Big Ron
Well-known member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 1,897
That could have been good fun!25 overs of him doing that though!
That could have been good fun!25 overs of him doing that though!
Oooh thanks for mentioning that, I will put that on my 'potentials' list for cricket this year, didn't realise they were doing a double header. Might be a decent day out.The first of which is the opening double header at Edgbaston on May 20.
Lancashire vs Derbyshire and Birmingham vs Yorkshire 2.30 and 6.30 start times.Oooh thanks for mentioning that, I will put that on my 'potentials' list for cricket this year, didn't realise they were doing a double header. Might be a decent day out.
I had only just read that myself when I saw your post.Apparently Brooks's father scored 210 NO in a club game.
Will Brooks beat that?
Just a thought on Bazball. Is it that revolutionary?
Only a few years ago did we have Trevor Bayliss as head coach and that was essentially a version of smash-bang-wallop to get to 300-350 by the end of Day 1. When it worked, it worked. When it didn't, it was appalling. I think England had three sub-100 innings scores in a calendar year at one point - one against Ireland, no less! Aren't we just seeing a better version of that with better players involved? England seem more controlled with it and Harry Brook is a hell of a player.
I can excuse any England fan of forgetting the Bayliss years after having to endure the Silverwood tenure. Most are only just coming out of rehab from those dark days.
He was 'only' going at a strike rate of about 75-80 when he got his 50 after lunch
Ok, my apologies, his 50 was a run a ball. He was later 63 from 81 though. What I'm trying to get at is that he is not just gung-ho, which you might think if you simply look at the scorecard. He is watchful when it is needed, but immediately capitalises on anything slightly overpitched or too short. If it's up, it's off. He moves through the gears with consummate ease. Root was playing a far more classical style test innings at the other end, so you would still have enjoyed that!Brian Lara (still the most gifted batsman I've ever had the pleasure of watching) had a career Test strike rate of 60. Tendulkar was 54.
Harry Brook comes in on a greentop after we've lost three quick wickets and still scores his first 50 off 52 balls.
I admit that I didn't see yesterday's play but you cannot tell me that this is cricket as usual!!
And your favourite colour is beige and breakfast of choice is plain toast ?But then my favourite player when I was growing up was Mike Atherton, I always hated KP and my favourite shot (to play or watch) is an immaculate forward defensive.
Ok, my apologies, his 50 was a run a ball. He was later 63 from 81 though. What I'm trying to get at is that he is not just gung-ho, which you might think if you simply look at the scorecard. He is watchful when it is needed, but immediately capitalises on anything slightly overpitched or too short. If it's up, it's off. He moves through the gears with consummate ease. Root was playing a far more classical style test innings at the other end, so you would still have enjoyed that!
And your favourite colour is beige and breakfast of choice is plain toast ?
Michael Vaughan's cover drive for me all day long.
Oh come on Tony, the 'revulsion' comment is purist nonsense. We sometimes wince when a hoick is made but you talk as if it's never been done before.OK, I just watched the highlights, and while there were some exquisite cuts and drives, there were three shots within Brook's first 50 that I would describe as ugly t20 heaves. Many more after that, obviously, as he got his eye in and the NZ attack tired. Again, don't blame him for doing it - he's clearly an absolute prodigy, and this is how he's learnt to play. And I wish him another 15,000 Test runs......but each of those three slogs made me feel nothing but revulsion!
But yes, Root's innings was exactly the sort of Test match batting that I love to see. Dogged and determined at the outset. Move through the gears once you're on top.
Oh come on Tony, the 'revulsion' comment is purist nonsense. We sometimes wince when a hoick is made but you talk as if it's never been done before.
Virender Sehwag springs to mind. I think he was a very ultra aggressive batsman, and he scored a lot of runs playing that way.
That cover drive on the move from Pope was shot of the day though. Gorgeous.OK, let me try and illustrate my point. Here's the highlights from yesterday's play:
I'm going to talk about the three balls from ~1:10 onwards. Reminder - the score is 29-3 on a greentop, and he's batting against a guy who has 350+ Test wickets.
The first shot is exquisite. A gorgeous cover drive of the highest order. Perfectly controlled. Astonishing timing.
The second is a rubbish long-hop from Southee that he puts away well
It's the third that gets me. He comes charging down the pitch and has a wild, uncontrolled swipe at a straight good-length ball. Because his hand-eye coordination is so good, he middles it and smites it. But it's not a high percentage shot - and again, it's being played inside the first hour of a Test match on a lively pitch.
That shot, especially given its context, is (for me) the difference between normal, aggressive Test cricket and Bazball.
And to repeat myself - I'm not saying it's the wrong approach. It's almost certainly absolutely the right way to go in the modern game, given the skillset that young players develop nowadays.
Just saying that I hate it.
(though I might hate the 'Back Away followed by cross-batted heave' at 2:27 even more. The fact that Brook is capable of playing glorious conventional strokes makes his 'Stuart Broad on an angry day' baseball swings even uglier somehow)
Sehwag's strike rate over his whole Test career was 82. That's the third highest in Test history for players who've scored at least 1000 runs.
(the highest ever is Shahid Afridi at just a lick under 87 - the only other three over 75 in Test history are Adam Gilchrist, Graeme Swann(?!?) and, ironically, Tim Southee)
Harry Brook has kicked off his Test career with a SR of 99.38.
So very soon (hopefully), he's going to be standing at the top of that list by a very long way. He's playing a whole different ballgame from anyone that's come before!
I take the point, you’re not the only person to enjoy a stylish attacking shot as much as a resolute defensive technique. Most of the people on this thread watch and know a little bit about cricket - we’re also fans.OK, let me try and illustrate my point. Here's the highlights from yesterday's play:
I'm going to talk about the three balls from ~1:10 onwards. Reminder - the score is 29-3 on a greentop, and he's batting against a guy who has 350+ Test wickets.
The first shot is exquisite. A gorgeous cover drive of the highest order. Perfectly controlled. Astonishing timing.
The second is a rubbish long-hop from Southee that he puts away well
It's the third that gets me. He comes charging down the pitch and has a wild, uncontrolled swipe at a straight good-length ball. Because his hand-eye coordination is so good, he middles it and smites it. But it's not a high percentage shot - and again, it's being played inside the first hour of a Test match on a lively pitch.
That shot, especially given its context, is (for me) the difference between normal, aggressive Test cricket and Bazball.
And to repeat myself - I'm not saying it's the wrong approach. It's almost certainly absolutely the right way to go in the modern game, given the skillset that young players develop nowadays.
Just saying that I hate it.
(though I might hate the 'Back Away followed by cross-batted heave' at 2:27 even more. The fact that Brook is capable of playing glorious conventional strokes makes his 'Stuart Broad on an angry day' baseball swings even uglier somehow)