Is defensive cricket better?

[Starfighter]

You heard me pal

Doesn't mean you're right (you aren't)

 

[thierry henry]

Doesn't mean you're right (you aren't)

You're obviously semantically correct that the word "defending" is typically used to refer to the fielding team. This is consistent with baseball in that in both sports, teams take turns batting and accumulating runs, so once you've made a score batting you try to prevent the other team from reaching that score.

In terms of aggressive/defensive play and the contrast between baseball (runs hard, outs easy) and cricket (runs easy, outs hard) my point is clear and so your motives in trying to dunk on me by ignoring the point are pretty murky.

 

[Prince EWS]

You're obviously semantically correct that the word "defending" is typically used to refer to the fielding team. This is consistent with baseball in that in both sports, teams take turns batting and accumulating runs.

In terms of aggressive/defensive play and the contrast between baseball (runs hard outs easy) and cricket (runs easy outs hard) my point is clear and so your motives in trying to dunk on me by ignoring the point are pretty murky.

The bowlers in a side are literally referred to as its attack.

 

[Starfighter]

You're obviously semantically correct that the word "defending" is typically used to refer to the fielding team. This is consistent with baseball in that in both sports, teams take turns batting and accumulating runs, so once you've made a score batting you try to prevent the other team from reaching that score.

In terms of aggressive/defensive play and the contrast between baseball (runs hard, outs easy) and cricket (runs easy, outs hard) my point is clear and so your motives in trying to dunk on me by ignoring the point are pretty murky.

The difference in the difficulty of scoring runs between the two sports doesn't make scoring runs attacking in one and defensive in the other. Your 'point' there simply doesn't hold because it can't prove its own premise.

In both sports, to win you have to score more runs than the opposition. Barring unusual circumstances (like forfeiture) and the technicalities of DLS (where it's against a theoretical score), there's no getting around this. The fielding side must limit their opponent's runs to less than their own. In comparison, while it is common to need to take all the available wickets to win a test, it is neither necessary (e.g. bad declarations) nor sufficient.

Cricket and baseball achieve their results slightly differently due to time or over limits on matches or innings that baseball doesn't have, and lack of tie breakers in cricket. But fielding in cricket and baseball are functionally equivalent.

 

[Starfighter]

The bowlers in a side are literally referred to as its attack.

That's analogistic. Someone is propelling an object towards their opponent. Batsmen are also described as attacking the bowling when playing strokes more likely to score runs.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

An interesting point is that attacking cricket usually comes from insecurity rather than confidence. Almost all attacking bats are distracting the bowler from bowling a good length ball on off, because they know their defense sucks relative to other test players..

 

[shortpitched713]

I agree to an extent with Thierry Henry, even if it is a bit of an overstatement of the case.

The great thing about Test cricket is that there is an ebb and flow of the game, with at various points more attacking or defensive play being required of BOTH bowling or batting sides (the bowling side has way more attacking potential bang for the buck in any particular passage of play, however). Limited overs cricket really doesn't have that to nearly the same extent, as the batting side is "offensive" the vast majority of the time. And dare I say a more "bazball" approach kind of forces Test cricket into a more similar pattern for many more overs than I personally find that palatable.

 

[Nas207]

One aspect of this discussion I haven't seen mentioned is attacking bowling. I would argue that limited overs cricket is about defensive bowling whereas test cricket is (or should be) about aggressive bowling. Teams have become less capable of aggressive bowling and are more comfortable being defensive in the field due to limited overs experience. Ideally we would all love teams to be more aggressive when bowling in tests since it creates a better spectacle, however due to certain player limitations often a defensive approach works better for them.

Edit: didn't see Thierry Henry's earlier post, but he's right.

 

[ataraxia]

That's analogistic. Someone is propelling an object towards their opponent. Batsmen are also described as attacking the bowling when playing strokes more likely to score runs.

This really isn't true tbh. Cambridge gives one definition of "attack" as (n.) the part of a team in some sports that tries to score points. Maybe the cricketing term's ultimate etymology comes from the physical aspect, but that's neither here nor there when thinking about modern usage. Attacking the bowling vs. defending the bowling is another matter entirely.

 

[Starfighter]

This really isn't true tbh. Cambridge gives one definition of "attack" as (n.) the part of a team in some sports that tries to score points. Maybe the cricketing term's ultimate etymology comes from the physical aspect, but that's neither here nor there when thinking about modern usage. Attacking the bowling vs. defending the bowling is another matter entirely.

I don't agree with that in this particular instance and the post I was replying to.

In any case, the definition that you give there makes it very clear that regardless of how you describe things, due to (as previously explained) runs being the necessary measure of victory, the fielding side is defending. Which is the normal usage, not the avant-garde one advocated in this thread.

 

[thierry henry]

The difference in the difficulty of scoring runs between the two sports doesn't make scoring runs attacking in one and defensive in the other.

Of course it does, what are we even talking about here.

In a sport where you can conceivably bat for an entire day and where wickets are hard to come by, obviously you are going to be relatively more cautious when compared to a sport where your innings ends the first time you put the ball in play and where hitting a dinger is disproportionately significant. The inverse applies to bowling where conceding a homer is way worse than getting hit for a 6.

Actually nm, having read your other posts I see you really are just having a semantic discussion about the meaning of the word “defence” which is just not a conversation I’m involved in.

 

[thierry henry]

FWIW I’m not talking about what actually works I’m talking about what makes cricket an enjoyable and interesting sport. The “batters need to be careful not to get out and bowlers should be trying to get them out” dynamic is fundamentally important imo but if someone is happy for cricket to be closer to baseball, where the bowlers are scared and the batters don’t care about getting out, then each to their own. I’m not sure how you can argue against the very existence of this continuum though.

 

[Starfighter]

Actually nm, having read your other posts I see you really are just having a semantic discussion about the meaning of the word “defence” which is just not a conversation I’m involved in.

It's one you started by inverting the normal understanding of the words in context.

 

[thierry henry]

It's one you started by inverting the normal understanding of the words in context.

You are operating at such a level of obtuseness that I genuinely don’t know how to respond so I’ll leave it there. I am aware that in cricket the batting teams each score runs and the highest score wins.

 

[Starfighter]

You are operating at such a level of obtuseness that I genuinely don’t know how to respond so I’ll leave it there. I am aware that in cricket the batting teams each score runs and the highest score wins.

You're the one playing Humpty-dumpty with the language.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

England haven't played defensive cricket in the Pakistan series they just have stopped playing brainless cricket they were playing under Bazball. The Aussies losing to Bangladesh shows how much of a missed opportunity it was last winter.

Defensive cricket has it's place, attacking cricket has it's place. Brainless cricket doesn't.

 

[Starfighter]

Having actually read the rest of the thread, if we stick with attacking/defensive batting and bowling in the context of players' approach rather than the seperate context of which side is defending in terms of gameplay (it's the fielding side), it's good to see that most people realise that being attacking or defensive is not a binary thing.

While the modern game as a whole is perhaps sometimes over-attacking and eschews defending where it might be better, I think that it often nets out. While older batsmen might have waited longer to play them, in older footage you see the same combination of pokes, prods and slashes that modern batsmen get out playing. If you took a defensive side from say the 70s which had similar quality batmen to a modern attacking side, and put them on a difficult pitch against one of the current attacks, they might bat for longer but I don't think they'd score any more.

While some of us are familiar with defensive batting in tricky conditions (think de Villiers in India) or purposeful defence in easier conditions, like Australia playing out the draw at Melbourne in 2017 (that last day was the first test day I eve saw at the ground, believe me it was boring), really defensive bowling isn't that common in tests these days thoughtcrimes it does happen. I think only the oldest posters here would be familiar with the safety-first, otherwise aimless defence with both bat and ball (but especially bat) that prevailed in earlier years, which produced series results like this:



The modern game might produce its moments of frustration, but it is vastly preferable to something like that.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

closer to baseball, where the bowlers are scared and the batters don’t care about getting out

wot

 

[shortpitched713]

Having actually read the rest of the thread, if we stick with attacking/defensive batting and bowling in the context of players' approach rather than the seperate context of which side is defending in terms of gameplay (it's the fielding side), it's good to see that most people realise that being attacking or defensive is not a binary thing.

While the modern game as a whole is perhaps sometimes over-attacking and eschews defending where it might be better, I think that it often nets out. While older batsmen might have waited longer to play them, in older footage you see the same combination of pokes, prods and slashes that modern batsmen get out playing. If you took a defensive side from say the 70s which had similar quality batmen to a modern attacking side, and put them on a difficult pitch against one of the current attacks, they might bat for longer but I don't think they'd score any more.

While some of us are familiar with defensive batting in tricky conditions (think de Villiers in India) or purposeful defence in easier conditions, like Australia playing out the draw at Melbourne in 2017 (that last day was the first test day I eve saw at the ground, believe me it was boring), really defensive bowling isn't that common in tests these days thoughtcrimes it does happen. I think only the oldest posters here would be familiar with the safety-first, otherwise aimless defence with both bat and ball (but especially bat) that prevailed in earlier years, which produced series results like this:

View attachment 55449

The modern game might produce its moments of frustration, but it is vastly preferable to something like that.

False comparison and false dichotomy, as literally no one wants nor asked for this. And we've had much better balances of the game, within the last few decades even.

 

[shortpitched713]

wot

Ever heard of T20?

The whole score runs quicker and earlier being somehow more optimal in Tests is a knock on effect of the various forms of the Limited Overs game.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. But I do think it's an easier approach to implement passably for sides which have limited training time to dedicate to the original, long form of the game.

Vaibhav Sooryavanshi literally has a baseball swing as his go to stroke. If someone doesn't think we're going in this direction, they're either in denial or aren't paying attention.