Sri Lanka vs South Africa

[The_Reaper]

Our difference is that we have a different threshold when deciding that we can't win the match anymore.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

And I still reckon that playing negative cricket from ball one, halfway through day two is a bit over the top. The viewing public doesn't want to see 50 runs in a two hour session: they want to be entertained.

What sets Australia apart from several other teams is that our first focus is on winning. Sometimes that can backfire, but I'd rather see us continue to play positive cricket, instead of go into our shells and play an unnatural game. Players like Warner, Clarke and Smith play their best cricket when they're trying to score. But there's a fine line between playing aggressively, and playing recklessly - the latter occurred on the final day of that Second Test in South Africa, and it's something we need to eradicate from our game, if we're to become a truly great side.

Aggression looks like recklessness when it doesn't come off. It's the only real difference between the two - the result of it.

 

[Pera]

Maybe they would've, but maybe a positive cricket side would actually attempt to win even if the opposition won the toss. Conditions or no conditions, not even attempting a win when your opponents haven't even put 450 on the board is poor form.

I actually agree with this. We wanted a draw from ball 1 and to protect the 1-0 series lead. We also moved the best attacking test #3 in the world to 4, moved Faf to 3 to stagnate almost every innings on tour, and didn't play an ounce of attacking cricket despite the pitch being largely flat early.

It worked but this side can be so frustrating sometimes.

 

[philreich]

I actually agree with this. We wanted a draw from ball 1 and to protect the 1-0 series lead. We also moved the best attacking test #3 in the world to 4, moved Faf to 3 to stagnate almost every innings on tour, and didn't play an ounce of attacking cricket despite the pitch being largely flat early.

It worked but this side can be so frustrating sometimes.

Bingo. I don't have a problem with teams playing for a draw on the last day if it's clear that victory is impossible. But playing for a draw when there's around 300 overs left in the match is just SO negative!!!! What's wrong with showing a bit of intent, and putting pressure back on the bowlers, instead of allowing them to bowl however they want to from ball one???

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Bingo. I don't have a problem with teams playing for a draw on the last day if it's clear that victory is impossible. But playing for a draw when there's around 300 overs left in the match is just SO negative!!!! What's wrong with showing a bit of intent, and putting pressure back on the bowlers, instead of allowing them to bowl however they want to from ball one???

It is a bit disappointing when Saffers have such high quality attacking batsmen in the line-up to watch them stonewall but they do manage to hold out for these draws an awful lot, so it works for them.

 

[philreich]

It is a bit disappointing when Saffers have such high quality attacking batsmen in the line-up to watch them stonewall but they do manage to hold out for these draws an awful lot, so it works for them.

Yeah no argument there. They're damn tough to beat anywhere, any time - which is why our recent series victory in South Africa was so special. It's definitely a sign that Australian cricket is on the right track.

 

[Oaktree]

200 for Sanga, what an absolute gun!

10th test double and 3rd versus Pakistan.