ICC considers repackaging Tests!

[honestbharani]

Scoring rate depends on the batsmen, pure and simple. And nowadays, on some pitches which aid the bowlers more than batsmen, the batters are more than happy to play their shots as much as possible because they know that the unplayable delivery can come and get them anytime. On flat tracks though, captains set defensive fields very soon and batsmen are more than happy to just dig in and play percentage cricket. So it is very much likely that in the years to come, with the proliferation of T20s and ODIs, making bowler friendly wickets is the best way to get increased scoring rates in Test cricket.

 

[Richard]

Scoring rate depends on the batsmen, pure and simple.

That's just not true, it depends on the bowler. Batsmen cannot hit a delivery (safely) which is not in their hitting area. Yes, different batsmen have different hitting areas (what's an easy hit for one would not be for another) but all batsmen have plenty of areas where they cannot score from a delivery without taking a huge risk, and if bowlers are good enough to bowl in those areas, no scoring can be done.

 

[swede]

Bats attacked because bowling allowed them to, simple as. The bowling was wayward, the scoring was fast. Simple equation. Bowlers control the game, if they bowl in the right areas the batsmen can't play attacking shots (unless they go completely unconventional which only ever happens in Tests in non-standard circumstances, which did happen on at least a couple of occasions in 2005 admittedly - the two that come to mind are Flintoff swinging out with the tail at Edgbaston and Strauss, Bell and Geraint Jones doing likewise just pre-declaration at Old Trafford).

If the bowling in 2005 had been tight as well as penetrative (and if more catches had been held), scoring-rates would have been far lower. But it wasn't, and didn't need to be.

It seems strange that the two best teams in the world in 2005 should both bowl poorly for 5 matches in a row and still regularly send down incredible deliveries. Arent these things linked? didnt bad balls come along in search of the unplayable ball and batsmen reliased they had to attack before it came? and if so, is it wrong to look to take cricket in that direction?

If you want scoring rates to come down, does that mean you considered the ashes 2005 to be poor cricket? Do you prefer Adelaide 06/07 to Edgbaston 05?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Of course, faster pitches tend to encourage faster scoring. The point is, though, that seaming pitches (and swinging balls) don't. Quite the opposite.

Disagree. If the ball is swinging, to get the maximum effect of that you need to bowl full - you want to be driven. You have to be prepared to go for runs as a swing bowler. As a seamer, on a real green top, it's similar. Bowl too short and the batsman will play and miss, or have time to pull out of the way.

 

[Richard]

I know that - I am a swing-bowler myself y'know.

Point is, though, that if the ball's swinging batsmen are going to play-and-miss far more than they're going to connect. Also, a good batsman will be forced into a defensive mindset by the swinging ball - it's the best way to survive. If you're trying to swing the ball and it's not doing anything, then that's when the scoring-rate is going to go up high.

 

[Richard]

It seems strange that the two best teams in the world in 2005 should both bowl poorly for 5 matches in a row and still regularly send down incredible deliveries.

Why does it seem strange? Just because they were the two best teams at that time doesn't mean they were composed of outstandingly accurate bowlers.

Australia's seamers were hardly outstanding anyway (apart from McGrath in his opening spell at Lord's and Lee very occasionally). Warne pretty much throughout was magnificent, but even he's a spinner and he got better figures than he would have because England attacked him. When they played him more defensively in 2006/07 he was far less effective.

Arent these things linked? didnt bad balls come along in search of the unplayable ball and batsmen reliased they had to attack before it came?

The former, possibly, as it's sometimes inherant in certain styles of bowling. Simon Jones, especially, you could argue this. The latter, no - the sensible way to bat is to take it ball by ball - play each ball on its merits. Don't try and hit balls that aren't there, as this'll just mean you're likely to lose your wicket even sooner.

and if so, is it wrong to look to take cricket in that direction?

If you want scoring rates to come down, does that mean you considered the ashes 2005 to be poor cricket?

The quality of the cricket was far from outstanding, doubly so because of the appalling fielding. It was thrilling, but thrilling and high-quality are often two totally different things.

Do you prefer Adelaide 06/07 to Edgbaston 05?

The calibre of bowling was unquestionably far higher in Adelaide 2006/07 than Edgbaston 2005. Witness how on an even less bowler-friendly pitch, batsmen scored far more slowly. Did I prefer the game? No, because of England's abysmal batting (not helped by bad Umpiring) in the third-innings, which cost the match. Why was it abysmal? Because wickets were lost, not because shots weren't aimed. Had they been aimed, all that'd have happened was wickets would've fallen even quicker.

 

[swede]

Why does it seem strange? Just because they were the two best teams at that time doesn't mean they were composed of outstandingly accurate bowlers.

Australia's seamers were hardly outstanding anyway (apart from McGrath in his opening spell at Lord's and Lee very occasionally). Warne pretty much throughout was magnificent, but even he's a spinner and he got better figures than he would have because England attacked him. When they played him more defensively in 2006/07 he was far less effective.

The former, possibly, as it's sometimes inherant in certain styles of bowling. Simon Jones, especially, you could argue this. The latter, no - the sensible way to bat is to take it ball by ball - play each ball on its merits. Don't try and hit balls that aren't there, as this'll just mean you're likely to lose your wicket even sooner.

The quality of the cricket was far from outstanding, doubly so because of the appalling fielding. It was thrilling, but thrilling and high-quality are often two totally different things.

The calibre of bowling was unquestionably far higher in Adelaide 2006/07 than Edgbaston 2005. Witness how on an even less bowler-friendly pitch, batsmen scored far more slowly. Did I prefer the game? No, because of England's abysmal batting (not helped by bad Umpiring) in the third-innings, which cost the match. Why was it abysmal? Because wickets were lost, not because shots weren't aimed. Had they been aimed, all that'd have happened was wickets would've fallen even quicker.

or they would have scored runs, scattered the field, relieved pressure and pushed the target beyond Australia as they did at the oval in 2005 in similar circumstances

anyway my point was more about the general type of cricket throughout those two matches. To me the future of cricket must be Edgbaston and any attempt to "repackage" cricket to make both ball and bat attack as in that match should be welcomed.

Adelaide is a disaster. I cant see that type of cricket surviving in the long run as a serious pro sport, but it seems to be the kind of cricket you want if you hope for scoring rates to come down?

 

[Richard]

or they would have scored runs, scattered the field, relieved pressure and pushed the target beyond Australia as they did at the oval in 2005 in similar circumstances

Nope, they wouldn't have - not without good fortune anyway (which they had at The Oval in 2005 with Pietersen being dropped by Warne aiming a drive at a ball that wasn't there to drive), good fortune Australia were unlikely to give them.

Some good defensive batting would easily have drawn that game, some good attacking batting was a needless risk (and something highly unlikely to have been carried-out with the skill required).

anyway my point was more about the general type of cricket throughout those two matches. To me the future of cricket must be Edgbaston and any attempt to "repackage" cricket to make both ball and bat attack as in that match should be welcomed.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Test cricket is about the balance between attack and defence - ideally with a little favour on the side of defence for my money. The best cricket marries attack and defence (the best bowlers can attack and defend at the same time and the best batsmen have a range of attacking strokes and watertight defensive technique) anyway, but while the defensive aspect of the game being poor can mean the thrill aspect goes up, usually it means the quality has taken a nosedive and the true fan of the game of cricket (ie, of Test cricket) can appreciate both quality and thrill equally.

Adelaide is a disaster. I cant see that type of cricket surviving in the long run as a serious pro sport, but it seems to be the kind of cricket you want if you hope for scoring rates to come down?

Adelaide was in its way thrilling. Little better than a game that looks like it's going for a foregone draw then gets turned on its head by something. If I was an Aussie that might be my favourite Test ever. But I'm not. So it reads pretty awfully. Australia's cricket in that match was mostly excellent, however, after being negated in the first-innings by the loss of the toss and the extreme flatness of the wicket. England's was abysmal after the first-innings - apart from the needless collapse, there was the crucial drop of Ponting by Giles.

 

[swede]

Nope, they wouldn't have - not without good fortune anyway (which they had at The Oval in 2005 with Pietersen being dropped by Warne aiming a drive at a ball that wasn't there to drive), good fortune Australia were unlikely to give them.

Some good defensive batting would easily have drawn that game, some good attacking batting was a needless risk (and something highly unlikely to have been carried-out with the skill required).

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Test cricket is about the balance between attack and defence - ideally with a little favour on the side of defence for my money. The best cricket marries attack and defence (the best bowlers can attack and defend at the same time and the best batsmen have a range of attacking strokes and watertight defensive technique) anyway, but while the defensive aspect of the game being poor can mean the thrill aspect goes up, usually it means the quality has taken a nosedive and the true fan of the game of cricket (ie, of Test cricket) can appreciate both quality and thrill equally.

Adelaide was in its way thrilling. Little better than a game that looks like it's going for a foregone draw then gets turned on its head by something. If I was an Aussie that might be my favourite Test ever. But I'm not. So it reads pretty awfully. Australia's cricket in that match was mostly excellent, however, after being negated in the first-innings by the loss of the toss and the extreme flatness of the wicket. England's was abysmal after the first-innings - apart from the needless collapse, there was the crucial drop of Ponting by Giles.

yes Pietersen took big risks, but the alternative of scoring few runs, would have meant having to face many more balls to pull England to safety. Surely only he could know what the best approcah was.

Anyway my point is still more about the type of cricket. Adelaide obviously had a spectacular finish but 9 out of 10 matches like that would end in a draw. Surely there is plenty of defence even when cricket is played far more positively as in 2005.

If you really think the thrill of the 2005 series came because of a lack of quality, why not try to change the game in a way where that kind of cricket equals quality?
I still think you do that by giving bowlers more of a chance.Not because batters would or should slog wildly at good balls but because they would be more likely to send the maybe-ball to the boundary if they knew they were under pressure. Whats wrong with that?

Perhaps it should more specifically about rewarding penetrative bowling perhaps by making changes to the ball, I dont know. I just know the future of cricket cannot be the kind of cricket played at Adelaide. Its not about T20 v ODI v TESTS in my opinion. Its about Edgbaston v Adelaide.

 

[Richard]

yes Pietersen took big risks, but the alternative of scoring few runs, would have meant having to face many more balls to pull England to safety. Surely only he could know what the best approcah was.

Nope, players choose the wrong approach all the time. Whether Pietersen chose the wrong or right approach there isn't really something I'm concerned with - all that matters is that it only worked because Warne dropped him. Had Gilchrist dropped Cook at Adelaide too it's extremely likely that would have been drawn too.

Anyway my point is still more about the type of cricket. Adelaide obviously had a spectacular finish but 9 out of 10 matches like that would end in a draw. Surely there is plenty of defence even when cricket is played far more positively as in 2005.

Of course there is, but the balance is tilted far too far towards attack for my money. I wouldn't want to see Ashes 2005-style games every day.

If you really think the thrill of the 2005 series came because of a lack of quality, why not try to change the game in a way where that kind of cricket equals quality?

Do you have any bright ideas there?

I still think you do that by giving bowlers more of a chance.Not because batters would or should slog wildly at good balls but because they would be more likely to send the maybe-ball to the boundary if they knew they were under pressure. Whats wrong with that?

Perhaps it should more specifically about rewarding penetrative bowling perhaps by making changes to the ball, I dont know. I just know the future of cricket cannot be the kind of cricket played at Adelaide. Its not about T20 v ODI v TESTS in my opinion. Its about Edgbaston v Adelaide.

Yes I've said making changes to the ball to make it swing and seam more is something I'd have done a good few years ago now. It was done in football a decade ago. But it'd slow, not quicken, scoring-rates. At least, in the long-term. Who knows whether batsmen might indeed try the approach you're suggesting they would in the short-term. But if the bowling was good, it wouldn't work, and they'd be forced to try something different.