Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

To back Sussex point on Sehwag he use to purposely come out the crease on a very very green deck in Delhi and purposely miss the ball just so the bowler can bowl a bouncer and few half trackers.
Aakash chopra on the other end couldn't believe what he was doing and when he asked sehwag the guy said he did it so the bowler bowl shorter and he can score more easily.

Sehwag was really talented could have batted far better in tough overseas conditions.

bhaveshgor wrote:To back Sussex point on Sehwag he use to purposely come out the crease on a very very green deck in Delhi and purposely miss the ball just so the bowler can bowl a bouncer and few half trackers.
Aakash chopra on the other end couldn't believe what he was doing and when he asked sehwag the guy said he did it so the bowler bowl shorter and he can score more easily.

Sehwag was really talented could have batted far better in tough overseas conditions.

While I do think Sehwag was an unique talent, I feel it is stretching the relms of sensibility to suggest that he was deliberately playing and missing at the ball to get a bowler to change their lengths.

Making_Splinters wrote:

bhaveshgor wrote:To back Sussex point on Sehwag he use to purposely come out the crease on a very very green deck in Delhi and purposely miss the ball just so the bowler can bowl a bouncer and few half trackers.
Aakash chopra on the other end couldn't believe what he was doing and when he asked sehwag the guy said he did it so the bowler bowl shorter and he can score more easily.

Sehwag was really talented could have batted far better in tough overseas conditions.

While I do think Sehwag was an unique talent, I feel it is stretching the relms of sensibility to suggest that he was deliberately playing and missing at the ball to get a bowler to change their lengths.

yeah that does seem a little strange

surely if a batsman was playing and missing the bowler would keep bowling the same length as that's what the bowler would want him to be doing

rich1uk wrote:

Making_Splinters wrote:

bhaveshgor wrote:To back Sussex point on Sehwag he use to purposely come out the crease on a very very green deck in Delhi and purposely miss the ball just so the bowler can bowl a bouncer and few half trackers.
Aakash chopra on the other end couldn't believe what he was doing and when he asked sehwag the guy said he did it so the bowler bowl shorter and he can score more easily.

Sehwag was really talented could have batted far better in tough overseas conditions.

While I do think Sehwag was an unique talent, I feel it is stretching the relms of sensibility to suggest that he was deliberately playing and missing at the ball to get a bowler to change their lengths.

yeah that does seem a little strange

surely if a batsman was playing and missing the bowler would keep bowling the same length as that's what the bowler would want him to be doing

Yeah, wot 'e ^ said.

Undeniable, though, that Sehwag was a fearsome player. One that I was always worried about, until he got out. A joy to watch at the same time, though.

Here the article.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/co ... 89727.html

It sounds liked a plan.
Although reading it did sound like sehwag thinking he always batted the same way whatever the conditions.

I think Chopra picks up on the same point I was making... that he backed up his ability to play aggressive cricket, and thats what worked. He has gaps in his record, but his away form is represented as much worse, as its clear they rushed him back in 2008 against England (got a pair) and after that, it always seemed like his eye sight had gone (he wore glasses in an MCC friendly about the same time, for the first time). At certain points in his career, bowlers had daft plans to bowl to him, as they were fearful of bowling normal lines and lengths. That suited him.

To bring it back to the point, being aggressive can have its benefits, as you force bowlers once you smack length balls to the boundary to think about what they are doing. On that trent bridge 4th test pitch, Steve Smith played a sensational boundary behind square for 4 two balls before Broad square him up. Not a bad ball, fractionally wide, got pasted. That kind of application can make bowlers spray and pray all over the place (but not in that instance).

Invention is a good skill to have, as is grittiness. Both can thrive, if you score runs quickly it forces bowlers to find other ways, if you stay around in at the crease it forces bowlers to look elsewhere. Bell at the moment is succeeding in neither. But either approach is the same end result. Force a bowler to re think from his normal line of attack, and in doing so, nullify his ability to find your wicket.

He either gets caught out playing defensively, or plays too aggressively and doesnt cash in on starts. Half the point of good test play is to get a score, and force bowlers to rethink the plan, often then drifting from time honoured ways of getting you out.

In order to play long innings you have to be able to reset your innings and be prepare to attack in bursts. I find Bell got carried away at Edgbaston, he got of to a flying start then started playing a shot a ball, and his luck run out.