Aussies MORE Defensive? Article Critique

[Top_Cat]

http://sport.news.com.au/common/stor...5E9787,00.html

I can't think of anything more idiotic than this plan. Play more defensively??!?!?

Nothing is more stupid than this quote by Rick ponting:

"We want to be able to use Brett as a wicket-taker but at the same time he needs to be able to bowl tight spells as well."

That's nuts. There are VERY few bowlers who can bowl accurately but bowl well enough to take wickets consistently. Brett Lee is a wicket-taker, not a stock medium pacer brought on to keep the runs down. If you want those sorts of bowlers, drop him and bring in someone like Bichel permanently. If you want someone who will blast someone out when you need it, keep Brett Lee. Could you imagine if someone told Adam Gilchrist to hit less boundaries because they wanted him to play more conservatively?

It's dumb, terrible cricket and TOTALLY contrary to what got Australia the 'Best Team in the World' award. Maybe when the Aussies start to lose more, they might see what a stupid idea this is.

EDITED TO ADD: I've just posted an article on this very subject. Any comments, critique and debate are more than welcome.

[Edited on 6/18/02 by Top_Cat]

[Rich2001]

Australia more defensive, and pigs might fly!!!!!!

[Tim]

Yes well it seems Australia are giving Brett Lee the cold shoulder as he is one of Australia's more attacking players.

He dropped a sitter today aswell, so maybe things aren't that rosy from him at the moment.

Maybe Ricky & Brett aren't the best of mates?

[Andre]

I think you have misunderstood Corey. Australia has decided to bowl more defensivley, in order to keep down runs, to loosen the pressure on batsmen and win more comprehensivley. Other than that, they will not be changing much. They will still bat and field aggressivly.

[Tim]

I don't think there was too much aggressiveness in their play today however, they've been on the backfoot for 95% of the match.

[Top_Cat]

I think you have misunderstood Corey. Australia has decided to bowl more defensivley, in order to keep down runs, to loosen the pressure on batsmen and win more comprehensivley. Other than that, they will not be changing much. They will still bat and field aggressivly.

I seriously doubt it, mate. How can you explain the promotion of Jimmy Maher to the Aussie side as an opener? I personally think the Aussie selectors are looking to put Gilchrist down the order so they can get off to a more 'solid' start with two specialist openers (hayden and Maher). This suggests that the days of the explosive opening are over. I mean look at Australia's insipid performance in the match tonight? And how many high scores happened in last years one-day series? Not many at all. It was quite a low scoring series in fact, especially after the previous couple of seasons had seen some of the highest scoring in WSC history.

So, I think the Aussies are looking at a more 'solid' high-percentage play with batsmen and bowlers in the future. How else can you explain the demise of explosive batsmen like Symonds and Harvey and the rise of VERY talented but slower scoring batsmen like Watson? How about Shane Lee? All of the players who are the most attacking have been weeded out of the one-day lineup and I believe it to more than a co-incidence. Sure I should have said so in my article but it was long enough, don't ya think?!?!?

And the bowlers; who has been given a go in the recent seasons. That's right, stock-standard line-and-length bowlers. Guys like Andy Bichel, Nathan Bracken and the like are being given a go ahead of such outstanding performers as Matthew Inness (who took two 7-fors, one against the touring West Indians, and a 5-for in one season, yet didn't get a go higher than Australia A) and Matthew Nicholson, who had one of his best seasons with the ball. These guys may go for a few more runs than the line-and-length seamers but they can also rip through a batting line-up.

I dunno, I guess I'm just a little surprised that an Aussie captain would be saying that they want to adopt a more defensive approach when if anything, I reckon we need a few more game-breakers.

Either way, I'm seeing a more defensive attitude being adopted throughout the Aussie team (batting AND bowling) and I don't like it.

[Rich2001]

And while Australia played attacking you won games, in the recent matches you couldn't even make it past 170!. Aus' cricketers have been bought up to play attcking cricket, look what you have done to test cricket.

[Andre]

Yeah, you are probably right in that respect Corey. I stand corrected.

[Eclipse]

Shane Lee Ian Harvey and Andrew Symonds were all droped because they were not performing.

Brett Lee has to learn to bowl more economicly you might say he is an attacking bowler but he does not need to be as expensive as he is (look at his firt 6 months of ODI and test cricket he was as economical as most) I am sure he will improve in that regard and still take wickets.

Also Shane Watson Can hit the ball very very hard if he is well set I saw him in a tour match Vs South Africa A he scored 100* of 84 balls with 4 sixes and looked awsome, he also hit G.McGrath for 3 sixes in 2 overs in an ING cup game last year.

As far as the batting is concerned I dont think there will be big chainges in attitude and we can still expect australia to be as aggresive as usual after all they have the best stroke makers in the world why not use them.

[Rich2001]

No team can possibly play defensive when they have Gilly in the team

[Neil Pickup]

This will probably go the same way as 'Big Phil' Scolari's plans to make Brazil more defensive..

[marc71178]

Well, he did play 2 midfileders today!

[Kimbo]

Hey Neil, how come you havent added England's latest result to your signature???

[Neil Pickup]

Hey Neil, how come you havent added England's latest result to your signature???

! ! !



Don't wind up moderators . We have long memories...

[Edited on 6/22/02 by Neil Pickup]