Parmi | #1 draft pick | Jake King is **** | Big Bash League tipping champion of the universeCome and Paint Turtle
Look at SL's top six for the First Test match against Australia recently and add say Thirimanne, Chandimal and Paranativana.
Then they can play Herath and say Kulasakera which means that they are still showing some, not heaps but some inclination to win the match as Herath, Kula, Mathews, Dilshan have the potential to actually claim 10 third/fourth innings wickets.
I honestly think with increased batting lineups they would be very difficult to bowl out twice for the reasons mentioned earlier - competition for places and more cautious batting.
So really its only Dilshan who has increased his workload, although at the SCG in the most recent Test he bowled lots of overs (made bugger all though, so you could be right).
Dilshan wouldn't open in this team due to the increased workload.
How many runs do you think Aus or SA would be looking to make against that attack in a day? Remembering ring fields, third man and negative bowling.
Last edited by NUFAN; 14-01-2013 at 11:33 PM.
I'd expect 300 on day one and 400 on day two.
I know what you're saying, and in theory it's a much sounder concept than in practice.
This reminds me of Glenn Turner's tactics as NZ coach/selector in ODI's in the mid 90s.
Not the strongest side going around, but you can't knock the batting depth. Shane Thomson; who was a Test no. 4 at 9, Gavin Larsen - no mug- at 10 & Dion Nash - with a Test batting average over 20 - at 11. Even Dipak Patel batting at 8 batted 5 or 6 at Test level.
2nd ODI: West Indies v New Zealand at Port of Spain, Mar 29, 1996 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
Turner's basic philosophy was bat right down to 11 & have 6-7 slow accurate dibbly-doobly bowlers.
Strange that you brought up Gavin Larsen, because I was only reading an old thread where Richard thoroughly believed Larsen was a better one day bowler than both Brett Lee and Waqar Younis.
terrible posting in that thread
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts.. . For support rather than illumination. " - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
If I may mention Rugby I'd say the Springboks are a perfect example of playing ugly but winning. Yes I'd prefer if they'd played attractive rugby but at the end of the day winning is winning.
Going back to cricket, if a team is going to be outplayed and lose whilst looking pretty it doesn't help the team at all, their moral goes down and their spirit fades.
However if knowing that no matter what the other team throws at you you can stretch out a draw that will eventually give the team enough confidence to slow build up to winning a few. It also means your opponents have to throw the kitchen sink at you no matter how good they are, giving you more chance of a rare win.
To me fight and spirit is more important than pretty.
A draw isn't a win ftr.
Of course a draw isn't a win, but it's still better than losing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)