Team one v Team two.
Joshua Saunders
Team one is playing team two in a test match. Both teams have some
strange selections, both ignore their best spinner, both have real
problems with the opening position. Both have tried and trusted openers
assigned to other roles. Both ignore young middle order batsmen in the
selection of the teams.
Team one wins the toss and asks team two to bat in the time honoured
defensive manner. Team two takes the challenge, and after the loss of one
untested opener, and a guy who has continually failed to perform at the
top level, despite millions of opportunities, they reach a relatively
comfortable position. 2/140 in fact, before rain starts (not for the
first time this day). It should be mentioned though that team one has
dropped some catches.
Team two then squanders this position by losing two quick wickets. One
more wicket and their long tail is exposed. 4/148 at the end of play. The
highest scorer is now back in the pavilion with a very good 81. Shame he
couldn't carry it on.
The two teams are WI and England. The question is, who can tell the
difference?
(No I'm not suggesting that they are exactly the same, but the parallels
so far are interesting. I accept that WI are more talented, and that
England *may* have the edge in application, at least on the battin side
of things. But in terms of defensive captaincy, dropping vital catches,
and selection worries, they are much the same).
England 4/148. Atherton 81. Bishop and K Benjamin 2 wickets apiece.
Stewart 1*, Ramprakash 0*
12th men - Fraser, Chanderpaul.
Toss - WI.
This last bit has been for the benefit of Ken Gemes. :-)
Cheers, Josh
--
Joshua Saunders. jos...@jolt.mpx.com.au
Things to do in a lift #1. Say "ding" at each floor.
IRCnick: rogan
Venkatesh Sridharan
: The two teams are WI and England. The question is, who can tell the
: difference?
: (No I'm not suggesting that they are exactly the same, but the parallels
: so far are interesting. I accept that WI are more talented, and that
: England *may* have the edge in application, at least on the battin side
: of things. But in terms of defensive captaincy, dropping vital catches,
: and selection worries, they are much the same).
: Joshua Saunders.
-------
No offense meant to English fans, but this is the most insulting thing
I've heard about the West Indies team for a long time!
Win or lose, forever Windies.
Venky (Venkatesh Sridharan).
Kurt Toolsie
>
>: The two teams are WI and England. The question is, who can tell the
>: difference?
>
>: (No I'm not suggesting that they are exactly the same, but the parallels
>: so far are interesting. I accept that WI are more talented, and that
>: England *may* have the edge in application, at least on the battin side
>: of things. But in terms of defensive captaincy, dropping vital catches,
>: and selection worries, they are much the same).
>
>: Joshua Saunders.
I'm not sure what you mean about "defensive captaincy". Are you suggesting that
RR goes on the defensive too often, or that he cannot go on the defensive when
the occasion requires, It seems to me, that RR is too one-dimensional as a
captain. However, that 1-D mode is a very aggressive one. He "always" inserts
the oponents, upon winning the toss. This is not a defensive strategy.
I do think that often this is not the best option. Clive Lloyd would do this
frequently, but RR does not have as good bowlers to call upon. Thus the net
result is the opponents post a good score and the Windies after a couple days
in the field, and with the pressure of following a good score, do not apply
themselves, with pitifull results. RR needs to be more discriminative in his
choices. I don't support the old rule of "think about sending them in, then
choose to bat", but unless the wicket is very green and has some moisture,
the Windies would do better to bat first.
I do agree that the W.I. fielding, which had been supreme for so long, is now
very charitable. I believe that they gave Smith another chance, early in the
first test. Certainly the level of fielding has declined. I do believe that
this may well be due to a lack of practice. RR need to be a bit more stern, he
should require increased fielding practice sessions, and more concentration
from his batsmen.
So, is RR a good captain? No. Is he overly defensive? Again, No. Probably just
the opposite.
I'm not going to say anything about the selectors!
Kurt
---
These views are mine, I tell you... mine, all mine!
Kurt O. Toolsie ktoo...@gelac.lasc.lockheed.com
Joshua Saunders
: >Joshua Saunders (jos...@jolt.mpx.com.au) wrote:
: >
: >: The two teams are WI and England. The question is, who can tell the
: >: difference?
: >
: >: (No I'm not suggesting that they are exactly the same, but the parallels
: >: so far are interesting. I accept that WI are more talented, and that
: >: England *may* have the edge in application, at least on the battin side
: >: of things. But in terms of defensive captaincy, dropping vital catches,
: >: and selection worries, they are much the same).
: >
: >: Joshua Saunders.
: I'm not sure what you mean about "defensive captaincy". Are you suggesting that
: RR goes on the defensive too often, or that he cannot go on the defensive when
: the occasion requires, It seems to me, that RR is too one-dimensional as a
: captain. However, that 1-D mode is a very aggressive one. He "always" inserts
: the oponents, upon winning the toss. This is not a defensive strategy.
I call it a defensive strategy. Very rarely is the pitch so hard to bat
on on Day1 that you'd rather bat on it on Day 5. To me it says not "our
fast bowlers are our major weapon", rather "our fast bowlers are our only
weapon". AFAIAC it is defensive captaincy.
: I do think that often this is not the best option. Clive Lloyd would do this
: frequently, but RR does not have as good bowlers to call upon. Thus the net
: result is the opponents post a good score and the Windies after a couple days
: in the field, and with the pressure of following a good score, do not apply
: themselves, with pitifull results. RR needs to be more discriminative in his
: choices. I don't support the old rule of "think about sending them in, then
: choose to bat", but unless the wicket is very green and has some moisture,
: the Windies would do better to bat first.
Well exactly. Was Leeds really giving that much assistance to the quicks
on Day 1?
: I do agree that the W.I. fielding, which had been supreme for so long, is now
: very charitable. I believe that they gave Smith another chance, early in the
: first test.
And Athers too, when he was about 3.
: Certainly the level of fielding has declined. I do believe that
: this may well be due to a lack of practice. RR need to be a bit more stern, he
: should require increased fielding practice sessions, and more concentration
: from his batsmen.
Yep. The modern cricketer has no excuse for poor fielding. It is the only
aspect of the game that someone who does poorly can become excellent at.
: So, is RR a good captain? No. Is he overly defensive? Again, No. Probably just
: the opposite.
I disagree. You see, he was at his most positive in the recent Aus v WI
series at the start of the first test. He had every reason to be. His
team had recently thrashed NZ in a test, done the same to Aus in the
ODI's, and Australia had lost 2 of its best 4 bowlers (ie. half the test
attack). What did he do in the 1st test when he won the toss? He batted.
He didn't choose to bat again until the Jamaica test, which was a lovely
strip until after the rest day.
It was said that in Antigua, and probably even Trinidad, that Australia
would have batted whatever the result of the toss.
Richie has become defensive.
Barry Smith
>Joshua Saunders (jos...@jolt.mpx.com.au) wrote:
>: The two teams are WI and England. The question is, who can tell the
>: difference?
>: (No I'm not suggesting that they are exactly the same, but the parallels
>: so far are interesting. I accept that WI are more talented, and that
>: England *may* have the edge in application, at least on the battin side
>: of things. But in terms of defensive captaincy, dropping vital catches,
>: and selection worries, they are much the same).
>: Joshua Saunders.
>-------
>No offense meant to English fans, but this is the most insulting thing
>I've heard about the West Indies team for a long time!
-------------------
Hear hear! Venky I couldn't agree with you more. One lost of a series to
Austrailia in 20 odd years and we see all this tripe. When the WI was busting
the Aussie ass for years I did not see many of us(WI Fans)make such statements
regarding the Aussie team and mind you, we did have a lot to brag about.
I would be the first to admit that WI does have weaknesses, but so does everyone else. WI will put and end to this pretty soon!
Baary(WI Rule Tings)
Stephen Devaux
Hol' on, Barry an' Venky. I tink Venky was funnin, buh less face it,
if we wuz to be talkin mungst usselves, we wuh say de same ting! part
uh WI problem is dat dey doin de same ting England done fuy years,
selectin de wrong guys fuh de wrong reasons. When Josh talk bout lack
of application an drop catches, he right. Negative captaincy, I doan
what dat mean, but I know dat Taylor outcaptain Richie in Wes' Indies.
Now, Wes Indies, I tink, gonna fix tings, but not by pretennin de
problems doan exis. We replace Nureyev wiff Campbell, like we shoulda
done long ago. Nureyev ain't NEVER gonna be a good Tes opener cuz he
got a lead foot. An', as Clive Lloyd said to Chico in Kingston, how he
could get to dat level wiffout nobody noticin is absurd! Dat's why
Clive recommen Hooper open in England.
De udda countries all wrong bout Dhanraj. De way Tes cricket is played
today, even half-decent pace bowlers is better dan all but de bes
spinners. Winston ain't half decent, an' Dhanraj wudda been better.
But Bishop definitely better dan Dhanraj, I tink Kenny better, an dere
gotta be udda pace bowlers comin long who is better, whedda is Gibson,
or Cuffy, or Thompson, or Rose, or Drakes, or Hamesh Anthony. If
Dhanraj was a Warne or a Kumble, it wuh be different. Buh he ent!
Buh Windies spen tummuch time in de las' four years wiff guys yuh cud
tell weren't gonna do it: Sim***s, Cum***s, Nureyev, Ian Allen,
Winston, David Williams, Keith Arthurton. Evahbody in de Wes Indies
('ceptin de islan dey from; imagine a boycott over Cummins? Make even
less sense dan be Yorkshire fans who always use to be cummin over
Boycott!) knew dese guys wuzzin gonna make it, yet dey persis, an still
persissin wif Arthurton, when everybody else in de worl know dat
Chanderpaul should be in dey. De trouble is, not dat Arthurton is dat
bad (jus like Logie wasn't), but dat dis policy keepin better players
out! Look how long Lara an' Adams had to wait to become regulars, an'
look how good dey is. Is dere ANYONE, short of MAYBE Viv himself, dat
shoulda been keepin' dem out?
So, Josh, I tink in general you is right bout de Windies problems. I
wuh only add: we gon slove dem, an soon. An doan tink Aus en gon have
problems demselves! When a batsman gon have to face Curtly an Courtney
firs ting nex mornin, an he in a bar POURIN down de beer till 2 a.m.,
dats a problem developin. Buh is okay; won me a drink by bettin he woun
reach thirty de nex day. An he dint!
Fraternally in cricket,
Steve de Bajan
Chico Khan
>De udda countries all wrong bout Dhanraj. De way Tes cricket is played
>today, even half-decent pace bowlers is better dan all but de bes
>spinners. Winston ain't half decent, an' Dhanraj wudda been better.
>But Bishop definitely better dan Dhanraj, I tink Kenny better, an dere
>gotta be udda pace bowlers comin long who is better, whedda is Gibson,
>or Cuffy, or Thompson, or Rose, or Drakes, or Hamesh Anthony. If
>Dhanraj was a Warne or a Kumble, it wuh be different. Buh he ent!
How do we know that the above statement is true? I think Dhanraj is
a better bowler than Kumble (God knows he turns the ball more) and
based on first class records (which is all we got to go by in Dhanraj's
case) he certainly appears to lose nothing to the other two. Bishop
is certainly better, maybe even this new incarnation of Bishop, but
we'll have to see, but I won't say that Kenny B. is.
I think you're also being a little unfair to Winston B - he's a
much better bowler that you give him credit for. And if he
can occasionally go in there and give us some runs, so much the
better.
>Steve de Bajan
Chico.
Dinesh Katiyar
>sde...@ix.netcom.com (Stephen Devaux ) wrote:
>
>>De udda countries all wrong bout Dhanraj. De way Tes cricket is played
>>today, even half-decent pace bowlers is better dan all but de bes
>>spinners. Winston ain't half decent, an' Dhanraj wudda been better.
>>But Bishop definitely better dan Dhanraj, I tink Kenny better, an dere
>>gotta be udda pace bowlers comin long who is better, whedda is Gibson,
>>or Cuffy, or Thompson, or Rose, or Drakes, or Hamesh Anthony. If
>>Dhanraj was a Warne or a Kumble, it wuh be different. Buh he ent!
>
>How do we know that the above statement is true? I think Dhanraj is
>a better bowler than Kumble (God knows he turns the ball more) and
I think this is going a bit too far, IMHO. Kumble is proven himself
in the test arena to be one of the leading spinners of the day, if
you can call him that. He has won many a match for India in recent
years. Dhanaraj may be talented, but calling him better than Kumble
is a stretch.
>
>Chico.
>
>
Raja J.
Joshua Saunders
: >Joshua Saunders (jos...@jolt.mpx.com.au) wrote:
: >: The two teams are WI and England. The question is, who can tell the
: >: difference?
: >: (No I'm not suggesting that they are exactly the same, but the parallels
: >: so far are interesting. I accept that WI are more talented, and that
: >: England *may* have the edge in application, at least on the battin side
: >: of things. But in terms of defensive captaincy, dropping vital catches,
: >: and selection worries, they are much the same).
: >: Joshua Saunders.
: >-------
: >No offense meant to English fans, but this is the most insulting thing
: >I've heard about the West Indies team for a long time!
: -------------------
Sorry Venky, I didn't see your post, so I don't know if you addressed the
issues I raised. Perhaps you'd like to.
: Hear hear! Venky I couldn't agree with you more. One lost of a series to
: Austrailia in 20 odd years and we see all this tripe. When the WI was busting
: the Aussie ass for years I did not see many of us(WI Fans)make such
: statements
: regarding the Aussie team and mind you, we did have a lot to brag about.
: I would be the first to admit that WI does have weaknesses, but so does
: everyone else. WI will put and end to this pretty soon!
Actually, perhaps you'd both like to address them. How long is it since WI
has reached 300 in a test innings? Fast bowler reliant attacks are just great,
for just as long as those attacks intimidate the opposition. Which
demonstrably did not happen in Barbados or Jamaica. (Note. By
"intimidate" in this paragraph I do not mean "make the batsman fear for
his well being". I merely mean "make the batsman think he is not as good
a batsman as you are a bowler").
It happened in Leeds though. Happened in New Zealand too....
But no amount of beating New Zealand and England can take you back to the
top. Just ask Australia.
Joshua Saunders
(some deletion)
: De udda countries all wrong bout Dhanraj. De way Tes cricket is played
: today, even half-decent pace bowlers is better dan all but de bes
: spinners. Winston ain't half decent, an' Dhanraj wudda been better.
: But Bishop definitely better dan Dhanraj, I tink Kenny better, an dere
Yes, Bishop is better. I'm not convinced about Kenny, but that's the key.
If Kenny is more effective than Dhanraj you may as well play him. But you
don't know for sure UNTIL you play him.
: So, Josh, I tink in general you is right bout de Windies problems. I
: wuh only add: we gon slove dem, an soon. An doan tink Aus en gon have
: problems demselves! When a batsman gon have to face Curtly an Courtney
: firs ting nex mornin, an he in a bar POURIN down de beer till 2 a.m.,
: dats a problem developin. Buh is okay; won me a drink by bettin he woun
: reach thirty de nex day. An he dint!
Jeez. What was Boon doing in a pub at that hour? Worse, why did he go
back to the pub the next day? :-) You'd think after a failure he'd have
the sense to get an early night. I guess we're lucky the Waughs were
tucked up in bed like responsible test class batsmen (Or were they? :-)).
Anyway, Boon's the biggest alco in the side. Always has been. It's only
now that he appears to be on a downward slide that it's a problem. I'd
hope that the younger guys didn't stay out too late during the tests. Oh,
BTW, it was David Boon wasn't it? :-)
Stephen Devaux
A BIG stretch. A HUGE stretch. Maybe even... a GUYANESE stretch.
Fraternally in cricket,
Steve the Bajan
John Hall
jos...@jolt.mpx.com.au "Joshua Saunders" writes:
> Stephen Devaux (sde...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> (some deletion)
>
> : De udda countries all wrong bout Dhanraj. De way Tes cricket is played
> : today, even half-decent pace bowlers is better dan all but de bes
> : spinners. Winston ain't half decent, an' Dhanraj wudda been better.
> : But Bishop definitely better dan Dhanraj, I tink Kenny better, an dere
>
> Yes, Bishop is better. I'm not convinced about Kenny, but that's the key.
> If Kenny is more effective than Dhanraj you may as well play him. But you
> don't know for sure UNTIL you play him.
Apparently they had the radar gun in use at Headingley, and Benjamin
came out the fastest of the WI quartet. However, how little this
proves is indicated by the fact that Malcolm was faster than any of
the West Indians.
--
Extreme busyness, whether at school or college, kirk or market,
is a symptom of deficicient vitality; and a faculty for idleness
implies a catholic appetite and a strong sense of personal identity.
R.L.Stevenson "An Apology for Idlers" 1876
Venkatesh Sridharan
: >No offense meant to English fans, but this is the most insulting thing
: >I've heard about the West Indies team for a long time!
-------------------
: Sorry Venky, I didn't see your post, so I don't know if you addressed the
: issues I raised. Perhaps you'd like to.
-------
Well, Josh, as I saw it, your post did'nt really raise too many issues.
Hence, my reply too was a one-liner, more tongue-in-cheek than anything
else... In any case, here's your post...
Josh's original post:
####################
Let me give you a scenario.
Team one is playing team two in a test match. Both teams have some
strange selections, both ignore their best spinner, both have real
problems with the opening position. Both have tried and trusted openers
assigned to other roles. Both ignore young middle order batsmen in the
selection of the teams.
Team one wins the toss and asks team two to bat in the time honoured
defensive manner. Team two takes the challenge, and after the loss of one
untested opener, and a guy who has continually failed to perform at the
top level, despite millions of opportunities, they reach a relatively
comfortable position. 2/140 in fact, before rain starts (not for the
first time this day). It should be mentioned though that team one has
dropped some catches.
Team two then squanders this position by losing two quick wickets. One
more wicket and their long tail is exposed. 4/148 at the end of play. The
highest scorer is now back in the pavilion with a very good 81. Shame he
couldn't carry it on.
The two teams are WI and England. The question is, who can tell the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
difference?
^^^^^^^^^^^
(No I'm not suggesting that they are exactly the same, but the parallels
so far are interesting. I accept that WI are more talented, and that
England *may* have the edge in application, at least on the battin side
of things. But in terms of defensive captaincy, dropping vital catches,
and selection worries, they are much the same).
##########
-------
[VS]:
Sure, there are slight similarities between the English team and the
present West Indies team, but I would'nt go so far as to label them
Team One and Team Two and claim that they were so similar that it was
"difficult to tell the difference".
Let me tell you what the difference is:
The West Indian batting lineup, when one or two of its stalwarts wake
up on the right side of the bed, can rip into bowling attacks like no
other batting line up in the world can. Their display in the second
innings of the last test against India is a good example. In fact,
if Lara, the best batsman in cricket today (IMO), gets his act together,
and stops throwing his wicket away so often when the bowling attack
is at his feet (even against incredibly good attacks like Julian, McGrath,
Reiffel and Warne), opposing teams could be looking at the prospect of
batting against a top-notch attack for long periods of time (since Lara
and Co rattle off their runs so quickly). Soon, you'll see Arthurton
giving way to Chanderpaul. Then, the batting line up will read Hooper,
Campbell, Lara, Adams, Chanderpaul, Richardson, Murray. Does'nt look
too bad, does it?
In the very recent past, the West Indian team has been performing below
potential. Granted, this team is'nt a patch on the team that had Isaac
Vivian Alexander Richards walking out at Number Three, but it's still
good enough to beat every other team fairly comfortably.
It would be a mistake to conclude too much from the defeat against
Australia -- in that series, Lara, the star performer for the West
Indies, was unlucky on more than one occasion (the details would be
redundant, I presume). Adams was out of form, Richardson was returning
to cricket after a long lay-off, the team was playing with two new openers
after a long time (because of Haynes' non-selection). None of the above
can be taken as indicators of lack of class/quality. You don't seriously
think that Julian and Co. ripped into the West Indian batting line up,
do you? Should Australia play with the same bowling attack the next
time around, even on home-pitches, and should West Indies play with more
or less the same batting line-up, I can bet that the West Indians will
put their heads down, and you'll see what I'm talking about...
As for the bowling, to Australia's good fortune, Ambrose was below par,
and Walsh was just coming off a long period of heavy-duty bowling
(against India and New Zealand). Bishop was'nt around, and the West
Indies played with both Benjamins, instead of with Cuffy and Kenny
Benjamin (because of Winston's half-centuries in New Zealand, I guess).
Another mistake. Now, with a bowling attack that reads Ambrose, Walsh
Bishop and KBenjamin (or Dhanraj), things are'nt quite the same.
As for the similarity with England, I see very little. England has been
losing it's much vaunted 'Ashes' battles with Australia for ages now,
Australia just managed to beat the West Indies for the FIRST TIME SINCE
1975-76. That too, against a malfunctioning West Indies team. I don't
think Richie's decision to bat first makes him a defensive captain.
Had he elected to bowl first, people could well have claimed that he
did so because he was "relying too much on his fast bowlers" and wanted
them to try and win the test match on the first day. These are very
subjective statements. If they are leading one to conclusions such as
'the English and West Indian teams are so similar that it is difficult
to tell the difference', then they could well be termed plain wrong.
There is nothing defensive about West Indian cricket. Had there been,
half the test matches that the West Indies lost would have been drawn.
The Calypso flair is what makes the West Indian team the best team to
watch, regardless of the fact that it has "too many" bowlers with
30 yard run-ups and too few off-spinners who push the ball into the
batsman's pads. Nor do I find it easy to believe that the West Indies
team would be tentative going into the last test of a series tied 1-1,
not against a team without a genuinely quick bowler, and not against
a country against which it has casually been inflicting heavy defeats
for more than a decade. Not against anybody, in short!
I guess it gives you, as an Aussie supporter, great pleasure to think
that your team has pushed the West Indians into a defensive, tentative
mind-set. No offense meant, but that is the only way I can rationalise
theories like the one you just put forward... The first test, notably
the batting performances in both the early part of the first innings
(after Hooper was "unlucky to get a good ball" :-) and in the second
innings should tell you how defensive the West Indians have become
lately...
-------
: Actually, perhaps you'd both like to address them. How long is it since WI
:has reached 300 in a test innings? Fast bowler reliant attacks are just great,
: for just as long as those attacks intimidate the opposition. Which
: demonstrably did not happen in Barbados or Jamaica. (Note. By
: "intimidate" in this paragraph I do not mean "make the batsman fear for
: his well being". I merely mean "make the batsman think he is not as good
: a batsman as you are a bowler").
-------
I see your point. The West Indies has not reached a large total for some
time now (if you don't want to count the 500+ against New Zealand). That
is a problem, but, with batsmen like Lara, Adams, Hooper and Richardson
in the team, and with up-and-coming youngsters like Campbell and Chanderpaul
around, I don't think it's a serious problem. The most important thing,
IMO, is for the West Indies to find another genuinely quick bowler. Walsh
and Ambrose are'nt going to be around forever, Bishop and Kenny Benjamin
(as fourth bowler) should be around for a while now. Had the West Indies
selectors been intelligent enough to include Cuffy for this *six* test
series (how often does the West Indies get them these days??), we would
have ended up (in all probability) with another quickie. Cuffy was
certainly impressive, if raw, in India, and while Winston Benjamin really
has'nt done much to get dropped, I think he's had his chances...
As for the Australian team, I'd like to see how they do in India next
year, especially if they go there without McDermott. Warne is'nt even
going to get the tail out, unless something drastically changes (like
the Indian batting order deciding to bat in 'saris' etc). Julian and
Reiffel are going to be meat-and-drink for the likes of Tendulkar
and Azharuddin. You might want to worry about that before you start
predicting doom for the West Indies.
-------
: But no amount of beating New Zealand and England can take you back to the
: top. Just ask Australia.
-------
The Australian team is certainly performing very competently, and is most
certainly the team to beat today (followed closely by, IMO, India at home).
Your time will come, mate, just you wait...
: Cheers, Josh
Kurt Toolsie
>Well it did. Here's some. Failure of the openers. Poor fielding.
>Defensive captaincy. Failure to convert a decent start to a big score, or
>indeed anything over 250. But you found them anyway I guess. We'll go
>from here.
>
<snip>
>Hang on. Defensive captaincy is what I said. The batting of late could
>only be described as profligate. The bowling could never be accused of
>defensiveness.
>
Hi Josh, I know I've mentioned this too you before, but I still do not see
your justification for asserting that RR captaincy is defensive. Maybe, we
should start by defining defensive captaincy, as we seem to have a divergent
view on this point. To me, a defensive move is any designed to reduce the
chance of losing a game at the expense of reducing your chance of winning that
same game, i.e. - aiming for a draw. This includes, but is not limited to the
following :
1) Batting slowly (defensively), reducing your stroke playing to reduce your
chance of dismissal. In particular, limiting yourself to playing balls on
line, and always playing with a straight (and dead) bat.
2) Reducing your over rate below what is normal for your team. Note I do not
refer to an absolute over-rate.
3) Setting a field which is designed to give up few runs, albeit with less
likelihood of catching any mis-stroke (i.e - third man, but no slips)
4) Bowling balls of a line and length primarily designed to prevent attacking
strokes from the batsmen, rather than taking wickets.
They are others but these are the major ones. To this list you have added
inserting opposition, upon winning the toss. You use some arbitrary statistic
of RR inserting the opposition, upon losing the previous post and present
this as "proof" that RR is acting defensively. If I am too agree with you
on his defensiveness than you have to convince me that the majority of the
above applied to the Windies. Granted, the captain does not have absolute
control over item (1) (apart from his own innings). However, both he and
the manager have always had great influence over the mind-set and approach
of the batsmen. Also, I do not believe that RR's own innings showed any
undue sign of defensiveness. So, I have to say, and you yourself admit,
that for item (1), we have to answer, "false".
I have not seen any evidence to indicate that the windies deliberately slowed
the over rate down. Now if they did after the Aussies had already set up a
good score. Then, yes, this would be a sign of defensiveness, but also a
correct decision, which any good (and normally attacking captain) would
take. What would be more apt would be to take the over rate after inserting
the opposition, for say the first two sessions. If, as you say, RR was
already in a defensive mode, prior to the coin-toss, this should be
extremely relevant. Without any indication to the contrary, I have to respond
to item (2) with "false".
Similarly, I have not heard any assertion on your part, as too defensive
fields set by RR, or application of item (4) in these relevant sessions.
So again, we have a "false" and "false".
Now I grant you that I did not have the opportunity to watch these matches and
as such, I am making some assumptions. However, if you wish to put forward a
view-point you would be well served to justify it by more than some utterly
irrelevant (at least to me) statistics about when RR inserts the opposition.
You yourself concede that the W.I. batted and bowled aggressively. You make
no comment upon over rates and field placement, but state that RR inserted the
opposition on 2 out of 4 times. Based, on this somewhat (or very) tenuous thread
you make your wild claims that (at least 50% of the time) RR is excessively
defensive. Following your logic, it seems that a captain has no influence over
the events of a match, other than deciding who bats first.
Note, I have not claimed that a defensive captain is a bad or somehow
dishonorable captain. Every good captain need to always vary defense
with aggression, as circumstances dictate. Indeed, from reports, it seems
as if the Aussies were more defensive in both batting and bowling. Indeed,
their major objective in bowling seemed to be to stick to a good line and
length and wait till the batsmen gets out due to frustration. Not what
I normally think of as an aggressive approach (albeit one that proved very
successful).
The Aussies won the series. However, you seem to be on some anti-RR campaign.
Is this somehow related to the "worst Aussie team thread".
P.S. I proof read this post and think it is free of personal attacks.
I am genuinely interested in your counter to my comments and have no
desire to trade any flames. In particular, you may be able to disprove
some of my assumptions.
Yours, not on the defensive,
Joshua Saunders
: Joshua Saunders (jos...@jolt.mpx.com.au) wrote:
: : >No offense meant to English fans, but this is the most insulting thing
: : >I've heard about the West Indies team for a long time!
: -------------------
: : Sorry Venky, I didn't see your post, so I don't know if you addressed the
: : issues I raised. Perhaps you'd like to.
: -------
: Well, Josh, as I saw it, your post did'nt really raise too many issues.
Well it did. Here's some. Failure of the openers. Poor fielding.
Defensive captaincy. Failure to convert a decent start to a big score, or
indeed anything over 250. But you found them anyway I guess. We'll go
from here.
(snip my post)
: -------
: [VS]:
: Sure, there are slight similarities between the English team and the
: present West Indies team, but I would'nt go so far as to label them
: Team One and Team Two and claim that they were so similar that it was
: "difficult to tell the difference".
: Let me tell you what the difference is:
: The West Indian batting lineup, when one or two of its stalwarts wake
: up on the right side of the bed, can rip into bowling attacks like no
: other batting line up in the world can.
Absolutely true. It just happens rarely these days. Let's see. Once in
Antigua. Once in India (Mohali, 2nd inns). Once in NZ. Not at all v
Australia.
: Their display in the second innings of the last test against India is a
: good example. In fact,
Absolutely.
: if Lara, the best batsman in cricket today (IMO), gets his act together,
: and stops throwing his wicket away so often when the bowling attack
: is at his feet (even against incredibly good attacks like Julian, McGrath,
: Reiffel and Warne),
Now come on. He gave himself up in a dismal fashoin on maybe one or at
most two times v Australia. The others were good fielding, captaincy or
even (hard tho it is for you to believe) bowling. He was unlucky exactly
once. You refer to him throwing his wicket away, just when all seems at
his mercy. Dare I suggest that Atherton did this also in the First Test?
opposing teams could be looking at the prospect of
: batting against a top-notch attack for long periods of time (since Lara
: and Co rattle off their runs so quickly).
OTOH, if they don't, opposing teams could be looking at the prospect of
chasing 250 or so in the first innings.
: Soon, you'll see Arthurton
: giving way to Chanderpaul.
Exactly the point I made. And soon we'll see Ramprakash give way to
Gallian. Or Smith give way to Crawley.
: Then, the batting line up will read Hooper,
: Campbell, Lara, Adams, Chanderpaul, Richardson, Murray. Does'nt look
: too bad, does it?
It's not a line up that has actually taken the field, not in a test anyway.
Hooper is not yet a proven opener. His whirlwind 70 odd doesn't prove that he
is any more tahn his first ball duck proves that he isn't. I'll watch the whole
series before assessing the likelihood of that experiment continuing.
But for now, WI have problems with the openers. England at least seem to
have repaired their problem. For now.
: In the very recent past, the West Indian team has been performing below
: potential. Granted, this team is'nt a patch on the team that had Isaac
: Vivian Alexander Richards walking out at Number Three, but it's still
: good enough to beat every other team fairly comfortably.
Except that it didn't. And doesn't. Even ignoring the Aus. series, I
wouldn't call the Indian series "fairly comfortable". No matter how
brilliant the last two days of Mohali, The Indians had the better of the
first two tests, and probably the first 3 days of that test. A win is a
win tho....
Face it. They are good enough to beat MOST other teams fairly
comfortably. Not EVERY other team. I'd back South Africa against them for
example. More application. More guts.
: It would be a mistake to conclude too much from the defeat against
: Australia -- in that series, Lara, the star performer for the West
: Indies, was unlucky on more than one occasion (the details would be
: redundant, I presume).
One occasion only. If you wish we can go through the dismissals and
assess just how lucky or otherwise he was.
: Adams was out of form, Richardson was returning
: to cricket after a long lay-off, the team was playing with two new openers
Adams was out of form? What, you REALLY believe he is going to finish
with a test average of 70+? He was not dismissed for less than 17, nor
did he reach a higher score than 42. Lack of application. As for
Richardson, well he does seem to be taking a while to get up to speed.
: after a long time (because of Haynes' non-selection). None of the above
: can be taken as indicators of lack of class/quality.
Haynes' non-selection was a point I made. Non-selection was hardly
Australia's fault, yet made our task easier. He would have been better
than Williams. And quite possibly better than Hooper.
: You don't seriously
: think that Julian and Co. ripped into the West Indian batting line up,
: do you? Should Australia play with the same bowling attack the next
: time around, even on home-pitches, and should West Indies play with more
: or less the same batting line-up, I can bet that the West Indians will
: put their heads down, and you'll see what I'm talking about...
Well we probably won't have the same bowling line up next time. But
whilst we're on the theme, it's not THAT bad a line up. McGrath is Test
class, he showed that in Pakistan last year, and again blitzed England in
Perth, when he returned from exile. Reiffel and Julian probably bowled
above themselves, but in particular Reiffel is the sort of bowler who
seemed to frustrate the WI batsmen into loose play. Drop Julian, bring in
McDermott, and you have a very decent attack.
: As for the bowling, to Australia's good fortune, Ambrose was below par,
: and Walsh was just coming off a long period of heavy-duty bowling
: (against India and New Zealand). Bishop was'nt around, and the West
: Indies played with both Benjamins, instead of with Cuffy and Kenny
: Benjamin (because of Winston's half-centuries in New Zealand, I guess).
: Another mistake. Now, with a bowling attack that reads Ambrose, Walsh
: Bishop and KBenjamin (or Dhanraj), things are'nt quite the same.
Well no they aren't. On theother hand, WI were very lucky Warne wasn't in
form/had a broken thumb/whatever other excuse. The above paragraph is
getting a bit desperate. Just how much longer are Walsh/Ambrose going to
be around? Will they even make the 96/7 tour of Australia? Will they
still be effective?
: As for the similarity with England, I see very little. England has been
: losing it's much vaunted 'Ashes' battles with Australia for ages now,
: Australia just managed to beat the West Indies for the FIRST TIME SINCE
: 1975-76.
The history lesson is irrelevant. Australia beat WI in their most recent
series. I think you'll find that Roberts, Holding, Garner, Marshall,
Lloyd, Gomes, Richards, Dujon, Greenidge and Haynes haven't been on the
scene for a while. So although the modern WI team carries the legacy of
that team, they don't carry the players. It's a bit much to start
expecting similar results. It's a bit much to be stating "you were lucky
we didn't have Bishop" and the like. YOU were lucky we didn't have
McDermott, Fleming and Hughes.
: That too, against a malfunctioning West Indies team. I don't
: think Richie's decision to bat first makes him a defensive captain.
OK lets get this straight. He won all 4 tosses. He batted twice, and
bowled twice. He batted in the first test, after the sweeping ODI
victory. He batted in the 4th test after the Trinidad demolition. He
bowled in Trini (fair enough) and Antigua (defensive). He also bowled in
Leeds. Is there a pattern there? I think so. What's the betting he bats
at Lords, having won his most recent test? If he wins the toss of course...
: Had he elected to bowl first, people could well have claimed that he
: did so because he was "relying too much on his fast bowlers" and wanted
: them to try and win the test match on the first day. These are very
: subjective statements. If they are leading one to conclusions such as
: 'the English and West Indian teams are so similar that it is difficult
: to tell the difference', then they could well be termed plain wrong.
hmmm. So when England got to 2/141, then collapsed to 4/144 and then
8/~155, that didn't remind you of their opposition 2 months previous?
Cause that's what came to my mind. When Stewart was forced into the
middle order, and England experimented with Smith, you didn't think
Hooper was an "experiment"? When Arthurton was persisted with, there was
no parallel to be drawn with Ramprakash? When WI drop catches, is it poor
fielding or just bad luck?
: There is nothing defensive about West Indian cricket. Had there been,
: half the test matches that the West Indies lost would have been drawn.
: The Calypso flair is what makes the West Indian team the best team to
: watch, regardless of the fact that it has "too many" bowlers with
: 30 yard run-ups and too few off-spinners who push the ball into the
: batsman's pads. Nor do I find it easy to believe that the West Indies
: team would be tentative going into the last test of a series tied 1-1,
: not against a team without a genuinely quick bowler, and not against
: a country against which it has casually been inflicting heavy defeats
: for more than a decade. Not against anybody, in short!
Hang on. Defensive captaincy is what I said. The batting of late could
only be described as profligate. The bowling could never be accused of
defensiveness.
: I guess it gives you, as an Aussie supporter, great pleasure to think
: that your team has pushed the West Indians into a defensive, tentative
: mind-set.
Richie Richardson. Not the WI team. The batsmen seem to have a single
gear, which led to almost inevitable destruction when faced with tight
seamers. No plan B. No imagination. No commitment to staying in for more
than an hour or so.
: No offense meant, but that is the only way I can rationalise
: theories like the one you just put forward... The first test, notably
No offence taken. you're just wrong.
: the batting performances in both the early part of the first innings
: (after Hooper was "unlucky to get a good ball" :-) and in the second
: innings should tell you how defensive the West Indians have become
: lately...
Once again. the batting is not defensive, the captaincy is.
: -------
: : Actually, perhaps you'd both like to address them. How long is it since WI
: :has reached 300 in a test innings? Fast bowler reliant attacks are just great,
: : for just as long as those attacks intimidate the opposition. Which
: : demonstrably did not happen in Barbados or Jamaica. (Note. By
: : "intimidate" in this paragraph I do not mean "make the batsman fear for
: : his well being". I merely mean "make the batsman think he is not as good
: : a batsman as you are a bowler").
: -------
: I see your point. The West Indies has not reached a large total for some
: time now (if you don't want to count the 500+ against New Zealand). That
I do count that innings. But it has become a lot rarer. They didn't so
much as reach 300 against Australia.
: is a problem, but, with batsmen like Lara, Adams, Hooper and Richardson
: in the team, and with up-and-coming youngsters like Campbell and Chanderpaul
: around, I don't think it's a serious problem. The most important thing,
: IMO, is for the West Indies to find another genuinely quick bowler. Walsh
: and Ambrose are'nt going to be around forever, Bishop and Kenny Benjamin
: (as fourth bowler) should be around for a while now. Had the West Indies
: selectors been intelligent enough to include Cuffy for this *six* test
: series (how often does the West Indies get them these days??), we would
: have ended up (in all probability) with another quickie. Cuffy was
: certainly impressive, if raw, in India, and while Winston Benjamin really
: has'nt done much to get dropped, I think he's had his chances...
Whatever.
: As for the Australian team, I'd like to see how they do in India next
: year, especially if they go there without McDermott. Warne is'nt even
: going to get the tail out, unless something drastically changes (like
: the Indian batting order deciding to bat in 'saris' etc). Julian and
: Reiffel are going to be meat-and-drink for the likes of Tendulkar
: and Azharuddin. You might want to worry about that before you start
: predicting doom for the West Indies.
They won't be going there without McDermott. Or Fleming. As if it
matters. The attack Australia put in the field in WI is stronger than the
Indian attack in any case. Julian will be lucky to tour, tho Reiffel
probably will. Dare I suggest that McDermott AND McGrath are faster than
Srinath? Who will India have? Srinath, Kumble, Raju. Maybe Prabhakar.
Another "paceman"? Prasad? Hmmm. Not exactly intimidating. I realise that
WI fell all over themselves (except Adams) trying to keep this bunch out,
but as you have been at pains to point out, they did the same with
Reiffel, McGrath and Julian.
The Indian batting is excellent, of course. But then so is Australia's.
"But they can't play spin" I hear you yell from the rooftops. Simply not
true, but again, we'll see.
: : But no amount of beating New Zealand and England can take you back to the
: : top. Just ask Australia.
: -------
: The Australian team is certainly performing very competently, and is most
: certainly the team to beat today (followed closely by, IMO, India at home).
: Your time will come, mate, just you wait...
Indeed it will. More likely against Pakistan in November than in India
next October. If we get through that, South Africa in 97/8 looms as a
huge challenge.
Anyway, back to the theme. Of course there are differences between WI and
England. I called them "team one and team two" on the basis of a single
days play. Unfair? Perhaps. But for that day, WI bumbling around in the
field, dropping Atherton and Smith, when they should have been batting,
and England giving up a strong position late in the day, it seemed to me
that someone had caught the disease from someone else.
Venkatesh Sridharan
: Venkatesh Sridharan (venk...@utdallas.edu) wrote:
: : Let me tell you what the difference is:
: : The West Indian batting lineup, when one or two of its stalwarts wake
: : up on the right side of the bed, can rip into bowling attacks like no
: : other batting line up in the world can.
: Absolutely true. It just happens rarely these days. Let's see. Once in
: Antigua. Once in India (Mohali, 2nd inns). Once in NZ. Not at all v
: Australia.
-------
Well, in the last four years, the team has lost Vivian Richards, Gordon
Greenidge, Desmond Haynes and Jeff Dujon. Actually, all things considered,
the batting is'nt as bad as it could've been (in terms of potential, not
in terms of performance) -- Lara is the premier batsman now. Adams has
done pretty well, Chanderpaul and Campbell are moving in, albeit slowly.
Murray's not a bad batsman, though he's not in Dujon's class. Should Richie
and Hooper pull their weight, the batting order is pretty good.
-------
[...bit about Lara throwing his wicket away...]
: once. You refer to him throwing his wicket away, just when all seems at
: his mercy. Dare I suggest that Atherton did this also in the First Test?
-------
So? I don't think Atherton, fine batsman though he is, is in Lara's class.
A big innings from Lara could well prove decisive, Atherton does'nt quite
play that much of a role in deciding test matches, in my opinion.
-------
: opposing teams could be looking at the prospect of
: : batting against a top-notch attack for long periods of time (since Lara
: : and Co rattle off their runs so quickly).
: OTOH, if they don't, opposing teams could be looking at the prospect of
: chasing 250 or so in the first innings.
-------
Which has still been enough for the West Indian fast bowlers, till *one*
series ago.
-------
: Face it. They are good enough to beat MOST other teams fairly
: comfortably. Not EVERY other team. I'd back South Africa against them for
: example. More application. More guts.
-------
EVERY other team. Including this bunch from Australia... whom we'll beat
when we meet them next.
-------
: Haynes' non-selection was a point I made. Non-selection was hardly
: Australia's fault, yet made our task easier. He would have been better
: than Williams. And quite possibly better than Hooper.
-------
What made you think that I thought Haynes' selection was "Australia's
fault" ? Australia's fault was that it escaped the customary whipping
it usually gets in series against the West Indies :-)
-------
: : As for the similarity with England, I see very little. England has been
: : losing it's much vaunted 'Ashes' battles with Australia for ages now,
: : Australia just managed to beat the West Indies for the FIRST TIME SINCE
: : 1975-76.
: The history lesson is irrelevant. Australia beat WI in their most recent
: series. I think you'll find that Roberts, Holding, Garner, Marshall,
: Lloyd, Gomes, Richards, Dujon, Greenidge and Haynes haven't been on the
: scene for a while. So although the modern WI team carries the legacy of
: that team, they don't carry the players. It's a bit much to start
: expecting similar results. It's a bit much to be stating "you were lucky
: we didn't have Bishop" and the like. YOU were lucky we didn't have
: McDermott, Fleming and Hughes.
-------
Heh! YOU were lucky that Bishop was'nt around. Recall what happened the
last time he was on a West Indian team that met Australia?? And while
we're at it, what difference did McDermott and Hughes make when Australia
toured last time?? And who's Fleming anyway? :-)
-------
: : That too, against a malfunctioning West Indies team. I don't
: : think Richie's decision to bat first makes him a defensive captain.
: OK lets get this straight. He won all 4 tosses. He batted twice, and
: bowled twice. He batted in the first test, after the sweeping ODI
: victory. He batted in the 4th test after the Trinidad demolition. He
: bowled in Trini (fair enough) and Antigua (defensive). He also bowled in
: Leeds. Is there a pattern there? I think so. What's the betting he bats
: at Lords, having won his most recent test? If he wins the toss of course...
-------
Are you really implying (or worse, saying) that Richardson's decision(s)
to bat / bowl had *nothing* to do with the pitch, with what he thought
his bowlers could/not extract from it on the first morning ? Or with
how his batsmen would fare in the last innings? Or with giving one of
his key players more time to recuperate from an injury?
If you think his decision(s) to bat or bowl were *solely* based on
whether he won / lost the previous match, and if you're calling him a
"defensive captain" based on just that one criterion, I'd like to end
this debate here. They're not worth it.
-------
: : Had he elected to bowl first, people could well have claimed that he
: : did so because he was "relying too much on his fast bowlers" and wanted
: : them to try and win the test match on the first day. These are very
: : subjective statements. If they are leading one to conclusions such as
: : 'the English and West Indian teams are so similar that it is difficult
: : to tell the difference', then they could well be termed plain wrong.
: hmmm. So when England got to 2/141, then collapsed to 4/144 and then
: 8/~155, that didn't remind you of their opposition 2 months previous?
: Cause that's what came to my mind. When Stewart was forced into the
: middle order, and England experimented with Smith, you didn't think
: Hooper was an "experiment"? When Arthurton was persisted with, there was
: no parallel to be drawn with Ramprakash?
-------
I don't know what you're going on about... I was talking about his
decision to bowl, and the conclusions you were drawing based on that
decision.
-------
: When WI drop catches, is it poor fielding or just bad luck?
-------
Bad luck, of course :-)
-------
: Hang on. Defensive captaincy is what I said. The batting of late could
: only be described as profligate. The bowling could never be accused of
: defensiveness.
-------
I think Richardson's captaincy is a *perfect* blend of attack and defence.
Why? Well, he's won toss five times so far, has elected to bat twice,
and has elected to bowl thrice. And we have it on your authority that
he will elect to bat next time around. That makes it three and three...
-------
: : No offense meant, but that is the only way I can rationalise
: : theories like the one you just put forward... The first test, notably
: No offence taken. you're just wrong.
-------
Yup. But I've come up with a better theory that explains why I think
Richie's captaincy is a perfect blend of attack and defence. Don't
tell me that one's wrong too!
-------
: Anyway, back to the theme. Of course there are differences between WI and
: England. I called them "team one and team two" on the basis of a single
: days play. Unfair? Perhaps. But for that day, WI bumbling around in the
: field, dropping Atherton and Smith, when they should have been batting,
: and England giving up a strong position late in the day, it seemed to me
: that someone had caught the disease from someone else.
-------
Whatever.
Venkatesh Sridharan
: Are you really implying (or worse, saying) that Richardson's decision(s)
: to bat / bowl had *nothing* to do with the pitch, with what he thought
: his bowlers could/not extract from it on the first morning ? Or with
: how his batsmen would fare in the last innings? Or with giving one of
: his key players more time to recuperate from an injury?
: If you think his decision(s) to bat or bowl were *solely* based on
: whether he won / lost the previous match, and if you're calling him a
: "defensive captain" based on just that one criterion, I'd like to end
: this debate here. They're not worth it.
^^^^^^^^^^^
-------
The underlined part should read: "It's not worth it".
Gautham N
: Julian and
: Reiffel are going to be meat-and-drink for the likes of Tendulkar
: and Azharuddin. You might want to worry about that before you start
: predicting doom for the West Indies.
: -------
Hmmmm.....Venky, "likes of Tendulkar and Azharuddin"...Hmmm. Are you
praising Azhar or trashing Tendulkar ?! :o)
IMO, I dont think given the current form, Azhar and Tendu can be
grouped as "likes of...". Probably you could say, "the likes of
Azhar and Kambli"...
Ciao,
- gautham -
Somerset Liberal Dem
>Apparently they had the radar gun in use at Headingley, and Benjamin
>came out the fastest of the WI quartet. However, how little this
>proves is indicated by the fact that Malcolm was faster than any of
>the West Indians.
Thereby proving that pace alone is not (well rarely) sufficent to get
wickets.
Hywel Morgan
Venkatesh Sridharan
: : be meat-and-drink for the likes of Tendulkar and Azharuddin. You might
: Hmmmm.....Venky, "likes of Tendulkar and Azharuddin"...Hmmm. Are you
: praising Azhar or trashing Tendulkar ?! :o)
: - gautham -
-------
Well :-) As far as the ability to play spin and Reiffel-pace goes, I think
the two of them are in the same class :-)
Joshua Saunders
: In article 8...@inferno.mpx.com.au, jos...@jolt.mpx.com.au (Joshua Saunders) writes:
: Hi Josh, I know I've mentioned this too you before, but I still do not see
: your justification for asserting that RR captaincy is defensive. Maybe, we
: should start by defining defensive captaincy, as we seem to have a divergent
: view on this point. To me, a defensive move is any designed to reduce the
: chance of losing a game at the expense of reducing your chance of winning that
: same game, i.e. - aiming for a draw. This includes, but is not limited to the
: following :
Fine. We'll go through it again then.
:
: 1) Batting slowly (defensively), reducing your stroke playing to reduce your
: chance of dismissal. In particular, limiting yourself to playing balls on
: line, and always playing with a straight (and dead) bat.
No. That would be defensive batting, not defensive captaincy. RR
apparently has little or no control over the attitude of his batsmen.
: 2) Reducing your over rate below what is normal for your team. Note I do not
: refer to an absolute over-rate.
Yes, that would be defensive captaincy.
: 3) Setting a field which is designed to give up few runs, albeit with less
: likelihood of catching any mis-stroke (i.e - third man, but no slips)
Obviously that would be defensive captaincy.
: 4) Bowling balls of a line and length primarily designed to prevent attacking
: strokes from the batsmen, rather than taking wickets.
No. That I would call defensive bowling. As I have SPECIFICALLY excluded
the bowling and batting of WI from the description "defensive", I think
you are drawing a long bow with 1 and 4. Onwards...
: They are others but these are the major ones. To this list you have added
: inserting opposition, upon winning the toss. You use some arbitrary statistic
: of RR inserting the opposition, upon losing the previous post and present
: this as "proof" that RR is acting defensively.
Garbage. Proof? What proof? I present it as evidence, not proof. Don't
assign to me ridiculous motives. If I had proof I would expect you all to
agree, and that is hardly what I would call likely.
: If I am too agree with you
See?
: on his defensiveness than you have to convince me that the majority of the
: above applied to the Windies. Granted, the captain does not have absolute
: control over item (1) (apart from his own innings).
Or item 4.
: However, both he and
: the manager have always had great influence over the mind-set and approach
: of the batsmen.
Oh yes?
: Also, I do not believe that RR's own innings showed any
: undue sign of defensiveness. So, I have to say, and you yourself admit,
: that for item (1), we have to answer, "false".
Once again. I excluded the batting. I don't even see why you are debating
the point. You think the batsmen do what the captain says? Fine. I disagree.
: I have not seen any evidence to indicate that the windies deliberately slowed
: the over rate down. Now if they did after the Aussies had already set up a
: good score. Then, yes, this would be a sign of defensiveness, but also a
: correct decision, which any good (and normally attacking captain) would
: take.
Yes.
: What would be more apt would be to take the over rate after inserting
: the opposition, for say the first two sessions. If, as you say, RR was
: already in a defensive mode, prior to the coin-toss, this should be
: extremely relevant. Without any indication to the contrary, I have to respond
: to item (2) with "false".
I have no idea what point you are making here.
Where is item 3? For the record I believe RR set more defensive fields
than is usual in the recent Aus-WI series. But I can't quantify it, so
presumably you'll call it false.
: Similarly, I have not heard any assertion on your part, as too defensive
: fields set by RR, or application of item (4) in these relevant sessions.
: So again, we have a "false" and "false".
Item 4 is irrelevant to my analysis.
: Now I grant you that I did not have the opportunity to watch these matches and
: as such, I am making some assumptions. However, if you wish to put forward a
: view-point you would be well served to justify it by more than some utterly
: irrelevant (at least to me) statistics about when RR inserts the opposition.
Irrelevant? Fine. Yet again I will explain this point of view. It is
defensive to insert the opposing team upon winning the toss, as the first
day pitch is rarely worse to bat on than the 4th/5th day pitch.
Particularly when the opposition has better spinners than you.
Deleted the rest. It's clear that we disagree about what "defensive"
actually means, particularly and with specific relevance to captaincy.
Not batting or bowling. Field placements. Strategy. Deciding to bat or
bowl. Bowling changes. All were more negative than I am used to seeing
from WI captains.