Is defensive cricket better?

[subshakerz]

I have noticed there is now a prevalent mood in CW that now sees no net benefit to aggressive brands of cricket, perhaps a reaction to the falling stock of BazBall.

Defensive cricket on the flipside seems to be marked by an aversion to risk taking while batting, a focus on crease occupation and survival, a focus on containing runs from the opposition and waiting for them to eventually break under pressure and give their wickets.

Based on that, I have the following questions:

- Is entering a test game with the mindset not to lose better, or the mindset to win even at the cost of a loss?

- Where is the line between being aggressive and simply foolhardy and how does sport psychology have a role to play?

- Is aggressive cricket likely to produce more long term better results for teams or is it simply a luxury afforded to strong sides?

- What situations is defensive cricket warranted or is aggression as default better?

 

[anil1405]

Your mindset towards defensive cricket is very defensive.

You're looking at defending as a defensive attitude towards defending. But defending is more than just defending. It is giving your team an opportunity to defend your way to a victory.

 

[Line and Length]

Defensive players, in particular openers, have often established the basis for a winning score. As in any sport, there is a time to defend and a time to attack.

 

[Prince EWS]

No.

There is a difference between not thinking aggressive cricket is better actually thinking defensive cricket is better.

There's more than one way to skin a cat, basically.

 

[Johan]

Like everything in life, versatility is the key

 

[subshakerz]

Like everything in life, versatility is the key

You told me specifically you think aggressive cricket in general doesn't bring better results.

 

[subshakerz]

No.

There is a difference between not thinking aggressive cricket is better actually thinking defensive cricket is better.

There's more than one way to skin a cat, basically.

Many here think defensive cricket is better though.

 

[honestbharani]

There is no one thing that is definitively better. Players just gotta play the way the situation demands most of the time. There is value in starting tight for both batsmen and bowlers in test cricket though, and then expanding, assuming the situation is a relatively normal one as they go in to bat or bowl.

 

[Coronis]

- Is entering a test game with the mindset not to lose better, or the mindset to win even at the cost of a loss?

You should always enter the test with a mindset to win ideally. However you need to be flexible with that with the conditions, as well as game or series situation. e.g you’re up 2-1 and you need to chase 350+ on the last day, what would you do?

- Where is the line between being aggressive and simply foolhardy and how does sport psychology have a role to play?[/QUITE]

Aggressiveness is fine, but a batsman should at least get themselves in first. Foolhardy is a stupid shot, foolhardy is attacking unnecessarily and giving it away when the game situation doesn’t warrant it, foolhardy is getting out right before the end of a session.

- Is aggressive cricket likely to produce more long term better results for teams or is it simply a luxury afforded to strong sides?

Not really possible to say. Its easier to be overtly aggressive when you’re a stronger team of course.

- What situations is defensive cricket warranted or is aggression as default better?

Any number of situations. Both have their place. One is not inherently better or worse than the other.

 

[Coronis]

Many here think defensive cricket is better though.

Nobody thinks that or has said that. People have said aggressiveness is not inherently better and you’re just hearing that as defensiveness is better for some reason.

 

[SteveNZ]

I reckon balance is the key. I really enjoyed the phrase from the Ashes series which was going up and down the gears. The best sides are adaptable enough, and have the personalities to go through the gears as required, and to recognise when is the right and wrong time to do so.

The idea from England that someone like Alastair Cook wouldn't make their team now (did Key say this) is the most ridiculous thing, and why they got skinned this tour. Someone who could bat time and blunt the new ball, and make bowlers work, was exactly the tonic they required. And will in the future. TJB believes Stokes batted like he had a hero complex, I just believe he was making up for the fact the ****wits above him got the balance wrong.

Unfortunately, there ain't many little Jonnies who want to believe in the leave and play out maidens.

 

[mr_mister]

Atherton's 98* and 185* was true cricket. Made batting look like trench warfare

 

[subshakerz]

Nobody thinks that or has said that. People have said aggressiveness is not inherently better and you’re just hearing that as defensiveness is better for some reason.

Many won't say it outright but their default mode is to go into tests to avoid losses first and then look for victory.

 

[Agonizingly Awkward]

The opposite of whatever you like is better

 

[subshakerz]

You should always enter the test with a mindset to win ideally. However you need to be flexible with that with the conditions, as well as game or series situation. e.g you’re up 2-1 and you need to chase 350+ on the last day, what would you do?

The thing I disagree with what you say is that aggressiveness is not likely to produce better long term results. I think the majority of the time that's not true, being aggressive means you are actively chasing for a win and taking necessary risks to get there, and proactivity.

 

[subshakerz]

The opposite of whatever you like is better

Why so bitter and crabby all the time? Cheer up.

 

[subshakerz]

There are very few teams that I think produced great results from defensive cricket.

One team was Misbah who was able to make UAE a fortress by containment with spinners and it did work very well but he wasn't quite as successful away from home.

Dhoni had great success first half of his captaincy but eventually didn't really maximize his resources and tended to go bunker mode too easily.

Cronje built a strong side even if his defensiveness cost them key moments of big series.

 

[anil1405]

Many won't say it outright but their default mode is to go into tests to avoid losses first and then look for victory.

Looks like you are talking about cricketers themselves. Did the likes of Atherton, Chanderpaul, Dravid, and your fav. Kallis whisper it to you in private?

 

[Agonizingly Awkward]

Why so bitter and crabby all the time? Cheer up.

Your face and your posts are bitter

 

[subshakerz]

Your face and your posts are bitter

Nah I'm quite straightforward actually.