Remove this Banner Ad

2nd Test Border Gavaskar Trophy December 6-10 1430hrs @ Adelaide Oval

Who will win?


  • Total voters
    56
  • Poll closed .

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

So are you saying it's just glazed memories of Gilchrist, Sehwag, Tendulkar, Lara etc. boonta moments & there's no series from back when where runrates are in a similar territory?

T20 has had an influence I'm sure I just reckon I saw reverse sweeps & ramps on occasion 20 years ago.

That’s like saying ‘because Kapil Dev took Zimbabwe on an unrequested of Tunbridge Wells with no lube in 1983 at the World Cup during his freak 170-odd, T20 isn’t really a new thing.’


How is these things happening in isolation from individual players even close to a team going 34 consecutive tests scoring at a run rate 30 per cent higher than the most aggressive side in the history of cricket?



Adam Gilchrist is, to me, the second best player behind Shane Warne in what is at worst the second best team of all time.


Brian Lara is my favourite cricketer full stop of all time.

If you look at highest run rates in series, and exclude the likes of Ireland, Afghanistan, excommunicated Zimbabwe, and early years Bangladesh:

1. England vs Pakistan 2022 - 5.5
2. England vs NZ 2024 - 5.18
3. India vs Bangladesh 2024 - 5.04
4. England vs Australia 2023 - 4.74
5. England vs WI 2024 - 4.73
6. England vs NZ 2022-23 - 4.73
7. Australia vs WI 2015-16 - 4.6
8. NZ vs Bangladesh 2018-19 - 4.6
9. England vs Pakistan 2024 - 4.6
10. England vs NZ 2022 - 4.55



There’s a couple of times Australia and SA feature beating up on Zimbabwe at 4.6/4.7 in the mid 2000s and England doing the same to Bangladesh in 2005 but that was it.

Suggesting that because periodically a few players could thrash runs quickly, a team doing this is not new or pushing the boundaries is pretty short sighted.

Using that logic you could say that because George Bonnor crushed a lightning fast hundred 130 years ago, or Gilbert Jessop smoked a ball into the gasometer at the Oval, T20 hasn’t really progressed the game at all.
 
That’s like saying ‘because Kapil Dev took Zimbabwe on an unrequested of Tunbridge Wells with no lube in 1983 at the World Cup during his freak 170-odd, T20 isn’t really a new thing.’


How is these things happening in isolation from individual players even close to a team going 34 consecutive tests scoring at a run rate 30 per cent higher than the most aggressive side in the history of cricket?



Adam Gilchrist is, to me, the second best player behind Shane Warne in what is at worst the second best team of all time.


Brian Lara is my favourite cricketer full stop of all time.

If you look at highest run rates in series, and exclude the likes of Ireland, Afghanistan, excommunicated Zimbabwe, and early years Bangladesh:

1. England vs Pakistan 2022 - 5.5
2. England vs NZ 2024 - 5.18
3. India vs Bangladesh 2024 - 5.04
4. England vs Australia 2023 - 4.74
5. England vs WI 2024 - 4.73
6. England vs NZ 2022-23 - 4.73
7. Australia vs WI 2015-16 - 4.6
8. NZ vs Bangladesh 2018-19 - 4.6
9. England vs Pakistan 2024 - 4.6
10. England vs NZ 2022 - 4.55



There’s a couple of times Australia and SA feature beating up on Zimbabwe at 4.6/4.7 in the mid 2000s and England doing the same to Bangladesh in 2005 but that was it.

Suggesting that because periodically a few players could thrash runs quickly, a team doing this is not new or pushing the boundaries is pretty short sighted.

Using that logic you could say that because George Bonnor crushed a lightning fast hundred 130 years ago, or Gilbert Jessop smoked a ball into the gasometer at the Oval, T20 hasn’t really progressed the game at all.
Well this is why I've engaged the help of the caribbean stallion of stats to clue me up, all I've gleaned is it's a sustained team tactic not a ground breaking evolution. I mean we have opposition players to England rolling their eyes every time bazball is mentioned or entering published vernacular.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

I'm not giving Bazball the credit you are; sure, they supercharged the kind of scoring Australia did in the past but without the restraint or common sense to know it's not always appropriate, which is why they are far less successful than Australia was. It's not genius cricket, it's actually a bit stupid to play one way regardless of the circumstances/conditions.
 
Well this is why I've engaged the help of the caribbean stallion of stats to clue me up, all I've gleaned is it's a sustained team tactic not a ground breaking evolution. I mean we have opposition players to England rolling their eyes every time bazball is mentioned or entering published vernacular.
The way they play is awesome. Its just it being labelled "Bazball" when the Poms are usually boring flogs makes people dislike the whole concept
 
Well this is why I've engaged the help of the caribbean stallion of stats to clue me up, all I've gleaned is it's a sustained team tactic not a ground breaking evolution. I mean we have opposition players to England rolling their eyes every time bazball is mentioned or entering published vernacular.

Well the game is 147 years old at test level. There is literally no tactic that will be “completely” ground breaking

All there is left to do is alter them to varying degrees on an individual or team level. But it is fair to say, and figures back it up, that no team has ever played a style, where they attack with the bat from start to finish basically come hell or high water. It’s just a fact and it’s borne out over 34 test matches now.


Saying ‘but Sehwag batted that way’ doesn’t disprove that England are doing something different: Sehwag batted with Akash Chopra and Gautam Gambhir and Rahul Dravid, Wasim Jaffer and Murali Vijay as his opening partners so yes it worked for him and made him a formidable batsman but the carnage at his end wasn’t being matched by the rest of his team
 
I'm not giving Bazball the credit you are; sure, they supercharged the kind of scoring Australia did in the past but without the restraint or common sense to know it's not always appropriate, which is why they are far less successful than Australia was. It's not genius cricket, it's actually a bit stupid to play one way regardless of the circumstances/conditions.

What credit am I giving it?

Saying something hasn’t been done on a particular scale before isn’t saying it is the most successful thing ever.

No team has assembled an ‘army’ of medium pacers like NZ’s production line from the 80s into the 90s before but I’m not about to claim it was the bee’s knees of tactics.

What IS undeniable however and it is just plain ignorance to dismiss it, is that it has given England a fighting chance in matches and series that they probably wouldn’t have otherwise had.

In those 34 matches they have played under that style, they have won 22 of them.

In Australia’s last 34 matches, they have won 21. Australia have won a world test championship in that time.

Both sides have had a few easy kills, both have had a tour to India, England with an extra game. England got a freebie against Ireland but Australia dropped what you would have thought would be a freebie against the West Indies. England have had a couple of cracks in NZ and are so far 3-1 there.

It’s a GOOD, not great record. Where it costs them is in defeats as they’ve only had one draw that whole time. Australia has had five I think.


The bottom line is that they are a cricket nation not blessed with an abundance of world class players now that Anderson and broad have moved on, they’ve struggled to fill the middle order and top order holes in the time after Strauss, Pietersen and Cook have all gone with only Root consistently providing runs batting the ‘old’ way.

So they’ve found a way that at least makes them competitive so good luck to them I say.
 
Quite a few on BF wanted to make multiple changes as well.

True, but not the whole lineup. Though replacing Smith isn't the worst idea, just not with another AR.
 
Well the game is 147 years old at test level. There is literally no tactic that will be “completely” ground breaking

All there is left to do is alter them to varying degrees on an individual or team level. But it is fair to say, and figures back it up, that no team has ever played a style, where they attack with the bat from start to finish basically come hell or high water. It’s just a fact and it’s borne out over 34 test matches now.


Saying ‘but Sehwag batted that way’ doesn’t disprove that England are doing something different: Sehwag batted with Akash Chopra and Gautam Gambhir and Rahul Dravid, Wasim Jaffer and Murali Vijay as his opening partners so yes it worked for him and made him a formidable batsman but the carnage at his end wasn’t being matched by the rest of his team
i reckon opening the batting with tailenders to take off the new ball shine is something we've never seen before. I wouldn't open with bunnies but someone like Starc and Cummins could have its merits.
 
i reckon opening the batting with tailenders to take off the new ball shine is something we've never seen before. I wouldn't open with bunnies but someone like Starc and Cummins could have its merits.
Doing so just increases the chance that your designated batsmen get stranded at the end of the innings. You have Cummins and Starc open and someone like a Head, Marsh or Carey are likely to get stuck at the crease with room in the tank. They're now coming in at 7, 8 or 9, and are only a wicket or two away from the innings over.
 
i reckon opening the batting with tailenders to take off the new ball shine is something we've never seen before. I wouldn't open with bunnies but someone like Starc and Cummins could have its merits.
I remember Tubby telling the story that McGrath was talking a bit of shit about how the batsman have an easy job after they skittled a team for 130 or something in a one dayer so he told him to put the pads on and he can go in at 3. He said he was serious and would of done it. Imagine the crowd if big Pidge rolled out at number 3.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Doing so just increases the chance that your designated batsmen get stranded at the end of the innings. You have Cummins and Starc open and someone like a Head, Marsh or Carey are likely to get stuck at the crease with room in the tank. They're now coming in at 7, 8 or 9, and are only a wicket or two away from the innings over.
normally that's the case, but not our bloody hack batsman! They're usually long gone by the time our bowlers us saving our arses. But yes, stranding a quality batsman could cost a side 50-100 runs
 
i reckon opening the batting with tailenders to take off the new ball shine is something we've never seen before. I wouldn't open with bunnies but someone like Starc and Cummins could have its merits.

Even that to a minor extent was done by Bradman on a glue pot in the uncovered days with Chuck Fleetwood-Smith but yes I’ve actually often pondered the same thing during potentially tricky chases of 180-220: why not send in a Southee-type that you could never ever depend on if the going got tight towards the end but could quite easily clobber you an invaluable quick 30 to get things rolling at the top and smack some life out of the ball when it’s doing a bit
 
Even that to a minor extent was done by Bradman on a glue pot in the uncovered days with Chuck Fleetwood-Smith but yes I’ve actually often pondered the same thing during potentially tricky chases of 180-220: why not send in a Southee-type that you could never ever depend on if the going got tight towards the end but could quite easily clobber you an invaluable quick 30 to get things rolling at the top and smack some life out of the ball when it’s doing a bit
It’s a funny one Phat. Lyon and Starc opening, even if they only lasted 10 overs, you might have 35 on the board and the attack would certainly be less effective.

As a bowler I always fancied myself as a bat, and truth be told every now and again I delivered. Consistency was the issue, however, one must kiss a few frogs to get a prince.
 
The funny thing about the monster bats these days, heavier and with extra power built into the blade that the older generations never had access to, is the flourishing bat movements prior to the ball delivery. Completely irrelevant to the actual bat/ball contact moment that triggers runs.

Small backlift, straight bat, and just move the weight forward a little and the ball will speed to the boundary.

Regarding Vaughan's suggestion of 4 day tests, I love seeing bowlers bowling sides out, rather than batting for days, as a spectacle.

But test cricket can be a 5 day grind to a gripping crescendo where all results can still be in play in the last hour of 30.

There's no higher accolade for a test team than to play in one of those. And I would never support anything that could diminish that kind of game. 4 days always means one team has been skittled twice.

Would also destroy the chances of seeing top order batsman compiling double and triple centuries, because what captain would ever let a 1st innings go for more than two days?
 
Even that to a minor extent was done by Bradman on a glue pot in the uncovered days with Chuck Fleetwood-Smith but yes I’ve actually often pondered the same thing during potentially tricky chases of 180-220: why not send in a Southee-type that you could never ever depend on if the going got tight towards the end but could quite easily clobber you an invaluable quick 30 to get things rolling at the top and smack some life out of the ball when it’s doing a bit
When Chuck Fleetwood-Smith was down on his luck and living rough it was Ian Chappell who rallied the troops to help him.
 
Carey was in cracking form in the Shield so we should expect some good results from him over the BGS.

My take on Carey - I actually think he's more of a middle order bat, which is where he's flourished for South Australia. I don't think he's that great batting with the tail.

If Webster came in for Marsh I'd love to see Carey at 6 and Webster at 7. Webster always looks to be an absolute stud batting with the tail (although Tassie seem to play a fair few bowling all-rounders, which helps) while I always feel like Carey struggles to find the right momentum when wickets are falling at the other end or when he feels he needs to hit out. He's a naturally attacking strokemaker IMO and would be perfectly suited at 5. He gets inside his own head too much at 7.

I always felt Carey batted better when he came in up the order in ODIs as well.
Are you thinking put him at 5, Head at 6 then maybe a Hardie/Webster or J Edwards coming in at 7?
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

i reckon opening the batting with tailenders to take off the new ball shine is something we've never seen before. I wouldn't open with bunnies but someone like Starc and Cummins could have its merits.
I remember NSW sent Nathan Bracken in at 3 in a shield match one time.

Wasn’t as a night watchman either.
 
It’s a funny one Phat. Lyon and Starc opening, even if they only lasted 10 overs, you might have 35 on the board and the attack would certainly be less effective.

As a bowler I always fancied myself as a bat, and truth be told every now and again I delivered. Consistency was the issue, however, one must kiss a few frogs to get a prince.

Yeah I was probably a batsman in lower grades and as I got into higher ones I realised it probably wouldn’t cut it and had to become a bowler and ended up being a bowler who could bat a bit and my only chances to ply my trade up the order were when the openers were away or something and no one wanted to put their hand up so someone had to deputise. It worked a few times - my top score and lone chance for a first grade tonne (in a decent comp anyway) came with a fairly rapid 71 midway through our innings and I choked it big time.

It earned me 3-4 more goes at it and…..

Well it’s fair to say my opening days were behind me after that
 
The funny thing about the monster bats these days, heavier and with extra power built into the blade that the older generations never had access to, is the flourishing bat movements prior to the ball delivery. Completely irrelevant to the actual bat/ball contact moment that triggers runs.

Small backlift, straight bat, and just move the weight forward a little and the ball will speed to the boundary.

Regarding Vaughan's suggestion of 4 day tests, I love seeing bowlers bowling sides out, rather than batting for days, as a spectacle.

But test cricket can be a 5 day grind to a gripping crescendo where all results can still be in play in the last hour of 30.

There's no higher accolade for a test team than to play in one of those. And I would never support anything that could diminish that kind of game. 4 days always means one team has been skittled twice.

Would also destroy the chances of seeing top order batsman compiling double and triple centuries, because what captain would ever let a 1st innings go for more than two days?
:100:
 
IIRC it was a couple of overs before lunch break. So he was like a night watchman protecting the batters, but for lunch instead.

I don’t know if they genuinely got confused and thought it was stumps…or they were trying to make a “lunch watchman “ a thing….
I vaguely recall the NSW suggestion was that the pitch would be better for batting latter on so Bracken went in at number 3. All things considered the elevation was a success. As such the Aussies tried the same tactic in the Sydney test match later that summer. Andy Bichel was elevated to number 3 in one our innings and ended up top scoring.

Update: Found the scorecard with Bichel at 3: https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...alia-vs-england-5th-test-64013/full-scorecard
 

Remove this Banner Ad

2nd Test Border Gavaskar Trophy December 6-10 1430hrs @ Adelaide Oval

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top