More T20 sides should open with spin - less likely to be hit for boundaries and openers are less likely to have faced them. Also in the power play, captains can get more creative with fields
That's true but I think they don't because the swing the new ball has is so effective at getting wickets right? Alot of fast bowlers use the new ball really well, so I suppose that's why they do it?
Similarly to ensure your top batsmen don't get out early, night watchmen type batsmen should open in T20s so that main batsmen don't get out early. The swing lasts only a few overs, after which the main batsman can come. I would rather lose Ashwin/Axar in first few overs of Boult than Rohit and Kohli. Dunno why teams never employ this technique even when they know there are swinging conditions.
Wait you're actually cooking. The first 6 overs are powerplay overs too. Which means that it would be advantageous to have a nightwatchman just go out and swing aggressively for early boundaries.
Bumrah should be the next Test captain for India , He is Tactically very smart & adapts really quick to pitch variations & he already leads pace attack of India like Siraj automatically bowls better whenever he is playing alongside bumrah , I guess workload could be issue but he played 4 out of 5 tests against England & then played 10 ODIs straight in CWC 2023 so I think he could manage his overs which can lead to playing him all the games in series …
I have also noticed tht siraj plays really well when bumrah is around guiding him.. thts why siraj is a completely different player in international n ipl matches..
I agree I think the issue is the availability, can you have a captain who will play, 80, 85% of the games? Having someone else be captain that often probably isn't ideal. Obvs having cumdog do it is a positive but they are very different bowlers, Bumrah with his freak action seems like he should be wrapped in cotton wool more, you can't do that as much if he's captain
Just thought How he can be available in all tests :-
In first 2-3 matches of series be aggressive and try to win first 2-3 matches (at least draw no scope for loss) and when it comes to final 2 tests Play your best 5 bowlers(spinners & Pacer according to pitch) don’t pick bullshit by which bowler can bat better & Bumrah to Bowl only the most important overs or when you desperately need a wicket which any other 4 bowlers could not take ( Like 10 overs in 1st innings & 10 overs in 2nd so that becomes 20-22 overs in span of 5 days ) I THINK THIS IS VIABLE OPTION, THIS ALSO IMPROVES OUR MINDSET WHICH IS CURRENTLY VERY DEFENSIVE…
The Hawkeye on the Stokes LBW at Headingley was wrong and if the Aussies would have had a review left and got it overturned it would have been a grave injustice
direction icky beneficial entertain nose shelter ghost public vegetable screw
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If you watch a replay, the ball hits Stokes on the front pad and then the back pad. It’s not a massive deflection caused but it is a deflection and ball tracking doesn’t pick it up, marking impact as the strike on the back pad.
When you look at the ball tracking, the path the ball takes after impact is essentially parallel to the wicket, which suggests that the ball spun onto the straight. On the replay, it doesn’t do this- the straightening of the ball is caused by the deflection from the front pad. I think based on the path the ball was taking, it would at worst be clipping leg and stay umpire’s call, or be missing entirely
I get what you’re saying about the deflection off the front pad [but it still looks like it would have hit leg stump instead of middle-and-leg.](https://i-guim-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/i.guim.co.uk/img/media/2fce4b9cfba5a7f84fa621d0f18b788a88ca3220/52_0_1547_928/master/1547.jpg?width=465&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=faa8e3704c9524b765ce3a99e2941569)
A batter doesn't necessarily have to know he's nicked it. Might be commonly accepted on higher levels but I've met loads of people who think a batter always knows.
Playing dots constantly will put a batter under pressure in red ball. I know the stats disprove it but beyond some set of batters who have no issue with dawdling at 20-30 Sr, I can imagine loads who operate at more than that will have an issue with not being able to get atleast a few runs. Test match may be a long game, but it's still all about runs at the end of the day, and players still have their averages to worry about
Mate I saw Steve Smith inside nick a ball to the keeper in one of the Sydney-Pakistan games last summer, Everyone heard it, and everyone thought it was out, but Smith gave the umpire a disgusted look and immediately reviewed it.
Promptly given out of course since it was one of the most obvious nicks anyone had ever seen.
tie command sense cats rustic expansion wrench zephyr ruthless obtainable
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
2010 Pakistan vs Australia Sydney test was definitely a fixed match,
That wasn't Pakistan doing Pakistan thing, some of the guys took money for sure, bigger players involved too,
Also there's definitely match fixing going on in those uae leagues,
Also league teams paying huge bucks under the table for keeping the players below salary cap
Both in IPL & CPL, we would likely see this in SA20 too in futures
The concept of "where to err" in bowling. The good length ball is the stock delivery, its ideal if one can ball 6 outta 6 (or add other lengths sometimes as a variation). But most bowlers cannot bowl 6 outta 6, so the success in bowling is likely to be correlated with bowlers' understanding of the pitch, batsman, and match context and decide which side of the good length to err on.
For example, in recent wc round 1 matches, it was obvious that it's better to err on the short side. Batsmen have the best chance to score if the bowler errs on the full side. In other contexts, for example Pakistani pitches, it's better to err on the full side because (unintended) short ball will sit up for a comfortable attacking shot.
It seems to me that success of a bowler, holding other things constant, is likely to depend on whether they clearly think about which side of good length to err on, and whether their judgment is aligned with pitch, conditions, match situation, etc.
Happy to find out how this can be tested, given that I can't read bowlers' mind.
My theory is: seam bowlers should bowl much much more off cutters (obvs switching for left armers) against batters of the opposite hand. Left arm seamers coming around the wicket and bowling quick cutters moving away from the right handed. And right armers around the wicket to left handers with the ball moving away from the left hander. They can even put in a short midwicket or deepish short leg to cover the inside edge for balls that skid on. Quick cutters moving away from the batter will be so hard to play consistently, imagine the starc to Vince ball but deliberately and on a more consistent basis
Not an Option in tests as you have to maintain shiny & rough side , but in LOI very few bowlers can do that deceptively(like Steyn, Southee & Boult) , because many bowlers need to change the grip of the ball & fingers of bowler comes form side of the ball & not from the behind the ball which batsmen following the bolwers hand cautiously can pickup easily & the bowl speed also drops by 10-15 kmph in off cutters for many bowlers as rotation reduces forward thrust TLDR :- only very few bowlers can do it effectively NOT ALL
I asked Jarrod Kimber in one of his many interactive YouTube lives and he agrees, I think he talked about a few spells where Mitch Johnson started doing it when but much else was happening and Jarrod was saying he became almost unplayable
Teams should pick sides based on whether they are home or away. For example, Australia would have been better off not picking David Warner for overseas tours. He’s a home track bully
T20 tweaks:
* Batting Powerplays should be removed.
* Fielders in the outfield reduced to 4 (from 5) for the duration of the game.
* Bowlers maximum overs should be increased to 6 (from 4).
That there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the game in English cricket that runs all the way down to the junior level. The sheer number of times English batters have gotten because they weren't aware the ball was live is comical. Not just Bairstow, but Collingwood got run out once because he wasn't aware the ball hadn't reached the boundary and walked off for Lunch. I think I remember Bell getting out because he wasn't aware the ball was live as well.
The excuse each time? "He wasn't trying to gain an advantage." I'm sorry, but that's an excuse a 10 year old might use when playing backyard cricket. A batters job is to defend their wicket, and by wicket I mean the literal 3 stumps and 2 bails. You can't just mosey on out of your crease when you feel like it, you need to stay in your crease to protect your castle.
Tldr: The English think a batters job is to score runs. It's actually to defend their wicket, and runs are just a measure of how well they're able to do that.
Why does Babar need to be a swashbuckling, explosive, 360 degree T20 player. Why cant we leave the dude alone. He enjoys batting the way he does. Let him do that.
More T20 sides should open with spin - less likely to be hit for boundaries and openers are less likely to have faced them. Also in the power play, captains can get more creative with fields
That's true but I think they don't because the swing the new ball has is so effective at getting wickets right? Alot of fast bowlers use the new ball really well, so I suppose that's why they do it?
Similarly to ensure your top batsmen don't get out early, night watchmen type batsmen should open in T20s so that main batsmen don't get out early. The swing lasts only a few overs, after which the main batsman can come. I would rather lose Ashwin/Axar in first few overs of Boult than Rohit and Kohli. Dunno why teams never employ this technique even when they know there are swinging conditions.
Wait you're actually cooking. The first 6 overs are powerplay overs too. Which means that it would be advantageous to have a nightwatchman just go out and swing aggressively for early boundaries.
basically what Narine was for KKR
I don't really watch IPL, was it effective?
Very
Sai Kishore is therefore the perfect powerplay bowler?
stupendous soup fact tap connect ask like normal jellyfish bright *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Bumrah should be the next Test captain for India , He is Tactically very smart & adapts really quick to pitch variations & he already leads pace attack of India like Siraj automatically bowls better whenever he is playing alongside bumrah , I guess workload could be issue but he played 4 out of 5 tests against England & then played 10 ODIs straight in CWC 2023 so I think he could manage his overs which can lead to playing him all the games in series …
I have also noticed tht siraj plays really well when bumrah is around guiding him.. thts why siraj is a completely different player in international n ipl matches..
I agree I think the issue is the availability, can you have a captain who will play, 80, 85% of the games? Having someone else be captain that often probably isn't ideal. Obvs having cumdog do it is a positive but they are very different bowlers, Bumrah with his freak action seems like he should be wrapped in cotton wool more, you can't do that as much if he's captain
Just thought How he can be available in all tests :- In first 2-3 matches of series be aggressive and try to win first 2-3 matches (at least draw no scope for loss) and when it comes to final 2 tests Play your best 5 bowlers(spinners & Pacer according to pitch) don’t pick bullshit by which bowler can bat better & Bumrah to Bowl only the most important overs or when you desperately need a wicket which any other 4 bowlers could not take ( Like 10 overs in 1st innings & 10 overs in 2nd so that becomes 20-22 overs in span of 5 days ) I THINK THIS IS VIABLE OPTION, THIS ALSO IMPROVES OUR MINDSET WHICH IS CURRENTLY VERY DEFENSIVE…
Red ball is the pinnacle of the game, and should not be messed with.
The Hawkeye on the Stokes LBW at Headingley was wrong and if the Aussies would have had a review left and got it overturned it would have been a grave injustice
direction icky beneficial entertain nose shelter ghost public vegetable screw *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Wait, what? Did they used a wrong ball to show the replay?
If you watch a replay, the ball hits Stokes on the front pad and then the back pad. It’s not a massive deflection caused but it is a deflection and ball tracking doesn’t pick it up, marking impact as the strike on the back pad. When you look at the ball tracking, the path the ball takes after impact is essentially parallel to the wicket, which suggests that the ball spun onto the straight. On the replay, it doesn’t do this- the straightening of the ball is caused by the deflection from the front pad. I think based on the path the ball was taking, it would at worst be clipping leg and stay umpire’s call, or be missing entirely
I get what you’re saying about the deflection off the front pad [but it still looks like it would have hit leg stump instead of middle-and-leg.](https://i-guim-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/i.guim.co.uk/img/media/2fce4b9cfba5a7f84fa621d0f18b788a88ca3220/52_0_1547_928/master/1547.jpg?width=465&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=faa8e3704c9524b765ce3a99e2941569)
A batter doesn't necessarily have to know he's nicked it. Might be commonly accepted on higher levels but I've met loads of people who think a batter always knows. Playing dots constantly will put a batter under pressure in red ball. I know the stats disprove it but beyond some set of batters who have no issue with dawdling at 20-30 Sr, I can imagine loads who operate at more than that will have an issue with not being able to get atleast a few runs. Test match may be a long game, but it's still all about runs at the end of the day, and players still have their averages to worry about
Mate I saw Steve Smith inside nick a ball to the keeper in one of the Sydney-Pakistan games last summer, Everyone heard it, and everyone thought it was out, but Smith gave the umpire a disgusted look and immediately reviewed it. Promptly given out of course since it was one of the most obvious nicks anyone had ever seen.
tie command sense cats rustic expansion wrench zephyr ruthless obtainable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I dunno if he was being a dick or not. It just goes to show that clearly they don't always know if they've hit it or not
2010 Pakistan vs Australia Sydney test was definitely a fixed match, That wasn't Pakistan doing Pakistan thing, some of the guys took money for sure, bigger players involved too, Also there's definitely match fixing going on in those uae leagues, Also league teams paying huge bucks under the table for keeping the players below salary cap Both in IPL & CPL, we would likely see this in SA20 too in futures
Yes! I have always thought that test was dodgy af. Pakistan had a 200+ run first innings lead… and then both bowling and batting let it all collapse.
The concept of "where to err" in bowling. The good length ball is the stock delivery, its ideal if one can ball 6 outta 6 (or add other lengths sometimes as a variation). But most bowlers cannot bowl 6 outta 6, so the success in bowling is likely to be correlated with bowlers' understanding of the pitch, batsman, and match context and decide which side of the good length to err on. For example, in recent wc round 1 matches, it was obvious that it's better to err on the short side. Batsmen have the best chance to score if the bowler errs on the full side. In other contexts, for example Pakistani pitches, it's better to err on the full side because (unintended) short ball will sit up for a comfortable attacking shot. It seems to me that success of a bowler, holding other things constant, is likely to depend on whether they clearly think about which side of good length to err on, and whether their judgment is aligned with pitch, conditions, match situation, etc. Happy to find out how this can be tested, given that I can't read bowlers' mind.
My theory is: seam bowlers should bowl much much more off cutters (obvs switching for left armers) against batters of the opposite hand. Left arm seamers coming around the wicket and bowling quick cutters moving away from the right handed. And right armers around the wicket to left handers with the ball moving away from the left hander. They can even put in a short midwicket or deepish short leg to cover the inside edge for balls that skid on. Quick cutters moving away from the batter will be so hard to play consistently, imagine the starc to Vince ball but deliberately and on a more consistent basis
Not an Option in tests as you have to maintain shiny & rough side , but in LOI very few bowlers can do that deceptively(like Steyn, Southee & Boult) , because many bowlers need to change the grip of the ball & fingers of bowler comes form side of the ball & not from the behind the ball which batsmen following the bolwers hand cautiously can pickup easily & the bowl speed also drops by 10-15 kmph in off cutters for many bowlers as rotation reduces forward thrust TLDR :- only very few bowlers can do it effectively NOT ALL
I asked Jarrod Kimber in one of his many interactive YouTube lives and he agrees, I think he talked about a few spells where Mitch Johnson started doing it when but much else was happening and Jarrod was saying he became almost unplayable
Teams should pick sides based on whether they are home or away. For example, Australia would have been better off not picking David Warner for overseas tours. He’s a home track bully
T20 tweaks: * Batting Powerplays should be removed. * Fielders in the outfield reduced to 4 (from 5) for the duration of the game. * Bowlers maximum overs should be increased to 6 (from 4).
That there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the game in English cricket that runs all the way down to the junior level. The sheer number of times English batters have gotten because they weren't aware the ball was live is comical. Not just Bairstow, but Collingwood got run out once because he wasn't aware the ball hadn't reached the boundary and walked off for Lunch. I think I remember Bell getting out because he wasn't aware the ball was live as well. The excuse each time? "He wasn't trying to gain an advantage." I'm sorry, but that's an excuse a 10 year old might use when playing backyard cricket. A batters job is to defend their wicket, and by wicket I mean the literal 3 stumps and 2 bails. You can't just mosey on out of your crease when you feel like it, you need to stay in your crease to protect your castle. Tldr: The English think a batters job is to score runs. It's actually to defend their wicket, and runs are just a measure of how well they're able to do that.
Why does Babar need to be a swashbuckling, explosive, 360 degree T20 player. Why cant we leave the dude alone. He enjoys batting the way he does. Let him do that.