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

cricketfan90 wrote:anyone but bairstow!

Scored 90 odd the other day. Shoe in.

*cough* Plunkett *cough*

Anyone but Panesar.

Aidan11 wrote:*cough* Plunkett *cough*

bowled very, very well.. now has genuine pace, seems to have sorted out his radar, and can bat at 8.

Luke Wright anyone?

Wrighty?

Do I not like that?

If Luke Wright gets a mention, then so does Neil Dexter.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Wrighty?

Do I not like that?

Made for him

It's a situation for Wrighty.

Cook's just scored 71 off 49 against the Sri Lankan touring team. Why isn't he in the T20I team?

After his batting v Scotland, he was a million miles from a T20 place. Now, he's a must pick. Get him in.

don't know where to post this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cri...er-Moores.html

Don't really know what to make about this article.

Why do England always complicate basic things.
Use the Statistics, but don't go over the board with them.
Batsman are not stupid if you bowl the same line to them they will find ways to score runs or survive.
I remember reading an article from Akash chopra on Virat kohli. Akash Chopra basically saw a flaw in Kohli technique around 2010 and he had a word with him. Kohli basically said he found a solution to score runs with this flaw.

Found the Article
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine...ry/581741.html

When I saw Kohli for the first time, I was a little sceptical about his short front-foot stride. To make matters more complicated, that short stride was going far too across. While the short and across front-foot stride allowed him to whip balls pitched on middle through the on side, it also made him slightly susceptible to full-pitched swinging deliveries, or when the ball deviated appreciably off the pitch.

During one of our conversations while playing for Delhi, I told him about my observations. He assured me that he had found a way around it, which was by allowing the ball to come to him. I saw merit in his method of dealing with the shortcoming, but I wasn't fully convinced that it would work at the highest level.

England looked lost during the last couple of years, they had no answer when their plan didn't work.
I think Anderson should start being the leader of the attack again, i remember during 2009-2011, he would constantly talk to the fast bowlers and you can see him making plans for the batsman, most of the time the plans worked.
Ever since they got that number 1 ranking for a brief period, they always assumed it was statistics that got them to number 1, in reality it played a little part most of it was due to Anderson good form, Good support from other seam bowlers and Swann.
Daddy hundreds from pretty much every batsman, plus bowlers scoring handy runs.
Incredible thing from the past 18 months is that Statistic is probably mention more than the lack of wickets from Anderson in the past year or so and Lack of Daddy hundreds.

Use Statistics but don't be reliant on them, I doubt at an international level most of the theories will work after a while.

No support from Swann now. Arguably, Swann has been our lead bowler for most of his career.

The first link didn't work by the way.

I guess that the data is only valuable depending in the perceptiveness of the people analysing it. It can be misinterpreted, and maybe not all information is always available. What if all the info they have of a batter is on tracks with a certain amount of bounce. A different pitch might mean the profile they have is useless. And the captain has to be able to vary the plan given the circumstances of the day, the evidence in front of his eyes. A captain who says don't think of using the short ball because the game plan told us not to (for example) is not a good captain.

England can't live in the past, as we have done for a while. We saw the Australia tour of 2010-11 as a template for all future games. And it wasn't. And the players are different people now.