|
Author |
Message |
|
|
Date: 10/5/2008
Author: Andrew
|
|
Glad to provide so much amusement - at least batting gets some focus.
I remain convinced that the vast majority of runs are scored by playing shots along the ground. I refer any and all to the lists of batsmen with highest averages in either Test or 50-over cricket. All often play the most fantastic drives, cover or straight all along the ground for 4.
Batsmen in NL seem to be obsessed with hitting 4's or 6's within minutes of arriving at the crease. You can often see them practising wild shots in the nets. Curiously they also find themselves watching most of the games from the side. You can only make runs whilst IN - very ancient cricket principle. Well placed careful shots between fielders can harvest many runs and drives the fielding side crazy. Such shots should be practised and practised. Once the fielders get upset, loose balls get bowled so off to the boundary they can go. You can afford to build an innings in a 50 over game. At least 300 balls will be bowled if your team bats for all 50 overs. If you enjoy batting, then you should try hard to stay IN. Otherwise what is the point of playing, especially if you do not bowl? Perhaps we prefer to go out quickly so everyone in the team gets their turn to bat AND we can all be home in time for middag koffie or even lunch? Somehow 110 not out must be much more satisfying than 57 out for a true batsman.
Agree that more grass pitches are required but they are very expensive to develop and maintain and require HARD work and long term attention from knowledgeable folk. It would however be rather pointless having a beautiful square surrounded by a 5 cm high grass field.
|
|
|
Date: 8/5/2008
Author: Glider
|
|
@ Andrew
Are you suggesting that umpires be given a mandate to dish out points based on their opinions of the batters strokes? Based on my short and unsuccessful stint in the league, the umpires have a hard enough time getting the umpiring decisions right; becoming "batting judges" might be a step too far.
Given what seems to be your long and illustrious pedigree in the game I would suggest you fall into the "cricket purist" category. I wonder whether you would ever consider giving the likes of Chris Gayle or Virender Sehwag negative points because of a lack of foot movement. Is repeatedly slashing a ball over point for six a slog? At what point does it become effective? Seeing that Sehwag's test average is in excess of 70 for the last twelve months it seems that textbook cricket is not neccessarily "better batting".
You seem to equate "better batting" to hitting the ball on the ground. Herschelle Gibbs looked pretty "good" when he hit all 6 of Daan Van Bunge's balls in the air at the World Cup. Strange, it seemed there were no fielders in the sky that day - how crafty Mr. Gibbs was...
Good batters dont only hit the ball on the ground, they realise when to go over the top and they execute the strokes properly. The VRA and VOC players got out cause they executed the strokes incorrectly.
Oh, and to improve anything in Dutch cricket.... you gotta play on grass. Simple as that.
|
|
|
Date: 8/5/2008
Author: Clears
|
|
I agree with many of the points... but you should never get points for losing. You can however stop the opposition from attaining a bonus point! Which keeps the game interesting till the end, and has an outcome on playoff placings. Bonus points should only go on run rates, not runs, as grounds are different sizes and pace. You are competing against the other team not the other fixtures!!!
There should definitely be points split if the game is rained off! Because other teams get points if they manage to complete a game! If 2 teams end up on the same points for the playoffs then NRR determines the highest placed team.
|
|
|
Date: 8/5/2008
Author: Xavier
|
|
The 15 over, explosion of aggression is exactly why a team shouldn't be rewarded points for only doing half a job. If a team gains a point for reaching half the opposition's score or nearly getting over the line - what are they learning ??? I feel the best way to teach players and teams winning habits, is by winning, not rewarding teams for coming close. The best way to learn is from the mistakes you make. If you allow the system to reward teams that aren't good enough, where is the hard nose approach required at international cricket of winning at all costs going to come from.
Teams never go into a match planning to lose or to play in a negative style, but with a points system it does give them the opportunity to. I don't see the need for it.
|
|
|
Date: 7/5/2008
Author: pete
|
|
Hahahaaha!
Honestly Andrew your post is so ridiculous everytime I read it I laugh!
Please dont stop contributing to this forum!
|
|
|
Date: 7/5/2008
Author: pete
|
|
To be honest in that match I can only recall a couple of players who slogged to get out. Most guys were playing the appropriate shots but didnt execute them with technical efficiency.
Im sure that you were a great player in your day though and never made a mistake. Plenty of runs from the sideline as always!
|
