Remove this Banner Ad

Big Cricket Thread

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chanderpaul, Katich spring to mind.

You have to have a good eye.

Chanderpaul started with an open stance, but by the time the ball got to him his stance was more classic as he adjusted his feet


Not orthodox, but worked damn well for him
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

I swear I recently saw someone with a similar technique to Bailey. Just can't remember where... must have been either the Ashes or the T20 WC.

Maybe I'm thinking of Rory Burns' messed up stance.
 
I swear I recently saw someone with a similar technique to Bailey. Just can't remember where... must have been either the Ashes or the T20 WC.

Maybe I'm thinking of Rory Burns' messed up stance.

Burns only does it because his eyes are stuffed apperently. Pretty impressive to ve an opening bat and half blind.

Terrible non-follow on. Let's say we declare at lunch, congrats Pakistan, you have to defend 150 overs now instead of 200 (and two new balls instead of three)

Don't give me anything about resting the bowlers either. Boland and Hazelwood are adequate replacements, you can get filler overs from Head/Labuschagne etc...

Example. Pakistan are 5 down after 100 overs. If following on, it's a whole day and don't have to burn bowlers with plenty of time left.

Under the not follow on, 5 down after 100 overs is tea Day 5 and by then panic sets in and you overbowl the studs anyway.
 
Don't get me wrong Australia still win almost all the time, but this decision changes Aus win equity from 98% down to about 90% (numbers out of my ass), which while only 8% in absolute %change is still making it 5x likely Pakistan save the test which is a huge strategic blunder.

Your 400 up, the "challenge" of batting last literally doesn't exist (as it would if Pakistan were say, 220 behind where they could plausibly make 450 and make Aus chase 230 final day).
 
Two full days left to play, why give the Pakistani bowlers a break by enforcing the follow-on? Particularly as I suspect the Lahore wicket is being flattened as we speak.
 
Burns only does it because his eyes are stuffed apperently. Pretty impressive to ve an opening bat and half blind.

Terrible non-follow on. Let's say we declare at lunch, congrats Pakistan, you have to defend 150 overs now instead of 200 (and two new balls instead of three)

Don't give me anything about resting the bowlers either. Boland and Hazelwood are adequate replacements, you can get filler overs from Head/Labuschagne etc...

Example. Pakistan are 5 down after 100 overs. If following on, it's a whole day and don't have to burn bowlers with plenty of time left.

Under the not follow on, 5 down after 100 overs is tea Day 5 and by then panic sets in and you overbowl the studs anyway.
Burns is a left hand batsman but is left eye dominant. So when he faces up his left or dominant eye is not the one watching the ball. So he squares his head so he can use the dominant eye to sight the ball. His vision is fine.
I was against batting again initially, I reckon a batting captain probably would have enforced the follow on. Especially as the bowlers only bowled a little more than 50 overs. However given we are 400 ahead, batting out the remaining overs of day 3 and the first hour of the next day to freshen up the bowlers and get a quick 150-200 run top up still leaves most of day 4 and all of day 5 on a pitch that is getting better for spin. Our quicks are getting a heap of swing and reverse too so 160 odd overs should be more than enough.
 
5th day pitch v 4th day pitch ?
If we don't bowl them out on Day 4 we would get to bowl at them on Day 5 anyway.

Two full days left to play, why give the Pakistani bowlers a break by enforcing the follow-on? Particularly as I suspect the Lahore wicket is being flattened as we speak.

Why give Pakistan 50 less overs to bat.

Again, it's possible we rampage through them anyway in 60 overs again, in which case the decision doesn't really matter, but if Pakistan end up 5/250 after 100 overs, and only have to survive another 40 overs instead of another 90 we will feel pretty stupid and be liable to overbowling players anyway.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

If we don't bowl them out on Day 4 we would get to bowl at them on Day 5 anyway.



Why give Pakistan 50 less overs to bat.

Again, it's possible we rampage through them anyway in 60 overs again, in which case the decision doesn't really matter, but if Pakistan end up 5/250 after 100 overs, and only have to survive another 40 overs instead of another 90 we will feel pretty stupid and be liable to overbowling players anyway.
Mate I was just throwing up a possible reason for the decision not to enforce the follow on. I would have.
 
Starc and Cummins each bowled 13 overs on a hot day. Batting again gives them a rest, makes Pakistan spend another few hours fielding and let's the pitch break up even more. No issue with batting again imo
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom