PDA

View Full Version : Surviving 50 overs; should this be our focus?


Isnaad
March 24, 2008, 03:10 PM
Bangladesh have struggled to bat 50 overs recently(except Ireland series). So should we focus in improving it?:flag:

Kabir
March 24, 2008, 03:11 PM
When the situation is "amar toilet chapse", do you ask everyone at home "bathroom e jawa uchit naki?"

mali007
March 24, 2008, 03:24 PM
When the situation is "amar toilet chapse", do you ask everyone at home "bathroom e jawa uchit naki?"
La Jawab !!!!

Eshen
March 24, 2008, 03:25 PM
ODI is not about surviving 50 overs, or being defensive. Neither it's about hitting a lot (it's not T20I). In ODI, you have to show fair amount of aggression, then again you also have to bat according to playing conditions and strength of opposition bowling attack.

Needless to say, no appropiate voting option is given in this poll.

sandpiper
March 24, 2008, 03:28 PM
Our focus should be winning matches.

period

Eshen
March 24, 2008, 03:31 PM
Our focus should be winning matches.

period
This one is the true La Jawab post.

Beamer
March 24, 2008, 03:35 PM
Focus should be on playing to win a game and play situational cricket. If we are chasing 300, then playing 50 overs to get 220 is meaningless. I would rather get all out in pursuit of 300 in less than the stipulated overs trying to get a win. Off course the scenario will change, if lets say, we are struggling at 50 for 4 to set up a total, and in that scenario, the best option would be to bat out all 50 overs to see what we can get and let the bowlers try to win that game. Purpose should be to always win the game.

irteja
March 24, 2008, 03:35 PM
nice way to get attention Isnaad

irteja
March 24, 2008, 03:39 PM
I refuse to vote in this poll
If you ask me What Should be our Focus?
My Answer will be simple one word "WINNING"

Tokai
March 24, 2008, 03:44 PM
Playing 50 overs? when chasing? Nah!

this would mean that we HAVE to make the winning run on the final ball of the game. that can be risky.

so, no playing 50 overs should not be our goal.

RezOne
March 24, 2008, 04:11 PM
How can this team win when they don't know how to? The goal should be to win obviously, but I think Jamie Siddons realizes that winning a series against the likes of Pakistan is a big reach. Our guys don't know how to bat, they've shown over and over again that they cannot follow team batting rules. Therefore, to fix that problem first you have to learn how to bat for an extended period of time and the only way you can do that is to try to play out the entire 50 overs. Once we are proficient in that aspect we can then seriously talk about winning and the other good stuff.

Mahir
March 24, 2008, 05:31 PM
If its lasting the 50 overs in JOm style... Never mind.

Farhad
March 24, 2008, 05:47 PM
Trick Question?:-/

Ajfar
March 24, 2008, 05:57 PM
surviving the first few overs without losing quick wickets..but at the same time take a lil advantage of the power plays...n then the middle overs (don't have one of our usual collapse)..rotate strike..takes singles and doubles..don't hit up in the air(follow the time rule) that way we'll some have wickets at the end..n then after 40th overr...speed up the tempoo...

Eshen
March 24, 2008, 06:16 PM
I think Siddons got the right idea for ODIs - send first three batsmen to attack the oppositin i.e. take the max advantage of powerplays. If they fail i.e. if two wickets fall within powerplays, only then batsmen should go into shells.

billah
March 24, 2008, 06:47 PM
Focus should be on playing to win a game and play situational cricket. If we are chasing 300, then playing 50 overs to get 220 is meaningless. I would rather get all out in pursuit of 300 in less than the stipulated overs trying to get a win. Off course the scenario will change, if lets say, we are struggling at 50 for 4 to set up a total, and in that scenario, the best option would be to bat out all 50 overs to see what we can get and let the bowlers try to win that game. Purpose should be to always win the game.

Spot on.

This poll... I don't see the point.

rattlehead
March 24, 2008, 08:24 PM
Focus should be on playing to win a game and play situational cricket. If we are chasing 300, then playing 50 overs to get 220 is meaningless. I would rather get all out in pursuit of 300 in less than the stipulated overs trying to get a win. Off course the scenario will change, if lets say, we are struggling at 50 for 4 to set up a total, and in that scenario, the best option would be to bat out all 50 overs to see what we can get and let the bowlers try to win that game. Purpose should be to always win the game.

perfectly put
but at the same time our team needs to *learn* to bat out all 50 overs
after we learn to do that, then we can play to win by playing according to the situation

Foozy
March 24, 2008, 08:32 PM
ODI is not about surviving 50 overs, or being defensive. Neither it's about hitting a lot (it's not T20I). In ODI, you have to show fair amount of aggression, then again you also have to bat according to playing conditions and strength of opposition bowling attack.

Needless to say, no appropiate voting option is given in this poll.

Not trying to be rude here.... but this is precisely the way that I felt

Foozy
March 24, 2008, 08:34 PM
Focus should be on playing to win a game and play situational cricket. If we are chasing 300, then playing 50 overs to get 220 is meaningless. I would rather get all out in pursuit of 300 in less than the stipulated overs trying to get a win. Off course the scenario will change, if lets say, we are struggling at 50 for 4 to set up a total, and in that scenario, the best option would be to bat out all 50 overs to see what we can get and let the bowlers try to win that game. Purpose should be to always win the game.

I like what you say. And I guess we all agree with u... well most of us at least

desirocker
March 24, 2008, 08:45 PM
should focus on playing 50 overs. No more excuses....eibar all out hoile ekebare player der DURNITY er daye DODUK re boilla JAIL e dhokaye demuuuuuuu

desirocker
March 24, 2008, 08:47 PM
Focus should be on playing to win a game and play situational cricket. If we are chasing 300, then playing 50 overs to get 220 is meaningless. I would rather get all out in pursuit of 300 in less than the stipulated overs trying to get a win. Off course the scenario will change, if lets say, we are struggling at 50 for 4 to set up a total, and in that scenario, the best option would be to bat out all 50 overs to see what we can get and let the bowlers try to win that game. Purpose should be to always win the game.

good point u r making bro. "Khela te participation tai holo boro" bolar din shesh. Jara koibo tago gushti mari..

Rommel
March 24, 2008, 08:52 PM
This is a dumb and useless thread.

nahaz
March 24, 2008, 09:46 PM
I like the team rules Siddons has introduced. Follow that, and all falls to place. We should always have a plan on how to use up different parts of the 50 overs. If we follow that, should be good enough. But yes, if we're 7/200 after 40 overs ,that's when u bat out the overs, just taking singles.

Beamer
March 24, 2008, 10:47 PM
I like the team rules Siddons has introduced. Follow that, and all falls to place. We should always have a plan on how to use up different parts of the 50 overs. If we follow that, should be good enough. But yes, if we're 7/200 after 40 overs ,that's when u bat out the overs, just taking singles.

This 'new' team rule has existed in intl ODI's cricket for a while. There is a reason why people like Gilchrist were promoted to open the one day innings. We all know the exploits of Jaya and Kalu as well. But, way before them it was Mark Greatbatch of New Zealand who started this onslaught style batting inside the initial overs with field restrictions. Every team just followed suit with their best available options. Tendulkar-Ganguly, Hayden-Gilchrist, Jaya-Kalu/others, Smith-Gibbs, Saeed Anwar-other to name a few very successful pairs exploiting that tactics.

WarWolf
March 25, 2008, 12:16 AM
Exact Bangladeshi batsman der motoi hoise thread ta. Jemon ora hoi shudhu survive korar chesta kore na hoi shudhu hit korar chesta kore- ei vabei khele; thread tar mul shur o tai hoye gese. Er baireo je onno kisu ase ta mone hoi thread open korar shomoi mathai ashe ni thread opener er.

ODI batting is a mixture of keeping wickets in hand while scoring runs by regularly rotating strike and hitting odd boundaries. Perfect example? Our ODI batting in the Ireland series.

Rabz
March 25, 2008, 08:47 AM
To BC members:

What should be our focus to survive "certain" threads...?

irteja
March 25, 2008, 08:50 AM
To BC members:

What should be our focus to survive "certain" threads...?
:lol::lol:...you said it all mate

crikfreak
March 27, 2008, 11:44 AM
i don't care whether they get all out or bat the 50 overs.. i care about winning and playing their best... when you are chasing a moderate target.. don't hit too much.. in that case.. keeping wickets in hand and hitting the loose balls is enough.. when chasing a target 300+ you can't have a run rate of 4 and bat out the 50 overs.. that would be useless.. in that case.. hit!! atleast try to get runs