Entertaining cricket vs Good cricket

[Uppercut]

The line between the two is very blurry in a lot of cricket-watchers' minds. The consensus among fans, pundits and commentators is that almost all modern field settings are too defensive, all declarations occur at least an hour later than necessary, and every batsman isn't playing enough shots.

This applies to almost every criticism you hear on Sky's commentary these days. Some criticisms are completely illogical, like keeping the field in for a batsman that isn't taking singles. But they're defended with vague clichés like "sending a message" and "applying pressure". As an aside, the concept of pressure in cricket needs scrapped. If it can usually be used to defend both sides of an argument, it's not a useful concept.

Anyway, I bring this up now because Cribb cornered it in the NZ tour thread:

What I find interesting is that some of the people who have been very critical of Cook's declaration timing here are the same people who would've applauded Smith's declaration here under the logic of "there's no difference between 2-0 and 1-0." The overall series result is either infinitely more important than the scoreline or it's not; it's not a theory that should change depending on whether it backs up what you want to see as a spectator or not. If there was no difference between 2-0 and 1-0 there then the same logic applies here.

But I think it's even more widespread than that. I reckon it probably applies to the majority of disagreements between the guys playing and the guys watching.

 

[Flem274*]

It really depends on the situation.

Cook got away with his declaration, but criticism at the time it was made was completely justified for reasons I outlined in the tour thread just now. England lost time and gained no further advantage.

Field in vs field spread also depends on how many runs you have to play with, what the match situation is and the batsman in question. Putting a man on the cover boundary to someone like Rutherford or a similar player and giving him the single makes the risk:reward ratio worse for Rutherford in theory since he is getting less runs for his attacking stroke, but he's also getting off strike and escaping a working over. He also puts a new man on strike that the bowler will have to adjust his plan to, especially if they're a right hander or a very different batsman, so the bowler has to be able to adjust ball after ball rather than settle into an examination of Rutherford.

Rutherford is also not going to go as hard at the ball when he can see a sweeper as opposed to if the boundary is right there. He will be happy to knock it into the gap rather than smash it, which decreases the risk of the shot a bit (Rutherford is probably a bad example, so feel free to substitute in Michael Hussey).

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah I'm not really commenting on the strategies themselves. My point is just that defensive tactics attract such a disproportionate level of criticism. Third man has been criminally under-used for years, but you don't get Botham's "I just don't understand it" rant about that. But you do get rants about the lack of a third slip on pitches where there's almost no chance at all of the ball carrying to one.

 

[Top_Cat]

Stuff like a declaration is so match-dependent, though. Depends too heavily on who your oppo is and how they're travelling for binary comparisons like this, tbh.

 

[Top_Cat]

If it can usually be used to defend both sides of an argument, it's not a useful concept.

Only at the fan level. We're making so many guesses about who's under the gun in a match, the vast majority of them could be wrong.

Acknowledging both sides are under pressure even in a prima facie one-sided situation is just an acknowledgement that even when things are in your favour, against good players, you still have to do the job and momentum can swing back to them fairly easily. On a green deck, against guys who can bat, you still have to be quite a talented bowler or they'll make it look easy and you'll have comms saying **** like "Hmm, looks like there was less in the deck than we thought."

 

[Uppercut]

Only at the fan level. We're making so many guesses about who's under the gun in a match, the vast majority of them could be wrong.

Acknowledging both sides are under pressure even in a prima facie one-sided situation is just an acknowledgement that even when things are in your favour, against good players, you still have to do the job and momentum can swing back to them fairly easily. On a green deck, against guys who can bat, you still have to be quite a talented bowler or they'll make it look easy and you'll have comms saying **** like "Hmm, looks like there was less in the deck than we thought."

My problem is that it can be used to advocate opposite positions. One captain might cut off the point boundary to keep the pressure on, another might keep a man at point stopping the single to keep the pressure on. So what's the point of even saying the bit about pressure? Might as well not provide any reasoning at all.

It seems to me to be a proxy for an underlying argument about how you expect the opposing team to react mentally to a particular situation. But it's now used for so many of those arguments that it doesn't actually add anything of value. At best it's vague and obscures the point you're trying to make, but most of the time it's just waffle.

 

[Pothas]

The line between the two is very blurry in a lot of cricket-watchers' minds. The consensus among fans, pundits and commentators is that almost all modern field settings are too defensive, all declarations occur at least an hour later than necessary, and every batsman isn't playing enough shots.

This applies to almost every criticism you hear on Sky's commentary these days. Some criticisms are completely illogical, like keeping the field in for a batsman that isn't taking singles. But they're defended with vague clichés like "sending a message" and "applying pressure". As an aside, the concept of pressure in cricket needs scrapped. If it can usually be used to defend both sides of an argument, it's not a useful concept.

I think this is something that the better commentators, such as Hussain, are aware of. It will be interesting to see what Strauss says on these sorts of issues later this summer. I rather fear that at first he will be rather too diplomatic but hope as he grows into it that we will hear a somewhat different opinion than what we are used to.

 

[sledger]

At least this thread should have no mention of Tendulkar.

 

[Burgey]

It's often the blokes who were conservative themselves who sit in the commentary box and say things are too negative now. FMD Bill Lawry will often say players need to get on with things, or a captain should take a risk - he once set the WI 700 to win a test ffs.

 

[Jono]

Fair enough the follow on debate may apply in this entertainment vs. good cricket discussion, but the declaration debate with Cook most certainly does not. It has very little to do with entertainment or wanting Cook to play the game as the fans want it. Its just simple - he batted on far longer than was required. England had already made a total that NZ were not chasing. The series was won. Yet they batted on another hour.

PEWS' theory that once England had chosen not to enforce the follow on it made sense to then play for the draw is fine up until England had a lead of 400. It was then impossible for England to lose.

This isn't about entertainment. This is about poor tactics. It doesn't mean it was the end of the world. But because I think Cook should have declared before he did doesn't mean I think Trott should have gone at 5rpo or England should have declared setting a chase of 300.

 

[Jono]

Yeah I'm not really commenting on the strategies themselves. My point is just that defensive tactics attract such a disproportionate level of criticism. Third man has been criminally under-used for years, but you don't get Botham's "I just don't understand it" rant about that. But you do get rants about the lack of a third slip on pitches where there's almost no chance at all of the ball carrying to one.

I could have sworn the whole 2005 Ashes was people going on about Ponting not having a third man

 

[Top_Cat]

My problem is that it can be used to advocate opposite positions. One captain might cut off the point boundary to keep the pressure on, another might keep a man at point stopping the single to keep the pressure on. So what's the point of even saying the bit about pressure? Might as well not provide any reasoning at all.

Depends who's batting and how they're travelling at the time. To use the point example on a specific player, Brian Lara, putting a bloke on the point fence when he wasn't batting so well is pressure building because he often needed a boundary to feel the pulse of the game. Putting a bloke at point when he was smashing them is pressure-building (or homicidal for the poor **** who has to cope with the blazing cut shot coming their way) because it's a pet shot he'd sweating on.

 

[Pothas]

Fair enough the follow on debate may apply in this entertainment vs. good cricket discussion, but the declaration debate with Cook most certainly does not. It has very little to do with entertainment or wanting Cook to play the game as the fans want it. Its just simple - he batted on far longer than was required. England had already made a total that NZ were not chasing. The series was won. Yet they batted on another hour.

PEWS' theory that once England had chosen not to enforce the follow on it made sense to then play for the draw is fine up until England had a lead of 400. It was then impossible for England to win.

This isn't about entertainment. This is about poor tactics. It doesn't mean it was the end of the world. But because I think Cook should have declared before he did doesn't mean I think Trott should have gone at 5rpo or England should have declared setting a chase of 300.

Yeah I found the whole debate rather tiresome but I wolud certainly not describe what England did after lunch as 'good cricket.'

The wider debate is an interesting one though.

 

[Uppercut]

Depends who's batting and how they're travelling at the time. To use the point example on a specific player, Brian Lara, putting a bloke on the point fence when he wasn't batting so well is pressure building because he often needed a boundary to feel the pulse of the game. Putting a bloke at point when he was smashing them is pressure-building (or homicidal for the poor **** who has to cope with the blazing cut shot coming their way) because it's a pet shot he'd sweating on.

Yeah definitely, those are the underlying arguments I was referring to. It adds something when you say "we should have a deep point because I don't think Lara responds well to not scoring any boundaries when he's in this form"- it's very easy to follow and form an opinion on whether it's a sound idea or not. Whereas saying "we should have a deep point to build pressure" could mean all kinds of things.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah. Commentators are generally ex-players and as such used to dealing with ex-players where stuff like that doesn't need to be made so explicit. At that standard, there's a lot of implicit knowledge borne from playing at such a high level. In fact, trying to be explicit can land you in trouble in some teams because it's stating what should be obvious so you're a 'weird unit'. That's why the best comms are those who can bridge the gap between top player and audience member and explain why stuff is happening in a detailed, meaningful way.

 

[honestbharani]

Well, there is a defensive captaincy and then there is ultra defensive captaincy.. I can understand giving the easy single to the batsman batting on 30 or 40+ to have a go at the less renowned batsman at the other end (or a tailender).. But then you see Dhoni spread the field to the #7 who averages 20 in the series just because he has a #9 batting at the other end (and the #9 is more than capable of hanging around).. Then it is just stupid because A) you are letting go of the chance to dismiss the #7 and B) you are giving away runs for free... It really depends on the situation, as others have said..

 

[GIMH]

Fair enough the follow on debate may apply in this entertainment vs. good cricket discussion, but the declaration debate with Cook most certainly does not. It has very little to do with entertainment or wanting Cook to play the game as the fans want it. Its just simple - he batted on far longer than was required. England had already made a total that NZ were not chasing. The series was won. Yet they batted on another hour.

PEWS' theory that once England had chosen not to enforce the follow on it made sense to then play for the draw is fine up until England had a lead of 400. It was then impossible for England to lose.

This isn't about entertainment. This is about poor tactics. It doesn't mean it was the end of the world. But because I think Cook should have declared before he did doesn't mean I think Trott should have gone at 5rpo or England should have declared setting a chase of 300.

There were, what, four and a half sessions left? Yes it rained and we knew it was going to but you don't declare on the forecast, not when you have all to lose and little to gain. Sure once we got to 400 you are getting in the realms of absurd as NZ weren't going to pull of a world record chase, but what was to be gained by leaving even the slightest of risks?

I'd have liked him to declare earlier just becaus I wanted us to wrap it up on Monday but clearly we were working to a specific RR scenario that we felt no team would chase. I don't think there's much wrong with that, personally.

If we were one down then you'd have to look at it differently but there you go. I guess i agree with your overall principle, ie don't bat on once the game isn't loseable but I think Cook is working off a worst case scenario when making his decisions. Exciting cricket it might not be but ultimately victory excites me most of all.

 

[honestbharani]

There were, what, four and a half sessions left? Yes it rained and we knew it was going to but you don't declare on the forecast, not when you have all to lose and little to gain. Sure once we got to 400 you are getting in the realms of absurd as NZ weren't going to pull of a world record chase, but what was to be gained by leaving even the slightest of risks?

I'd have liked him to declare earlier just becaus I wanted us to wrap it up on Monday but clearly we were working to a specific RR scenario that we felt no team would chase. I don't think there's much wrong with that, personally.

If we were one down then you'd have to look at it differently but there you go. I guess i agree with your overall principle, ie don't bat on once the game isn't loseable but I think Cook is working off a worst case scenario when making his decisions. Exciting cricket it might not be but ultimately victory excites me most of all.

I think the argument is that THAT victory could have so easily not happened..

 

[GIMH]

Yes but my point is that was preferable to any potential defeat

 

[honestbharani]

It always is.. but there is surely a point when a defeat goes from potential to improbable and I think England batted on well beyond that point