A question of bowling tactics

[Owzat]

In the two versions of cricket in which tactics are possible, which tactic do you believe is the best to pursue if nothing is happening? ie the two current bowlers aren't taking wickets

PRESSURE - KEEP IT TIGHT

Try to keep the scoring rate down to create 'pressure'. A number of TMS pundits advocate this, reckoning pressure creates wickets

VARIATION - MIX IT UP

Do you go for the Arjuna Ranatunga approach, keep changing things and don't just let things drift?


Or put another way, do you subscribe to the "wickets create pressure" theory, or the "pressure creates wickets" theory? Perhaps you believe in both.


I don't buy the "pressure creates wickets" theory, it might work on some batsmen but in general I don't believe you can allow the game to drift. For example, in a Test if you have the opposition 36/1, do you really want to run the risk of keeping it tight but not taking a wicket? 36/1 even at two runs per over will soon start drifting into the favour of the batting side. Sure they won't race there, but I've seen plenty of games drift along as teams try to keep it tight and it just ends up the batting side gets into a better position because no wickets fall.

In ODIs I've seen the "keep it tight" approach adopted by England, but it is the wickets that slow the run-rate right down and create the pressure. Bowling ONE bowler through for say 10-2-35-0 might seem tight and "doing a job", but that means 35 free runs and wickets in hand to score 50-60 off someone else. I looked at the stats for England a while back, I think ODIs under Strauss' captaincy, and England won games mainly when they took 9-10 wickets. It was pretty damning evidence, you can only control a game as a bowling side if you take wickets. Sure you might force a batsman into a rash shot, charge down the wicket etc, but can you be sure your bowler won't feed enough down legside to keep the batsmen in enough runs that they plod on happily enough? Didn't Shakib Al Hasan "keep it tight" in the 2nd Test, didn't stop Bell, Prior and Bresnan scoring runs and giving England a lead just when they were in some trouble.

I prefer Ranatunga's approach, if a bowler isn't getting wickets early on then get him off. Five overs either end at just three runs per over without a wicket is 30/0 or 30 runs without a further wicket, can you afford tiring two bowlers out for another 15-20 and giving the batting pair a fifty partnership?!? Changing the bowlers when they aren't taking wickets not only keeps them fresh, it doesn't allow batsmen too much time to settle and get used to their pace and style. Of course knowing your opponent is good to have in your locker, knowing he doesn't like one type of bowler etc and bringing on a SLA or left-arm quick if that's his weakness early on.


Anyone on here prefer trying to bore the batsmen and crowd into submission?

 

[ZoraxDoom]

I see no harm in trying both.

What I've seen usually done in my gulli cricket games is that if we can't get wickets and the batsmen are cruising, we get the best bowlers back into the attack with the task of buying wickets. And once we've broken through, we keep them on with the plan to keep on taking wickets, and then let the rest of the bowlers finish off the innings. This way, we either get a few wickets and get back in the game, or our best bowlers are just seen off by the other team's batsmen and their run-rate falls for a while, and pressure builds.


I don't have any real experience of trying to do this in unlimited overs cricketer, except for ICC, but I'd rather keep mixing it up. My initial plan, if I were bowling, would to keep changing my angle and style of bowling (Offspine, medium pace, legbreaks, whatever I can bowl). Make sure the batsmen have to be alert at ever ball.

Alternatively, come up with a bowling plan for your two best bowlers, and work towards it. If you don't get wickets but the run rate drops, encourage the remaining bowlers to maintain this pressure. Then I dunnow, get your canniest bowler on, tell him to toss up seeming innocuous delivery, keep a man in the deep and hope the batsmen takes the bait.

 

[TumTum]

Why can't you do both?

 

[angryangy]

The fact is that most sides, any good ones, will still score while under "pressure". Then, in a limited overs game, if they get to a certain point with wickets in hand, they release the valve themselves. You can concede a maiden and make the runs back later, but you can't get wickets back. Wickets create pressure because the real pressure is that of holding onto your wicket. The more problematic your dismissal is for your team, the more concerned you are about failure. Likewise, bowlers who really test the batsmen are the only kind that create any real pressure.