• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Exciting batsmen

Who is the most exciting batsman in the world?

  • Verinder Sehwag

    Votes: 4 12.9%
  • Shahid Afridi

    Votes: 2 6.5%
  • Andrew Flintoff

    Votes: 7 22.6%
  • Adam Gilchrist

    Votes: 8 25.8%
  • Sanath Jayasuriya

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Matthew Hayden

    Votes: 1 3.2%
  • Sachin Tendulkar

    Votes: 2 6.5%
  • Brian Lara

    Votes: 3 9.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 4 12.9%

  • Total voters
    31
  • Poll closed .

Mr Mxyzptlk

Well-known member
Adamc said:
This is true to an extent, though his riskier approach is not necessarily an irresponsible one. If anything, Lara is a more responsible batsman than ever, as he is in charge of a young batting lineup with not a lot of experience. More often than not his aggression is a controlled response to the situation.
In his 202 in the first test he came in with the WI in a reasonable position at 2/94 but the run rate at only 2.5rpo. Hence, he tried to gain some initiative by being aggressive from the start. Consquently, he played and missed several times and skied many deliveries, but he got the job done. This took the pressure off his partners at the other end, none of which were in good form.
In his 72 in the second test the situation was much worse and he responded by curtailing his aggressive nature. At one stage he had 7 off 42 balls, but once he and Jacobs were settled he hit a further 65 off 69.
Anyway, all I am trying to say is that when he is 'charging down the pitch trying to hit the spinners out of the park' it is usually to regain some initiative and take pressure off other batsman rather than a Sehwag-style swipe.
I agree completely with everything there. Very well analyzed and stated.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
halsey said:
The wickets in Australia are some of the flattest in the world. At least the ones in India spin.
Not for the recent NZ series they didn't.
It was so pronounced Sehwag was moved to comment publicly on it - "when we go away, the wickets suit the home country, so surely when we play at home we should make the wickets spin to help India" or something like that.
I thought he had made a very good point.
 

Bazza

Well-known member
I have thought the same of England in recent years. I remember South Africa being exposed by swing in 1998, yet the last few years we have produced belters and even turning pitches - just the way to conquer India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan! :rolleyes:
 

Tom Halsey

Well-known member
Contrary to popular belief that England is a seamers place, England is not to bad for spinners, but we don't have anyone to exploit it! Old Trafford spins (Ball of the century) and the Oval usually turns too. (Saqlain and Salisbury for Surrey) Feel free to disagree.
 

Bazza

Well-known member
The Oval always turns but these days we seem to create good batting tracks which turn later on. There is little for the seam bowlers which is our strength. If you don't create an advantage when you play at home, it's no wonder you struggle to win games!
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Hallujaliah to you two! Someone else has actually taken note of the plethora of seamless wickets in England!
The only explanation can be that The ECB are anxious to make Tests last 5 days (at least it's been a success), but really, it is surely a disadvantage to England.
England's strength has been seam bowling for God knows how long now (certainly since covered wickets). We can't control the weather (last summer was the best for some time... 8 years in fact:lol: and even in 2002, the worst for 40 years, the weather at the Tests was generally OK) which makes swing difficult or easy, but we can control the movement off the seam.
I wouldn't say we get turning wickets in England, though. I classify a "turning" wicket as one that offers enough assistance (for all the match) for fingerspinners to present a threat to competant batsmen. These wickets are typical to Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and India (and Pakistan when they want them). You see them sometimes in West Indies, and typically at The SCG, too.
But you hardly ever get any at the English Test grounds. Wristspinners will present a threat on any surface, we all know that, but when was the last time England had a decent wristspinner? Bosanquet?
Anyway, in the last 15 Tests in England, I'd say we've got this:
Wickets offering essentially no seam or turn at any time in the match: 8
Wickets offering a bit of seam but only for the first couple of sessions: 3
Proper English wickets: 2 (both wasted on Zimbabwe)
Things that degenerated into piles of rubbish in 2 days or less: 2
Not good enough. Uneven bounce is something best avoided for as long as possible. But movement off the seam is a must for a proper Test pitch in England. Of those 8 wickets at the top, there have been 4 draws and 1 victory at about 19:30 on the last day.
However, only 6 days of Test-cricket have been lost in the last 2 years, 4 against Zimbabwe. The ECB's method is working, but how much damage is it doing to England?
 

Bazza

Well-known member
It's ok trying to get 5 days in, but would a successful England side making cricket a more popular sport not boost attendances? Or is it just easier to prepare batting tracks?

I say we need an Aussie in charge to kick us up the backsides!

PS: Give the Rose Bowl a test and watch the bowlers run riot! :P
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Bazza said:
It's ok trying to get 5 days in, but would a successful England side making cricket a more popular sport not boost attendances? Or is it just easier to prepare batting tracks?

I say we need an Aussie in charge to kick us up the backsides!

PS: Give the Rose Bowl a test and watch the bowlers run riot! :P
Attendances aren't the problem, the problem is that in 1999-2001 there were 98 days of Test-cricket scheduled, and 21 of those were lost, 2 due to bad weather, 19 due to early finishes.
It simply couldn't go on like that, really. The budget was inevitably going to be undercooked. The only trouble is, IMO, that flat wickets and draws aren't very appetising. However, if, as you recently suggested, runs are what everyone wants to see and who gives a damn about the results, then this is a baseless worry. The crowds will continue to flock in.
But television figures are what really controls the big cash. If these can rise, the contract figure will remain a constant megabucks figure. If they fall, the figure will fall to the kilobucks, and the domestic game will be in deep trouble.
And it strikes me that a succesful England side is more likely to attract TV audiences than the prospect of runs, runs, runs, though viewing figures dropped each year from 1998 to 2001, despite there being a seemingly more appetising prospect each year.
 

Tom Halsey

Well-known member
Richard is right, they lose money for every day of cricket missed. But who cares? (Not me anyway:P ) Surely they would get money if England win? So they should prepare proper English wickets, in my view.
 

Bazza

Well-known member
I didn't mean to suggest that people want runs more than results, just that they would rather see a total of 500 than 150. This is especially true in ODIs - people want to see teams make 300 not bowled out for 150 in 40 overs.
 

krkode

Well-known member
Personally, I would, for once like to see a low-scoring game where the bowlers put up a splendid show.

Not low scoring because the pitch was bad.

I've rarely seen a game like this, but I remember one game in which India scored 196 a.o and then bowled Sri Lanka out for 98. That was as good as watching a successful 315-run chase because the pressure was on both teams. One bowling well, one struggling to score. :P

On the contrary, games where one team scores 300 and then the other is bowled out for 50 are as boring as they get, for me.
 

Tom Halsey

Well-known member
Maybe this is me, as a bowling allrounder, more of a bowler than a batsman, but I prefer to see wickets than runs.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Personally, and unusually by all accounts, I prefer to see good accurate bowling leading to reasonable scoring-rates (no more than 3-an-over in First-Class-cricket, no more than 4.5-an-over in one-dayers) then worrying about the style of the batting and the skill of the penetration in bowling.
There's nothing more I like than seeing 260 for 2 scored in a day's Test-cricket, by good, stylish batsmen against good, accurate bowling without any dropped catches, missed stumpings or poor Umpiring. Yet for some this is a worst-case-scenario. My worst-case-scenario is 130ao off 26 overs.
I'm not saying I wasn't on the edge of my seat when England kept bowling-out opposition cheaply in the glory days of Gough, Caddick, Cork, White, Croft and Giles, however. Nor on the many occasions Trescothick and Knight hammered the Australian one-day attack around the park.
 

Eclipse

Well-known member
Richard said:
Nor on the many occasions Trescothick and Knight hammered the Australian one-day attack around the park.
like when?

I can think of three or four occasion's but most have not developed into much more than a fifty run partneship.

More often than not one of the two or both have fallen early.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Big partnerships: Nevill Road in 2001, The SCG and Bellerive in 2002\03, and WC2003 in St.George's Park.
And a few other smash-and-grabs.
Compared to other combos, that's many.
It's still not nearly enough, but it's pretty good by others' standards.
And yes, they've had plenty of failures. Incompetant fools managing to get out to Lee, Bracken and Williams, amongst others.
 
Top