if the Aussies won the 1st test. If one side schools another because they're just too good, do it skillfully, etc. I find that easier to watch than a match where both sides, because of the deck, have to rely on the opposition to make mistakes. Like I said, personal preference more than anything.

 

[Ikki]

I think that was a very well-written article. Personally, I have no problem with what Dhoni did - I didn't like it but I wouldn't be talking about rule changes. Had Ponting done it, he would have probably gotten more flack (simply because he keeps preaching positive cricket) but I would have been happy had it gotten the desired result.

Too often people talk about sport in a context which rings of pure entertainment. That's just wrong. This is a competition. The players, while entertaining the public, see it as a test of wits and Test cricket is the test of wits in world sports - or what I know of world sports.

Highs, lows, whatever. The reason we have highs and/or lows is because we care about the result. If we didn't, we'd turn Cricket into a version of WWE wrestling where the fixture is already decided before the coin toss.

You simply will not see a series where all our favourite batsmen or bowlers (from both sides) perform beautifully; averaging 50+ with the bat or in the 20s with the ball. Somebody has to fail; somebody has to be ugly; in order for someone else to succeed; in order for there to be some beauty.

The Ashes 05 were beautiful. But not because it was evenly matched IMO. Australia were woeful, bar Warne, and England were good enough to beat them. It was exciting because it had been almost two decades since England got the desired result and that it was, in a way, unexpected, giving even more glow to the result.

So, in essense, we care about Cricket because it is a competition. The players care because it is a competition. Cricket is result-based and hence defines it as a competition above all else. I do not want it to be less of a competition just because people have a subjective view of what is beautiful.

 

[vic_orthdox]

BRISBANE, NOVEMBER 2001
How often does a team hit three centuries in the first innings of a test and come within 10 runs of defeat? Australia rattled on 486 for nine declared, Justin Langer, Matthew Hayden and Adam Gilchrist hitting the treble. Stephen Fleming waited until the follow-on was averted before promptly declaring New Zealand at 287 for eight.

By this stage it was well into the final morning. Australia's captain Steve Waugh, preaching a push towards more positive, attacking cricket, declared Australia at 84 for two second time round. That left New Zealand 284 to win and they gave the Aussies a real fright.

Australia resorted to shabby tactics, having Glenn McGrath bowl full and wide outside the off stump late on as Fleming (57), Astle (49) and Chris Cairns, with 43 off 38 balls, pushed New Zealand to the point of an improbable win.

They finished on 274 for six and were left to ponder a game in which they'd been outboxed until the final afternoon. Waugh, having declared giving his team no chance of winning and copping plenty for it, breathed a sigh of relief and didn't make the same mistake again.


this game is an interesting game two captains keen on attacking and positive cricket.. one captain how ever had a larger pool of resources ie Waugh to push for a positive game Fleming obliged but when push came to shove Waugh shut the shop down... surely the diffention of a odi wide should be applied to test cricket... this rule change alone would create more attacking and positive cricket..

The only reason that NZ were in the game was because of a generous declaration to keep NZ in the rain affected game. Australia were well within their rights to do what they did with their bowling lines, considering that they were the only reason that NZ were even in the game, and had made all the running.

 

[slugger]

The only reason that NZ were in the game was because of a generous declaration to keep NZ in the rain affected game. Australia were well within their rights to do what they did with their bowling lines, considering that they were the only reason that NZ were even in the game, and had made all the running.

i disagree.. if waugh is going tp preach positive and attacking cricket ..he sees it to the end.. remember fleming declared first ..gee if waugh wanted to draw the match he could have continued on batting.. but he didnt he wanted to show nz ..show austrslia ..show the world hes not afraid of the challenge and that his team was capable of getting 10 wickets...nonetheless he couldnt do it... and for some lame defence bowling law he got out of there by the skin of his teeth.

 

[Richard]

He didn't do it to try and win, Australia had almost no chance of winning that game. Fact is, had that game's lost time been made-up, it's highly likely Australia would've won. I was wholly surprised Stephen Waugh decided to set NZ a target that meant that effectively only NZ could win the game. Especially in the opening Test of a series, risking defeat in effect to give the crowd something interesting rather than boring is an extremely odd strategy.