Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.Originally Posted by Cripps
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
The ball is round. New or not it does the same thing.
Cloud cover is bs.
As is sunshine.
Neither play a part in a batsman innings
Agreed.
Believe it or not, that's ultimately what you're arguing despite everyone in world cricket telling you different.
So the opening batsmen can play the same way as Agar did then after all
Isn't the point that it's far, far, far more likely you're going to get out cheaply if you play like it's a limited overs game than if you try and build an innings. And a number of batsmen getting out cheaply when there's still, say, 3 days left is suicide. It might look good for 15 minutes smashing 20 off an over or two but is ultimately fruitless. And yes players can have an innings like Agar's today where everything they hit is gold, but more often than not they don't, and far more often than not they go out very quickly. And it ignores the point that a number 11 can play with such freedom because no one expects anything of them, whilst a top order batsman is expected to build a solid score for the next one's in not just get quick runs for the sake of it.
And yes, obviously a 70 ball hundred is hundred is preferable to a 400 ball hundred, but there is a hell of a lot more chance involved when you just play swing-and-a-miss as opposed to being disciplined and protecting your wicket. And that's ignoring how difficult it is to do it in the first place.
In any case, if I derided test matches so much and went on and on and on about how boring and pointless they are I just wouldn't watch them in the first place. Ah screw it I don't care.
Anyway, Agar may as well retire now. It's all downhill from here.
^ yes.
The problem with complaining about the lack of attacking is the assumption that every scenario in cricket is the same. When it obviously isn't. Equating an opener's innings to a tail-ender's, equating an ODI to a Test match, equating a match in England with one in the subcontinent, equating playing the new ball to playing the old one.
But hey, apparently the ball is round so
It is round^ yes.
The problem with complaining about the lack of attacking is the assumption that every scenario in cricket is the same. When it obviously isn't. Equating an opener's innings to a tail-ender's, equating a match in England with one in the subcontinent, equating playing the new ball to playing the old one.
But hey, apparently the ball is round so
Ok answer me this as you and others have failed to answer the previous 2.
Agar just plays the innings of the match and then gets out. When he came in, Aussies were 117-9, that's pressure. He got out and a few minutes later, England come out to bat under the same conditions on the same pitch with what I assume is the same ball yet they play like they did. Why? Your ridiculous theory of new ball, conditions etc doesn't wash today as they had the same things going on Agar did yet he produced and they haven't. And they are meant to be the batsmen.
It is round
Ok answer me this as you and others have failed to answer the previous 2.
Agar just plays the innings of the match and then gets out. When he came in, Aussies were 117-9, that's pressure. He got out and a few minutes later, England come out to bat under the same conditions on the same pitch with what I assume is the same ball yet they play like they did. Why? Your ridiculous theory of new ball, conditions etc doesn't wash today as they had the same things going on Agar did yet he produced and they haven't. And they are meant to be the batsmen.
Jebus.
anyway, India are about to finally get beaten by Sri Lanka in the final. Unless dhoni can maverick up another rescue mission on a ridiculous pitch. Should see Rohit Sharma's wicket - the ball might as well have rolled.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
