Not for years has defensive technique in bowler-friendly conditions been valued as a skill. Why would it be? Most Test pitches are pretty flat. Most cricket is played with a white ball. Players who are valued are the ones who pick up the line early and hit through it - which is pretty much the opposite of what you should do when the ball is moving around. The aggressive players get the big-money T20 contracts and the applause when Tests are played on flat tracks. And when the ball moves or turns? Well, it's once in twenty Tests, or in Asia, and after the embarrassment of that game there will be another game in Adelaide (or somewhere) where you can carve away to your heart's content.
I'm not saying this as a criticism, by the way. Rationally, you should construct your technique to enable you to succeed in the conditions you encounter most of the time. A generation ago, batsmen were praised for their ability to play on a wet pitch, or a "sticky" one. Those skills are simply no longer required in first-class cricket. Harry Brook's technique against the turning ball was horribly exposed against Pakistan this week, but the week before he hit 317 at almost a run a ball, so no doubt he's justified in thinking that his choices will pay off more often than not.
Anyway, as a retired pie-chucker, it's always fun watching the sloggers suffer when the ball doesn't stay nice and straight for them.
Poor shots aside, there was some wonderful catching from the Kiwis yesterday afternoon. Compared to the two relative sitters dropped by Smith and Root before tea in the Test in Pakistan, which may well cost them that Test match, NZ took every opportunity. Drop two of them and perhaps India get away.
Short of looking up the actual numbers, which will no doubt prove wildly contradictory, I get the feeling there have been more of these scores over the last, say, 20 years than in my preceding 30 odd years of watching cricket. The obvious question is: Does short form cricket kill defensive technique?
The trouble is, it's probably not the thing that test cricket needs for future survival, especially with it happening to India. Just as test cricket doesn't need scores like 8 million declared ... well, 800-odd, anyway. But then these are probably just flashes-in-the-pan. I think every team has been dismissed for a freakishly low score, like Australia in South Africa in 2011 (?), where simply every batter fails. Then (I think?) Australia won the next test chasing 300-odd, with Pat Cummins hitting the winning runs in his first test. It's one of those bizarre aberrations that cricket throws up from time to time. I do tend to agree with short-form cricket having an input though. Batters are so used to playing on very batting-friendly pitches, regardless of the format, but especially 20-over cricket obviously.
Not for years has defensive technique in bowler-friendly conditions been valued as a skill. Why would it be? Most Test pitches are pretty flat. Most cricket is played with a white ball. Players who are valued are the ones who pick up the line early and hit through it - which is pretty much the opposite of what you should do when the ball is moving around. The aggressive players get the big-money T20 contracts and the applause when Tests are played on flat tracks. And when the ball moves or turns? Well, it's once in twenty Tests, or in Asia, and after the embarrassment of that game there will be another game in Adelaide (or somewhere) where you can carve away to your heart's content.
I'm not saying this as a criticism, by the way. Rationally, you should construct your technique to enable you to succeed in the conditions you encounter most of the time. A generation ago, batsmen were praised for their ability to play on a wet pitch, or a "sticky" one. Those skills are simply no longer required in first-class cricket. Harry Brook's technique against the turning ball was horribly exposed against Pakistan this week, but the week before he hit 317 at almost a run a ball, so no doubt he's justified in thinking that his choices will pay off more often than not.
Anyway, as a retired pie-chucker, it's always fun watching the sloggers suffer when the ball doesn't stay nice and straight for them.
Poor shots aside, there was some wonderful catching from the Kiwis yesterday afternoon. Compared to the two relative sitters dropped by Smith and Root before tea in the Test in Pakistan, which may well cost them that Test match, NZ took every opportunity. Drop two of them and perhaps India get away.
Yes, but Blundell did drop a soda, which to be fair may have swung after it passed the bat. So they weren't perfect.
Short of looking up the actual numbers, which will no doubt prove wildly contradictory, I get the feeling there have been more of these scores over the last, say, 20 years than in my preceding 30 odd years of watching cricket. The obvious question is: Does short form cricket kill defensive technique?
Hard hands towards moving balls.
Still in it with day 5 to begin - it's unlikely that they can pull off a win, but not impossible...
The trouble is, it's probably not the thing that test cricket needs for future survival, especially with it happening to India. Just as test cricket doesn't need scores like 8 million declared ... well, 800-odd, anyway. But then these are probably just flashes-in-the-pan. I think every team has been dismissed for a freakishly low score, like Australia in South Africa in 2011 (?), where simply every batter fails. Then (I think?) Australia won the next test chasing 300-odd, with Pat Cummins hitting the winning runs in his first test. It's one of those bizarre aberrations that cricket throws up from time to time. I do tend to agree with short-form cricket having an input though. Batters are so used to playing on very batting-friendly pitches, regardless of the format, but especially 20-over cricket obviously.