PDA

View Full Version : How to contain Gilchrist - how about the Dipak Patel strategy?


Imtiazk
April 23, 2006, 11:26 AM
The Gilchrist menace can blow away a match within a few overs. Of course, his strategy has risks but Gilly chooses which balls to hit. He is not an indiscriminate slogger.

Many reading these posts may not know Dipak Patel . He was a fairly ordinary off-spinner who used to play for Worcestershire and then emigrated to New Zealand. He played test and ODI's for NZ including the 1992 World Cup.

Martin Crowe effectively used him to open the bowling for all ten overs sometimes. The idea was that you took away the pace off the ball and if the batsman wanted to hit fours or sixes, then he would have to hit the ball over the top with the risks involved.

Now Rafique, in particular, is a far better slow bowler than Patel. He also does vary his length according to the batsman's feet movement brilliantly.

Why not have a Gilchrist versus Rafique contest ? I am not saying that it has to be from the first over but as soon as Gilchrist opens up, say , from the 5th over to the 15th over. Let's see how many sixes Gilchrist hits against Rafique with the hard ball and the extra bounce ! Rafique is not a big turner anyway ! The two close in fielders required in the first 10 overs should be posted at short mid-off and short mid-on. Gilly being a left-hander the short-mid off could be dispensed with and a slip posted instead. The two deep positions will be deep square leg and the sweeper in the cover boundary. Mid-off and mid-on can be a bit wide and Gilly will be invited to hit over the top.

We have to employ some new tactics because traditional one's will not work against the Aussies with their overall strength.

DJ Sahastra
April 23, 2006, 11:39 AM
I would say - It is DEFINITELY worth a try, even if it backfires.

Carte Blanche
April 23, 2006, 11:41 AM
The Deepak Patel strategy is an interesting one. I think you are forgetting that back in those days there were no early fielding restrictions and definitely no powerplays. Martin Crowe had the luxury of pushing some fielders 5-10 yards back from what today is known as the inner circle. If I'm not mistaken, the Indians also experimented with Nilesh Kulkarni against Srilanka during the Jaya-Kalu era. It didn't work.

While I do agree with the necessity to improvise, I would like to point out that Gilchrist's onslaught today has been flattered by some awfully wayward bowling by our pacers. I am in favour of adopting the Flintoff-Jones strategy against the Aussie batsmen, especially Gilchrist. Bowling around the wicket and cramping the southpaws for room is a known tactic and was effectively used in the last Ashes series. This strategy, however, requires a lot of control because anything that strays remotely down the leg side will be easy pickings for the batsman due to the angle. We still have 2 days to prepare before the next ODI and it's high time the think-tank came up with a solution to this madness. God forbid, if Australia bats first and Gilly clicks, we may be looking at a first ever 500.

Miraz
April 23, 2006, 12:02 PM
The Deepak Patel strategy is an interesting one. I think you are forgetting that back in those days there were no early fielding restrictions and definitely no powerplays. Martin Crowe had the luxury of pushing some fielders 5-10 yards back from what today is known as the inner circle. If I'm not mistaken, the Indians also experimented with Nilesh Kulkarni against Srilanka during the Jaya-Kalu era. It didn't work.

While I do agree with the necessity to improvise, I would like to point out that Gilchrist's onslaught today has been flattered by some awfully wayward bowling by our pacers. I am in favour of adopting the Flintoff-Jones strategy against the Aussie batsmen, especially Gilchrist. Bowling around the wicket and cramping the southpaws for room is a known tactic and was effectively used in the last Ashes series. This strategy, however, requires a lot of control because anything that strays remotely down the leg side will be easy pickings for the batsman due to the angle. We still have 2 days to prepare before the next ODI and it's high time the think-tank came up with a solution to this madness. God forbid, if Australia bats first and Gilly clicks, we may be looking at a first ever 500.

One day 500 will be scored in ODI but defnitely not in subcontinent track.

Using Razzak or Rafiq is really a very dramatic idea. I would prefer to take Kapali in the side with the expense of one of the fast bowler and open the bowling with Aftab and Rase/Mash/Shahadat. Aftab will take the pace of the ball which will make Gilly difficult to play free stroke and he is also very accurate in line and length.

So no Deepak Patel strategy let's make a new one with Aftab.

cricketboy
April 23, 2006, 12:45 PM
Bangladesh should definitely play with 3 spinners in Fatullah. Bring Rana in the squad please. Mash or Rasel to open bowling with Rana or Aftab. :lol:

Imtiazk
April 23, 2006, 12:47 PM
The Deepak Patel strategy is an interesting one......

While I do agree with the necessity to improvise, .... I am in favour of adopting the Flintoff-Jones strategy against the Aussie batsmen, especially Gilchrist. Bowling around the wicket and cramping the southpaws for room is a known tactic ..... God forbid, if Australia bats first and Gilly clicks, we may be looking at a first ever 500.

Agreed. There was some field restriction though. I think, you had to keep 4 within the circle. Regardless, it is an option to tell Gilly: Fine, go and hit over the in-field. Not so easy against accurate spinners !!

Regarding the Fletcher strategy against Gilchrist and other left handers, this worked with the old ball and reverse swing. Not that it cannot be employed with the new ball ! Both Rasel and Mashrafe are reasonably accurate. But you are right . They cannot even afford to bowl at middle stump. It has to be about six inches to a foot outside off stump. Both the strategies are in a way similar: Inviting him to chase /slog.

What field placings are you suggesting: 6 and 3 , I think, with a short fine leg. short mid-wicket and mid-on [ long -on ? ]. Deep cover , long-off [ if no long-on ] and three saving the single and a slip. Remember the the first 10 overs.

You are basically saying they should chase the ball ! Okay, worth a try. Let's try something, any strategy. Today's lamentable field placing when Hogg and Lee came in - giving easy singles to long-off and long-on cannot be accepted.

exotic
April 23, 2006, 12:59 PM
The Deepak Patel strategy is an interesting one. I think you are forgetting that back in those days there were no early fielding restrictions and definitely no powerplays. Martin Crowe had the luxury of pushing some fielders 5-10 yards back from what today is known as the inner circle.

Actually ICC refined the fielding circle rules (which was in effect earlier), allowing only two men outside the ring in the first 15 overs (but no restriction of putting at least two men in the catching position). After that, it was as before: a minimum of four inside the circle. As a result for the first time some teams like NZ (with Greatbatch) and ENG (with Botham) tried to employ the concept of pinch-hitter and Greatbatch was quite a success and Ian Botham with mixed results. But actually Deepak did done exceptionally well becuase all the openers of the other team were not accustomed to playing shots over the in field at least at the initial stage of the game. But now, as u said it will be quite difficult to employ the same against someone like Gilchrist, but its always worth to give it a try.

God forbid, if Australia bats first and Gilly clicks, we may be looking at a first ever 500.

No way, australia gonna make 500, they are not even gonna score in excess of 300 inshallah. Please don't underestimate our bowling.

Imtiazk
April 23, 2006, 03:04 PM
The Deepak Patel strategy is an interesting one......
God forbid, if Australia bats first and Gilly clicks, we may be looking at a first ever 500.

I once wrote a post in 2004 under "Imtiaz" entitled " The Statistical Gap.... 185 against 234. The true gap is possibly 60 runs." There with some simple arithmetic and assumptions , I calculated that our gap against the "average" opposition in an ODI was 60 runs.

Even then, when I was doing those calculations, I found that whereas our batting was the worst of all the teams, our bowling wasn't. We were not great wicket takers but we did not give away too many runs either. The reason for our repeated failures in ODI's can be safely be ascribed to our batters - who have basically not been upto the mark.

Apart from England scoring 392/4 against us last year, very few teams have rarely hammered us to the ground. Since 01-01-2004 only India scored 348 , the match after losing to us, and Sri Lanka 309, the match after losing to us.

Our bowling is now better than then. We had the Murtaza and Rafique position filled then and Razzak had bowled well in the Asia Cup. But Rasel is far better than Tapash etc. Murtaza was also not available for a year.

Basically, what I am saying is that, I doubt , any team can score 500 or even 350 against us in the normal course of events in our own conditions.

I would say that if we can post a total of 250, batting first, we could give any side a run for their money.