India tour of Eng, June 20 - Aug 4

[Arthur Crabtree]

This argument just does not work in any context whatsoever. Even assuming the pre-determined strategy you set off with is perfectly optimal, the idea that the circumstance and actual events that follow have no impact whatsoever on that calculation is, in my opinion, so wrong it does not even need any detailed explanation to completely dismiss.

And yet that's what a 'we run towards the danger' philisophy is.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Are England dropping catches because this is a faster/harder surface in a summer of slow/low batting tracks? Certainly these fielding errors have arrived at just the wrong time.

[sussexpob]

I maintain that you can't approve of the approach whe it works (92-0) and then condemn it when it fails (247ao). As Cook seeks to be doing. They were right to take chances when it worked but wrong when it didn't. The Boycott Paradox.

Again, like with any sport there is an acute difference between looking at something that presents more statistical risk for more reward and backing your ability and skills to operate successfully in that increase realm of risk, and being indifferent to any form of risk calculation and just being reckless. At a detailed level, when we talk of aggression in batting, what are we actually referring to? Where are we drawing the line? In my opinion, I think being aggressive is about being willing to play with increased statistical risk on the vague assumption that the odds of failure, while increasing with it, are subverted by how much you score before that risk on average gets you out.

This formula only works when the speed of your batting output exceeds the risk of getting out, and thats the important thing about it - playing with the margins of risk. And by that from a physical perspective, we are talking about the few percent of extra risk taking on a ball that is just not short enough for a conventional pull, or just not wide enough for a conventional cut, or just a little bit on the rise from a good length, with the risk somewhat nullified by modern players ability to shot make from non-traditional balls.

Lets just take some examples. Duckett can play the cut shot very well to balls tight on his offstump body line, established wisdom says most players would get cramped, but Duckett does not. Any batsman has say 1.5%-2% chance of getting out to any given ball, Duckett playing the cut in those situations might have a 5% chance of getting out, but in 20 cut shots he scores 50 runs where another batter scores none and still on average has a 40% chance of getting out to that many balls. This is calculated risk based on a players ability to play shots others cant - I would tell Duckett to cut every ball on similar lines. Crawley height means he can lean into drives that to other people would get too big. Jamie Smith has a standout ability to hit balls on the rise at the top of their bounce despite many batters failing. The players ability chances the risk/reward calculation.

But there is an acute difference in playing with this calculation, and taking on shots where the risk factor exponentially increases. What odds do we give Duckett on his wicket ball? Do we even give him 50% chance of surviving in trying to hit a ball on 5/6th stump line when his back leg is at least a meter outside leg stump? What odds to we give Crawley in getting on top off the bounce and pulling a ball at box height? What odds did Jamie Smith have playing a ball where he planted his foot a meter inside the the line his bat was playing? What odds do we give a number 10 trying to baseball bat a pull shot that was (a) too tight in line (b) a good 40cm's short of optimal height?

I don't think its Boycott Paradox in play here. Its a simple risk assessment. Taking on balls where the risk changes from 1/2% to 5%, fill your boots. Taking on risks at 20-30-40-50% is not optimal, you are never beating the odds playing that way.

[sussexpob]

Deep's second best FC score apparently, lasted an hour this morning. These are priceless runs... a giant kick in the balls for England.

By all accounts Deep's reaction to Duckett yesterday was influenced by some comments Duckett made. Duckett apparently told him he'd never get him out, and that he'd never see him again in a test match because his career would be over soon. Deep then got Duckett out, and is now hanging around 3 times over his FC batting average.

Maybe it wasn't sensible for England to have targeted him for chat, as it seems to have had the opposite effect.

[sussexpob]

Are England dropping catches because this is a faster/harder surface in a summer of slow/low batting tracks? Certainly these fielding errors have arrived at just the wrong time.

The ball has swung a long way past the bat this test, and both keepers have had a hard job. But I am not sure after the ball hits the edge there is any evidence of this wobble, only when the seam is upright still after it hits the pitch. The Dawson drop yesterday appeared like he just didn't pick it up from the crowd. It seemed to almost land on his head coming out of nowhere....

[sussexpob]

And yet that's what a 'we run towards the danger' philisophy is.

I have no idea what that is, so can't really argue against it

[Arthur Crabtree]

That's how England describe their approach. I think it originally comes from firefighting.

[sussexpob]

Are we now starting to see the first stages of some tiredness in England's legs? Been pretty ineffective this morning... 20 overs into day 3, and England have been out there for all but 50 overs. Huge sense of danger mounting if England cannot get Jaiswal or Deep soon.... 33 overs already bowled by the pacers.

[Arthur Crabtree]

That's how England describe their approach. I think it originally comes from firefighting.

If you do a search for 'Mccullum run towards the danger', you get a flavour of the idea.

[sussexpob]

If you do a search for 'Mccullum run towards the danger', you get a flavour of the idea.

Reading this, I get the impression Stokes and McCullum team talks might be David Brent-esque

[sussexpob]

Akash gets 50.... taking the match away from England with this partnership. Very poor from England this morning

[Arthur Crabtree]

Just a hunch, but it may be that bazball isn't even intended to appeal commentators, journalists, former pros or even fans who think in terms of percentage gains. Test cricket has long been in danger of dying with those groups setting the agenda.

It's aim is to appeal to the Western Terrace. It's ultimate good is to delay the moment when thousands of drunk spectators throw torn newspapers in the air and start to throw a beachball around.

See also, the hundred.

[sussexpob]

100 partnership now.

EDIT - Finally gets Deep, but the damage has been done.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Overton is the hero!

Maybe check tomorrow night and see how many Gill is on.

[mikesiva]

Akash Deep!