by Arthur Crabtree » Sun Jun 14, 2015 2:47 pm
Or, playing attacking cricket got England to 300 off 45 instead of 290 off 50. While batting out the overs is obviously the aim of the innings, it's just an assumption that it will give you more runs that playing higher risk cricket over a shorter period. I've never been convinced by the iron rule of batting out the overs above all else.
NZ bowled well. If ENgland had batted cautiously they still would have attempted to attack at the end of the innings, and could have collapsed from a lower run base, scoring fewer runs overall. England, or any team just can't play 'without fear' if they play with fear when things are against them. If they'd gone to plan B in Birmingham, they would have picked up 50 fewer runs there, as they were in precarious position when Rashid and Buttler came together. No one can guarantee success.
I always say that everybody's right.