Why do batsmen take quIck singles in test crickEt despite them never being worth it?

[Uppercut]

This post probably applies even more to what happened today than it did to that Aus team.

Yeah I think about it a lot watching England these days. This ‘we play aggressive cricket’ identity might be much more beneficial than I thought.

 

[Spark]

Yeah I think about it a lot watching England these days. This ‘we play aggressive cricket’ identity might be much more beneficial than I thought.

Clarity of thought in general is massively underrated in cricket. It's a highly technical sport in which you have to perfectly do complex tasks very quickly over and over again; "natural positivity" is actually a huge asset in those circumstances.

It's the biggest reason I really think the soft psychological factors are way more important in cricket than I did when I first joined the forum.

 

[Uppercut]

Clarity of thought in general is massively underrated in cricket. It's a highly technical sport in which you have to perfectly do complex tasks very quickly over and over again; "natural positivity" is actually a huge asset in those circumstances.

It's the biggest reason I really think the soft psychological factors are way more important in cricket than I did when I first joined the forum.

Yeah I agree. I've made this point in a soccer context. Some strikers never hesitate to shoot, and when they should have passed they get criticised. But if they were thinking about whether they should be passing or shooting, they'd lose that clarity of thought and miss out on opportunities to score.

I saw what McCullum was doing with England straight away, and I thought it would improve them, but I thought they'd give up tactical edges in the process more often than they have. Enforcing the follow-on in this game was a big one, but it might be the first. I really didn't expect all-out attacking batting to work in England, given how poorly attacking visiting batsmen tend to go there.

I'm also interested in teams that reach a very high level of performance without an aggressive mindset. Flower's England seemed to reframe defensive cricket as ruthless cricket. They felt like they were brutally grinding teams down by relentlessly bowling line and length on/outside off and making them bowl to Cook and Trott for days. All-out aggression isn't the only identity a team can have, it might not even be the most effective one. But having an identity at all can be a massive advantage, most teams don't have one.

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

Another example today, De Zorzi on debut

 

[Dendarii]

Another example today, De Zorzi on debut

That wasn't a quick single though. He wanted a third run, which was never on.

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

That wasn't a quick single though. He wanted a third run, which was never on.

Same thought process involved , risking his wicket for a run ..the problem with quick singles is the risk of losing your wicket for a run that isn't on.

 

[BazBall21]

Root isn't great between the wickets. He loves a quick single but isn't the quickest.

 

[Ali TT]

Yeah I agree. I've made this point in a soccer context. Some strikers never hesitate to shoot, and when they should have passed they get criticised. But if they were thinking about whether they should be passing or shooting, they'd lose that clarity of thought and miss out on opportunities to score.

I saw what McCullum was doing with England straight away, and I thought it would improve them, but I thought they'd give up tactical edges in the process more often than they have. Enforcing the follow-on in this game was a big one, but it might be the first. I really didn't expect all-out attacking batting to work in England, given how poorly attacking visiting batsmen tend to go there.

I'm also interested in teams that reach a very high level of performance without an aggressive mindset. Flower's England seemed to reframe defensive cricket as ruthless cricket. They felt like they were brutally grinding teams down by relentlessly bowling line and length on/outside off and making them bowl to Cook and Trott for days. All-out aggression isn't the only identity a team can have, it might not even be the most effective one. But having an identity at all can be a massive advantage, most teams don't have one.

Agree, and I personally think it's a bit of a myth that the aggressive option is enforcing a follow-on.

 

[Brook's side]

Root isn't great between the wickets. He loves a quick single but isn't the quickest.

or the best judge. i'd bet of the run outs he's been involved in, the vast majority have resulted in his partner's dismissal.

ATG notwithstanding and not questioning that for a second, but it's got to be regarded as a weakness.