• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

"Cricket turning into baseball - say it ain't so"

thierry henry

International Coach
I agree, to an extent, with what Goughy has said. I think in recent years we have increasingly seen batsmen able to score at ridiculous run-rates without the expected loss of wickets that is supposed to go with it.

Seemingly, many (if not most) of the extremely talented individuals who become international batsmen are more than capable of swinging hard and aiming for the boundary at pretty much any sort of delivery, and the chances of them being dismissed are rather slimmer than perhaps was conventionally thought to be the case.

Nevertheless, the essence of batting in cricket is that, with one false stroke, you are dismissed. Therefore, the element of caution in batting is necessary, and, of course, wise. It is all a matter of degree and I certainly agree that batsmen in recent years have shown that the envelope can be pushed further in terms of aggressive batting, without the potential of losing one's wicket being greatly increased.

However, I still believe that 99% of batsmen are likely to survive any given delivery if they aim to play it defensively. Of course, it becomes a balancing act- perhaps a batsman can last an average of 80 balls and score 30 runs batting defensively, but only 60 balls while scoring 40 runs when he is more attacking. Therefore, in most situations the latter style of batting is more appropriate.

It might therefore be wise for batsman to play in a slightly more attacking vein than generally advised, but the essential dilemma of risk v reward, and the basic principles of batsmanship (not a word?) and shot selection still exist.

I always find it interesting, for example, how certain players (Ramnaresh Sarwan and Chris Gayle come to mind) actually have higher or similar averages in ODI cricket than test cricket. It completely defies logic. The only logical explanation imo is that these players are misusing their own skills in test cricket by "pretending" to be "conventional" test batsmen, when they would actually score more runs-per-innings by batting in the same style as they do in ODIs.

The irony is that if Gayle went out and averaged 40 off 45 balls in a test series, and kept on going down swinging, he would probably be accused of being irresponsible, whereas if he averaged 35 off 80 people would probably be more appreciative.

On the other hand, I know from my own personal experience that some batsmen are only of any value when they block everything. I used to be quite well regarded for my stonewalling opening batting where I would make, say, 30 off 110 balls. However, I always found that as soon as I stepped outside my plan of "conventional" defensive batting, I got myself out with my first shot in anger. I think someone like Mark Richardson was much the same- not talented enough to be an attacking top-order bat, but able to be test class when playing defensively.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I always find it interesting, for example, how certain players (Ramnaresh Sarwan and Chris Gayle come to mind) actually have higher or similar averages in ODI cricket than test cricket. It completely defies logic. The only logical explanation imo is that these players are misusing their own skills in test cricket by "pretending" to be "conventional" test batsmen, when they would actually score more runs-per-innings by batting in the same style as they do in ODIs.
More to do with the fact that you get 20-25 overs in ODIs where noone's trying to get you out. MS Dhoni is a master at ticking off the singles that are on offer. You don't get runs for free in test matches- unless Ricky Ponting is the opposing captain.
 

thierry henry

International Coach
More to do with the fact that you get 20-25 overs in ODIs where noone's trying to get you out. MS Dhoni is a master at ticking off the singles that are on offer. You don't get runs for free in test matches- unless Ricky Ponting is the opposing captain.
Either way, someone is making the mistake- possibly the bowling/fielding side.

Really, fielding sides should go into full "test match mode" as soon as Gayle or Sarwan are at the crease as it is proven to be more effective against them.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Either way, someone is making the mistake- possibly the bowling/fielding side.

Really, fielding sides should go into full "test match mode" as soon as Gayle or Sarwan are at the crease as it is proven to be more effective against them.
Yeah, i've thought that before myself. There's just certain field placings common to each format and captains aren't flexible enough about them. To take an opposite example, Alaistar Cook is a failure at ODIs because he scores so many runs down to third man and through square leg- positions always in place in ODIs. But in tests, noone ever seems to catch on and plug the hole. MS Dhoni's ridiculously good at rotating the strike in ODI middle overs. Defending gives him more opportunities to score than attacking! But even when defending small totals, noone will tamper. They just let him tick off the runs and hope to god something happens. It's strange indeed.
 

burr

State Vice-Captain
Yeah, 20/20 (and this is a response to 20/20, no matter how much the first poster protests) is an awful game.

Art (and cricket at its best is art) needs to be constructed...with a beginning, middle, and an end.

Thus an innings needs to be constructed, with a beginning, middle, and an end.

In 20/20, a beginning is ridiculed, the middle is frowned upon, and the end is all that matters, whether it be a quick out, or a meaningless but fast 50.

In real cricket, even in the lesser 50 over format, we get to see the constructed masterpiece; most importantly the technique. And it's that artistry - that display of technique that reminds us, cricket is not baseball, and should never be reduced so much. Least of all by its administrators.
 

Isolator

State 12th Man
I'm all for adventurous/suicidal/whatever batting, but first put the boundaries back to where they were, fix the pitches, and impose stipulations on the bats - how much they have to be rolled etc. These ultra-bouncy* bats used these days are absolutely ridiculous.

*the bounce being that of the ball...
 

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah, 20/20 (and this is a response to 20/20, no matter how much the first poster protests) is an awful game.

Art (and cricket at its best is art) needs to be constructed...with a beginning, middle, and an end.

Thus an innings needs to be constructed, with a beginning, middle, and an end.

In 20/20, a beginning is ridiculed, the middle is frowned upon, and the end is all that matters, whether it be a quick out, or a meaningless but fast 50.

In real cricket, even in the lesser 50 over format, we get to see the constructed masterpiece; most importantly the technique. And it's that artistry - that display of technique that reminds us, cricket is not baseball, and should never be reduced so much. Least of all by its administrators.
Posts like this are the reason I was asking if you were still around. Couldn't agree more.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeah, 20/20 (and this is a response to 20/20, no matter how much the first poster protests) is an awful game.

Art (and cricket at its best is art) needs to be constructed...with a beginning, middle, and an end.

Thus an innings needs to be constructed, with a beginning, middle, and an end.

In 20/20, a beginning is ridiculed, the middle is frowned upon, and the end is all that matters, whether it be a quick out, or a meaningless but fast 50.

In real cricket, even in the lesser 50 over format, we get to see the constructed masterpiece; most importantly the technique. And it's that artistry - that display of technique that reminds us, cricket is not baseball, and should never be reduced so much. Least of all by its administrators.
I disagree.

Twenty/20 to me is far more like a test match than a one dayer. T20 seems to reward the sides who are the most creative with their fielding and place additional weight onto bowlers shoulders to take wickets.

The only effective way of slowing the scoring in T20 cricket is to take wickets, and that is what I like about it. The pendulum swings back more to the quality of bowling than the quality of batting. The variation and experimentation by bowlers to get wickets tends to be a lot more than in the one-day game.

ODI cricket seems to me to be much more of a percentage sport. You play the percentage shots to get you the milestone run-rate for this point in the game. Whereas T20 is a much more fluid game that acts more like a compressed test match than an ODI.

I know it's not the popular viewpoint, but I feel that all three forms of the game are great, with Test matches still being the superior form of the game. Yet if test matches were all that was played we would not see the variety of the other two forms and the sport would be less interesting as a whole.
 

Top