Comments on: Bowlers hold the whip hand http://www.geoffboycott.com/index.php/2009/12/bowlers-hold-the-whip-hand/ The world of cricket Thu, 2 Sep 2010 22:35:40 +0100 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: IRANNA http://www.geoffboycott.com/index.php/2009/12/bowlers-hold-the-whip-hand/comment-page-1/#comment-32 IRANNA Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:22:21 +0000 http://www.geoffboycott.com/?p=907#comment-32 Mr.Geoffrey Boycott sir, i read your comment about SEHWAG on cricinfo you said sehwag cant get 300 on moving tracks so he is modern day great on batting picthes... sir, how many players got 300 on moving picthes like newzealand and england to become great.. whole world says that dravid, tendulkar,gavaskar they are great batsmans,did they got 300 on moving picthes to become great... why sehwag needs to get 300 on moving picthes to become great ...when all the players like dravid,gavaskar,tendulkar needs to get just 100 to become great....is that not unfair on sehwag to say that get 300 on moving piches to become great.. if others in the history considered great just by getting 100s on moving piches.... Mr.Geoffrey Boycott sir,

i read your comment about SEHWAG on cricinfo

you said sehwag cant get 300 on moving tracks so he is modern day great on batting picthes…

sir, how many players got 300 on moving picthes like newzealand and england to become great..

whole world says that dravid, tendulkar,gavaskar they are great batsmans,did they got 300 on moving picthes to become great…

why sehwag needs to get 300 on moving picthes to become great …when all the players like dravid,gavaskar,tendulkar needs to get just 100 to become great….is that not unfair on sehwag to say that get 300 on moving piches to become great.. if others in the history considered great just by getting 100s on moving piches….

]]> By: Cricket Betting Blog http://www.geoffboycott.com/index.php/2009/12/bowlers-hold-the-whip-hand/comment-page-1/#comment-30 Cricket Betting Blog Sat, 05 Dec 2009 14:03:40 +0000 http://www.geoffboycott.com/?p=907#comment-30 Reading this article (with regard to 2nd test, India V Sri Lanka) reminded me of England's test against India in Chennai this time last year and a failing of the England team in general. The batsman set the game up for England to win, setting India 387 to win in the last 4 sessions and the bowlers failed miserably to get anywhere near the 10 wickets required. For me that is one of the big differences between England and the top test playing nations. In that game Anderson, Flintoff, Harmison etc relied on the Indian batsmen making mistakes and when the mistakes didn't come England looked clueless and ended up losing the game. The batsmen can put the runs on the board and in doing so can create 'scoreboard pressure' but ultimately if your bowlers aren't good enough you won't win. This is why I conclude that England only have a decent attack, but not a good enough one (at the moment) to be the best team in the world. On pitches and in conditions that suit our bolwers we can beat anyone and our bolwers can be unplayable. When it comes to an unhelpful pitch where you need a wicket taker or a bit of cunning and guile I think England struggle with a lack of invention and at times, brains. A game that springs to mind is the 3rd Ashes test at Edgbaston. In the 1st innings with helpful conditions we skittled Australia out for around 250 in just over a session. Then even with scoreboard pressure our bowlers were not good enough to press home the advantage the 2nd time the Aussies batted in more batsman friendly conditions, in the end England were the happier team with the draw. Two tests and a series England could have won with just one or two better bowlers. Reading this article (with regard to 2nd test, India V Sri Lanka) reminded me of England’s test against India in Chennai this time last year and a failing of the England team in general.

The batsman set the game up for England to win, setting India 387 to win in the last 4 sessions and the bowlers failed miserably to get anywhere near the 10 wickets required.

For me that is one of the big differences between England and the top test playing nations. In that game Anderson, Flintoff, Harmison etc relied on the Indian batsmen making mistakes and when the mistakes didn’t come England looked clueless and ended up losing the game.

The batsmen can put the runs on the board and in doing so can create ‘scoreboard pressure’ but ultimately if your bowlers aren’t good enough you won’t win.

This is why I conclude that England only have a decent attack, but not a good enough one (at the moment) to be the best team in the world. On pitches and in conditions that suit our bolwers we can beat anyone and our bolwers can be unplayable.

When it comes to an unhelpful pitch where you need a wicket taker or a bit of cunning and guile I think England struggle with a lack of invention and at times, brains.

A game that springs to mind is the 3rd Ashes test at Edgbaston. In the 1st innings with helpful conditions we skittled Australia out for around 250 in just over a session. Then even with scoreboard pressure our bowlers were not good enough to press home the advantage the 2nd time the Aussies batted in more batsman friendly conditions, in the end England were the happier team with the draw.

Two tests and a series England could have won with just one or two better bowlers.

]]>