What do you value in a captain?

[Prince EWS]

It has no logic bcos at any other time you are trying to get the batsman out. At no other time does the fielding skipper decide which one of the 2 batsmen am I more likely to dismiss and then feed runs to the other. Just have some faith in your bowlers to dismiss any batsman who happens to be facing.

Like Chappell, you're confusing "I disagree with the logic" with "it has no logic".

It clearly has a logical basis to it, even if you disagree with it. It's bloody obvious.

 

[uvelocity]

unlike chappell pews, being a robot, has only logic and no emotion

 

[Jono]

Like Chappell, you're confusing "I disagree with the logic" with "it has no logic".

It clearly has a logical basis to it, even if you disagree with it. It's bloody obvious.

Really is simple isn't it?

 

[the big bambino]

Well it has no logic really. You may have voices in your head that compel you to dress like a woman and call yourself Monique but a sane person isn't obliged to see the "logic" in it. Neither can I credit an action by captain to effectively give up getting a batsman out just bcos he's one wicket away from closing an innings as logical. I mean who knows; that 1 wicket might be the guy you've given up getting out. A plan contrary to the usual that got you the 1st 9 wickets. You see logic in that then fine. I see an action that is based on fallacious logic. Might even call it a mistake.

 

[Jono]

This is rough :/

It may be semantics now but I'm going to engage anyway.

I thought it was wrong to bat Sachin at 4 in the 2007 World Cup. Why take the best ever ODI opener and make him bat 4? But I can't say that the decision by Greg Chappell to do that had no logic. He believed Sachin had more to offer when NOT opening than Uthappa or Sehwag would when NOT opening, even if Sachin was a better opener than the both of them.

Similarly, I do not always agree with a captain deciding to not 100% try and get a batsman out when there is a tailender on the other end. But there is clear logic to their thought process, even if its wrong. They think that getting the tailender on strike for 4-5 balls will get a wicket faster than trying to get the set batsman out. They could be wrong. It may be dumb. But its not illogical.

Something illogical is needing to get to the airport in 30 minutes or you'll miss your flight so you decide to run there instead of driving.

 

[the big bambino]

Something illogical is needing to get to the airport in 30 minutes or you'll miss your flight so you decide to run there instead of driving.

Or you are a fielding captain and you don't try and get a batsmen out. And yet fool yourself that you have a plan. Look I couldn't care less as I really I loved it when the other guys stopped trying to get our batsman out and go for the tailender. Frankly I loled. Bcos I hardly ever saw it work. Thought we were back in the game with a chance. Happened time again. Repeating the same old thing and expecting a different result. Thats not logic. Its madness. And a criminal failure to learn.

 

[benchmark00]

 

[uvelocity]

what bambinos should be doing

 

[Red]

well it has no logic really. You may have voices in your head that compel you to dress like a woman and call yourself monique.

asl?

 

[the big bambino]

Well its not a cricket forum without sledging. Afterwards I recalled Jardine recommending an analogous tactic to combat Bradman after bodyline. Admittedly it made sense but in the context of that circumstance.

I suppose a similar argument can be had abt the value of nightwatchmen: Why send in a bowler instead of the next batsmen... I'm not a fan of nightwatchen but I suppose can see the reasoning in using them. (I just can't see the reasoning in dropping your plans to get a batsmen out in pursuit of his partner).

If thats not much of a distinction then all I can say is that nightwatchmen are more successful than tail ender chasing. So I can see the logic in trying the tactic initially but not now when there's enough proof to show it usually backfires. Anyway I M (with) Chappell on this one.

 

[Jono]

I M (with) Chappell

Solid.

 

[benchmark00]

'Tailended chasing' works about 95% of the time. It's just that when it doesn't work you hear about it.

 

[the big bambino]

Well I must have watched the 5% of the time when it 100% didn't work.

 

[benchmark00]

No, you just must listen to Ian Chappell too much, or maybe it's the fact that you don't notice that's what they're doing when it works straight away??

Funny that.

 

[Red]

Tailend chasing in the grade of cricket I play is a great tactic. As is deliberately not dismissing a batsman who is not scoring runs, especially in one dayers. And it ****s in the face of older "heroes" who hide themselves down at number 7 or 8 in a batting line up, and expect to come out swinging with 10 overs to go.

 

[the big bambino]

No, you just must listen to Ian Chappell too much, or maybe it's the fact that you don't notice that's what they're doing when it works straight away??

Funny that.

Look: I've listened to him and I've read what you've said. I've seen with mine own eyes. I've come to my own conclusion.

 

[Furball]

The thing that ****s me off about the "let's bowl at the tailender" tactic is that for some reason the batsman who you're setting the field back to looks impregnable.

 

[Hurricane]

The thing that ****s me off about the "let's bowl at the tailender" tactic is that for some reason the batsman who you're setting the field back to looks impregnable.

Indeed - even when I've seen it at club level it seems to fuel the incumbent batsman's confidence like nothing else. I am not arguing against the tactic just that yes all of a sudden the guy who is on 56 starts batting like he's on 456.

 

[Jnr.]

The thing that ****s me off about the "let's bowl at the tailender" tactic is that for some reason the batsman who you're setting the field back to looks impregnable.

I agree. The whole mood of the game changes and the batsman knows that you're not trying to dismiss him. Also, modern tailenders have the ability to survive for extended periods...

 

[uvelocity]

well extended period is a failure of the captain to recognise the tactic has past its effective usefulness. it's designed to get the bunny on strike quick and wrap it up. if the guy deals with it, well its time to change tactic.