Aggression in cricket, as far as I am concerned is an over rated concept. People insist on it because it looks good. It provides us with the goose bumps and makes us look forward to it. But so much of the cricket’s folklores are built around those gritty, nail scraping, inelegant but priceless knocks. For every majestic 281 by Laxman, there is that ugly 180 by Dravid. Take out that 180 and you will find Laxman stranded at 80 not out with no one from the tail to stand by him.
Tell Tatenda Taibu to be aggressive with his ragtag group of men (to call it a team would be stretching the meaning of the word a tad too far) and u will find that he will create a newer record in the margin of losses every match. Aggression for a team is a function of the kind of players there are in it. You can afford to have 4 slips for Mcgrath because he will land it outside off stump on a coin if he wants, 6 times out of 6. If Mpumelelo Mbangwa is asked to bowl to such a field the captain must have had a fight with his wife in the morning.
You can tell Sehwag to go and play his natural game because he has the Big 4 acting as props. You cant tell a Zimbabwean opener the same because the batting line up is one long tail. The former Sri Lankan captain Arjuna Ranatunga, considered a great strategist, used to resort to around the wicket negative tactics whenever the batsmen were attacking. The reason being that his bowling line up read Murali and the rest. He just could not afford to let the match slip away quickly as the only wicket taking option was Murali.
Its all good to beat your chest and say that we will be aggressive but its not a bad idea to just look around and see if you have the men for it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment