Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: What's so wrong with negative fields anyway?

  1. #1
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Colombo
    Posts
    14

    What's so wrong with negative fields anyway?

    When England set cautious fields they are called tactically na´ve; but they win

    A month ago, I had one of the most interesting conversations I've ever had about sport. It was in a tiny restaurant in Paris with the brilliant football writer Simon Kuper. The subject was how Spain became the world's dominant football culture.

    Spain have now won Euro 2008, the 2010 World Cup and Euro 2012. They are also currently world champions at Under-19 and U-17 levels. The Spanish way - high skill, brilliant passing, and little focus on physical size or brutality - has mastered the world. Not only are Spain serial winners, they have also set football's philosophical agenda.

    Our conversation in Paris began with football, but I realised afterwards that the question applied to all sports. How do games evolve? Can original thinkers change their sports forever? Is intelligence - or better still, insight - the most underused resource in sport? Can you think your way to success?

    Kuper explained to me that the origins of modern football began with a single inspired insight by the superb Dutch player and coach Johan Cruyff. Like many great ideas it sounds obvious but it is actually profound. The pass, that is what really matters in football. The precision, the perfection of the pass. Everything else - the arm-waving, the brave running around, the passionate sweat and tears - is peripheral. Being better at passing is what wins football matches.

    Prompted by Cruyff, Barcelona set up La Masia academy to educate players about the pass. When you watch Spain mesmerise opponents, you are watching an idea brought to life. There is a bloodline that runs from Cruyff - via Pep Guardiola - to Xavi, Iniesta and FÓbregas, the champions of Europe, champions of the world. One idea changed the game forever. Spanish dominance is not just based on skill. It is founded on brains.

    Yet the most interesting part of the story is the resistance to Spain's success, the refusal to follow the logic that has created it. Throughout Euro 2012, English pundits continued to accuse Spain of being "boring". The English old guard even condemned Spain's selection and tactics. How risk-averse, how stupid of Spain not to play a centre forward at all? Well, Spain won the final 4-0, without playing a centre forward for much of the game. Their first goal was brilliantly set up by FÓbregas, a midfielder picked instead of a regular centre forward. Stupid Spain, boring Spain? Behind the insult, observe the anger. When a pack of conventional thinkers are confused, they lash out at what they don't understand.

    We see the same criticisms thrown around in cricket, the same reluctance to accept that new thinking might lead to better results. Here is an example. Pundits often ridicule captains for setting "negative" fields. The assumption is that it is always a "positive" move (i.e. that it will lead to more wickets) to have more slips and fewer fielders saving the single.

    But what is positive, what is negative?

    When I was a player, I often liked batting against very "positive" fields. Because I liked to bat at a reasonable tempo, feeling that the scoreboard was ticking along. Many players have a natural tempo, a pace of scoring that makes them feel they are in control. In a perfect world, of course, batsmen should be able to defend for hours without worrying about the scoring rate. But most batsmen are human beings.

    That's why I often found it easier to score runs against flashy, "positive" captains, who were always trying to set eye-catching "aggressive" fields. While they were arranging catchers in apparently original groupings, runs flowed from the bat. I would much rather bat against an egotistical captain trying to impress the crowd than an unobtrusive captain trying to stop me batting in the way that suited me.

    Now I've retired, I can reveal an effective and underused tactic: stop people scoring (whatever the type of match) and you'll probably get them out. This has become even more relevant to Test cricket during the era of T20 cricket. Batsmen have become increasingly used to hitting boundaries in Test cricket because T20 has changed the way people feel about their natural scoring rate. That's why Andrew Strauss is unafraid to have more fielders saving one and fewer catchers in Test cricket.

    When England set cautious fields, they too are called "tactically na´ve". And they win. When Spain don't play a centre forward, they are called boring and tactically na´ve. And they win.

    It is time to revisit some definitions. What are tactics but tools for winning sports matches? And since when was it na´ve to play to your strengths?

    A case study of thinking and winning is the story of the Oakland Athletics in baseball. Thanks to the book, and now film, Moneyball, it is has become one of the famous stories in sport. As with Cruyff's insight about the pass, the over-performance of the Oakland A's began with a single insight. The best way to approach winning a baseball match is not thinking about scoring runs. It is to focus on getting on base. A run is usually the by-product of getting on base. Runs are hard to predict; getting on base is much easier to assess and calculate. So the Athletics focused on the tractable, controllable parts of the match, ignoring the headline-grabbing end-product.

    In 2002 the Athletics unveiled their new strategy. Guess what: the pack of baseball pundits and insiders didn't like it. They accused the Athletics of wrong-headedness, hubris and over-intellectualism. Undeterred, Oakland won a record 103 matches out of 162.

    Conventional wisdom moves at a glacial pace because people become attached to ideas that are no longer relevant. Military historians say that generals are always preparing to fight the war that has just ended. So it is in sport.

    Boring Spain, na´ve England, wrong-headed Oakland? I prefer the idea that sport is always evolving, with new ideas driving the pace of change.

    From the desk of Ed Smith

  2. #2
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Spikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    All Glory To The Nev
    Posts
    32,625
    that article doesn't really even confront, let alone answer, the age old question: should you have more than one slip in place bowling to number 11?
    Indians can't bowl - Where has the rumour come from as I myself and many indian friends arwe competent fast bowlers ?

    With the English bid I said: Let us be brief. If you give back the Falkland Islands, which belong to us, you will get my vote. They then became sad and left

  3. #3
    International Captain wellAlbidarned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    away from the palms
    Posts
    6,335
    When people complain about "negative" fields, they're not generally talking about having the extra man in the covers, or a silly midwicket to stop the single, they're talking about having four fielders on the boundary for Tino Best.
    Exit pursuing a beer

  4. #4
    International Debutant Viscount Tom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Leeds, G.O.C.
    Posts
    2,366
    I can understand having some men back at a no.11 but you've got to have the catching positions in place or there's gonna end up taking time out of the game for your team and probably score runs in some fashion too.
    AT-XI
    #J.Hobbs; #L.Hutton; #D.Bradman; #V.Richards; #G.Sobers; #A.Border; #A.Gilchrist; #K.Miller; #I.Khan; #S.Warne; #M.Marshall;


  5. #5
    International Regular kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    3,986
    What they are talking about is being on top and having a sweeper back and watching balls go through the vacant second slip for four anyway.
    Aus. XI
    Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2


    W.I. XI
    Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4

    S.A. XI
    Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Waite+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2

    Eng. XI
    Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3

  6. #6
    International Captain wellAlbidarned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    away from the palms
    Posts
    6,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Viscount Tom View Post
    I can understand having some men back at a no.11 but you've got to have the catching positions in place or there's gonna end up taking time out of the game for your team and probably score runs in some fashion too.
    The last thing you want to do is let a no 11 believe that he's a real batsman. If he slogs a couple to the boundary then keep the men up, his luck will run out pretty quickly.

  7. #7
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    41,390
    I just find them, I dunno, kinda negative.
    WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
    "People make me happy.. not places.. people"

    "When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson

    "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn

  8. #8
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Spikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    All Glory To The Nev
    Posts
    32,625
    they ruin the good vibes man

  9. #9
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    41,390
    Yeah, bummer.

  10. #10
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,510
    He's right, of course, but it's fine by me if everyone wants to pretend that the type of cricket we all want to see is more effective than it actually is.
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    The Filth have comfortably the better bowling. But the Gash have the batting. Might be quite good to watch.

  11. #11
    State Vice-Captain Debris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    1,299
    I think negative implies that you are counting on your opponent beating themselves, something great sides don't need to do. People don't really like it because sides are acknowledging they have limitations.

  12. #12
    U19 Debutant
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    389
    One thing the movie MoneyBall or the Author does not confront is that the Athletics Team had 9 players(identified) in their roster who were on drugs...One of the reasons why they won that many..Is it the Game that Spain plays is boring? or they are called boring because there is no contest when Spain plays...almost like the 90's Aussies..I cannot imagine somebody(English writers) would say Spain's game is boring..
    Last edited by doesitmatter; 06-07-2012 at 09:11 AM.

  13. #13
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,439
    What's so civil about war anyway?
    Quote Originally Posted by DingDong View Post
    gimh has now surpassed richard as the greatest cw member ever imo

    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

  14. #14
    Cricketer Of The Year Cabinet96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    9,501
    Quote Originally Posted by wellAlbidarned View Post
    When people complain about "negative" fields, they're not generally talking about having the extra man in the covers, or a silly midwicket to stop the single, they're talking about having four fielders on the boundary for Tino Best.
    IIRC, the sky commies regularly moaned about England only having 2 slips and a gully in the Ashes, and they might have done the same thing against India as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    This English top three are cornflakes. They're not the most exciting thing out but they're pretty effective. Then the middle order are the sugar. Would be too much on their own but added to the cornflakes they add some much needed interest

    When KP returns he will be the banana..

  15. #15
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Locked up inside my opium den, surrounded by some Chinamen
    Posts
    45,072
    My tuppence worth is that it's partly a risk/reward thing for the bowlers in England's case. Bresnan and particularly Broad have looked far better bowlers when they've pitched it up and have been prepared to be driven.

    No bowler worth his salt likes going for runs, so (and one can only guess whether it's come at the bowlers' or the captain's behest) the pay off for the fuller length is more cover on the drive.
    Cricket Web's 2013/14 Premier League Tipping Champion

    - As featured in The Independent.

    "The committee discussed the issue of illegal bowling actions, and believed that there are a number of bowlers currently employing suspect actions in international cricket, and that the ICC's reporting and testing procedures are not adequately scrutinising these bowlers."
    - Even the ICC's own official press release thinks things must change

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. What is wrong with Leicester Ricky?
    By World Cricket in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 16-06-2009, 03:53 PM
  2. European Parliamentary Elections
    By cover drive man in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: 09-06-2009, 01:13 AM
  3. When I Was Wrong!
    By archie mac in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 151
    Last Post: 24-10-2008, 12:29 PM
  4. Fields
    By Darren in forum General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 24-06-2007, 11:25 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
  •