PDA

View Full Version : Power Chase; New BD concept in ODI


mahmoodh
January 31, 2005, 12:17 PM
When one side like Bangladesh has a good batting side- the side can start chasing with stormy start like Aftab and Rafiq did last evening. 21 over 4 balls for 150 partnership is what they did with no sort of honor to bowling from the opponents. Question is why did they decide to go this way- was that a original plan? Question is will BD do the same in a chasing event?
This strategy breaks the mental strength of the opponents and rest of the work becomes easier. Only Aussies can do this and they do it even with poor bating side compared to BD where each of the 11 members can bat for a while. I am sure Whatemore realized that and had been doing experiment. Otherwise why to send Rafiq to open, Aftab in 1 down?? If the side loose quick two wickets then they should return to usual form giving up Power Chasing. What do you think? Power chasing can remove the curse of loosing the toss as well. Do you agree?:bravo::clap::clap:

rafiq
January 31, 2005, 12:29 PM
Aussies have a poor batting lineup compared to our 11 or did you mean aussies will "power chase" even with a poor batting lineup? IN any case, they never have a poor batting lineup. IN order to chase like, you have to have some superiority - whether talent, ability or otherwise. You're right in that yesterday was the first time we chased in this manner. One of the reasons it had to be a strategy yesterday was that we have lost low scoring games to teams we should have beaten before - chasing too defensively, losing wickets, going into a downward spiral. Does Canada come into mind? In this series, Zim could have bowled us out under 200 - they did not want to take the risk and it was obviously a sound decision in restrospect.

btw wrong forum

Spitfire_x86
January 31, 2005, 12:35 PM
Since our batsmen can't pace the innings well in the middle overs, a very quick start seems to be the only real option for successful chasing.

mahmoodh
January 31, 2005, 12:40 PM
I meant BD 11- each of them knows some batting. Recently Aussie tail doing better. Our Tail is stronger- I can't agree any more.

Spitfire_x86
January 31, 2005, 12:42 PM
Our para cricket is the secret of the batting strength of our tail enders. In para cricket, everyone wants to bat.

Pundit
January 31, 2005, 12:46 PM
We are strategizing based upon our superiority against the current Zimbabwe team ? That is alarming.

I did not see the game, but how hard did the Zims try to win the game - from body language ??

I mean, they probably got slightly discouraged by the "unfair" decisions, and hence did not bat well lower down the order. And once they scored below < 200, they simply gave up hope.

mahmoodh
January 31, 2005, 12:52 PM
Unfair decisions were with BD as well throughout their hard journey. SL umpire Ashoka - try not forgetting. That does not change the whole show. I will appreciate if you possess some positive attitude.:up:

mahbubH
January 31, 2005, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Pundit
We are strategizing based upon our superiority against the current Zimbabwe team ? That is alarming.

I did not see the game, but how hard did the Zims try to win the game - from body language ??

I mean, they probably got slightly discouraged by the "unfair" decisions, and hence did not bat well lower down the order. And once they scored below < 200, they simply gave up hope.

Not really!

Our spinners did very well and never seen BD batsmen batted so well!

Optimist
January 31, 2005, 01:05 PM
Don't agree that Bangladesh has a good batting line up.

IMHO the only sterling characteristics of our batting line up is that the difference between our top order and tail oreder batsmen are not as big as it is for some other teams. That gives us the opportunity to be flexible with the order without taking undue risk!

Pundit
January 31, 2005, 01:19 PM
I will appreciate if you possess some positive attitude.


An off the chart response. Unfair decisions to BD is irrelavant here, however true they may be !



Our spinners did very well and never seen BD batsmen batted so well!


More to the point. But how independant is this assertion of opposing teams.

DotBall
January 31, 2005, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Pundit
I did not see the game, but how hard did the Zims try to win the game - from body language ??

I mean, they probably got slightly discouraged by the "unfair" decisions, and hence did not bat well lower down the order. And once they scored below < 200, they simply gave up hope.

You got to be kidding me!!!!!!!! How can a national/professional team give up in the middle of a game? Poor umpiring is an issue to look at but no way that can be used undermine the victory and awesome performance by the tigers.

Pundit
January 31, 2005, 01:31 PM
How can a national/professional team give up in the middle of a game?


Another attempt to skew comments here. But one example is the Indian team from the bygone era, generally speaking.


And besides, what you are talking about is opposite of professional - aka unprofessional - and this term does exist.

But the issue real here is different altogether - my initial question was out of concerns of our strategization - not to question the validity of yesterday's victory. For someone who has been tracking BD cricket for 25 years, I hardly can be found guilty of not being overjoyed with each victory.

Edited on, January 31, 2005, 6:35 PM GMT, by Pundit.
Reason: Typo

Fazal
January 31, 2005, 01:33 PM
Basically there are two strategies:

1) Don't loose any wicket first 10 overs; play it save; accumulate runs with 1s and 2s and minimize risks; after 40 overs, accelerate run rate with plenty wickets at hand.

2) Start attacking from the beginning; take advantage of first 15 ovr restriction; kill the moral of the enemy from the beginning. You can adjust your strategy after 15 based on where you are (runs and wickets).

I always liked the 2nd strategy. This gives a chance to cross 300+ runs more often and position ourselves to win the game. As long as we don't loose quick 2-3 wickets, we should always try to maximize the run production for the first 15 overs as long as its a batting pitch.

shovon13
January 31, 2005, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by Pundit
We are strategizing based upon our superiority against the current Zimbabwe team ? That is alarming.

I did not see the game, but how hard did the Zims try to win the game - from body language ??

I mean, they probably got slightly discouraged by the "unfair" decisions, and hence did not bat well lower down the order. And once they scored below < 200, they simply gave up hope.

not with taibu as their captain. the last thing they'll do is give up. they fought...and lost.

Pundit
January 31, 2005, 04:34 PM
Another generalization, yet. Ofcourse, the Zims are a fighting outfit. But what about yesterday ? That is the only question that I am asking. Next time someone feels to respond, please leave your emotional baggage somewhere behind.

Mahmood
January 31, 2005, 04:45 PM
Our strategy worked against a weak Zimbabwe bowling, but don't count on other test nation's bowling to be this weak. We will need true opener and patience.

billah
January 31, 2005, 05:06 PM
Pundit: I saw whatever I could see through bangladeshlive.com. All 5 games. Yesterday's start by Zimbabwe was no different than the previous 8 innings they played in Bangladesh. There was no sign of fatigue, no lack of tenacity in their key players during batting. Not even with that one "bad" decision. They simply could not score runs from the deliveries that did not come to the bat. Kudos to the spin strategy. I've seen them taking force shots where the bat went 180 behind them before coming down on the ball. The fought hard. They did reach a respectable score.

When they bowled, they started with the regular robust attitude. Line, length and speed were there too. Actually, line and length were there throughout the 33 overs. No, they did not have loose,wayward deliveries at all. Commentators never said that Zimbabwe bowled particularly bad yesterday. They did not point out any strategy error at any time. Textbook attack. Rafique, even with his sixers, was not flashing a very high runrate at the begining. Nafis scored 9 from 10 before he was out. First wicket fell with only 11 runs on board. We were 12 for 1, after 3 overs, compared to their 12 for 0.

Now, here's the emotional part (my apology): Two of the Bangladeshi batsmen just ripped the beating heart out of the Zimbabwe bowlers chests. They lost it with that 24-run over by Aftab. Overs 6,7 & 8 went for 12,11 & 24. Killed all the math right there. Rafique accelared his RR much later in the game, only after Aftab's 50, Aftab was "Slowing down" at that point.

I had made a prediction to friends that this 5th ODI was going to be easy for us. But, upto the 3rd over of our innings, I saw no reason to believe that myself. Zimbabwe fought til the end yesterday, just like they did it in every match they played.

DOORBIN
January 31, 2005, 05:55 PM
I think it is the beginning of a new strategy. I mean, start attacking from the very beginning.

It's also a new trend internationally. Hit, hit and hit. Batting in ODI cricket is fast becoming a display of mental and physical strength combined. Look at the strike rates. They are always going up. 6 runs an over is not something special, it is something that is almost a MUST.

Go tigers go. Go for the 8 runs per over. But make sure there is firm ground under your feet....

Pundit
January 31, 2005, 06:07 PM
Thank you, Billah. Let us hope like Bro Doorbin speaks of, that BD has finally crossed the slopes of subjugation & self-destruction.

Hasib
January 31, 2005, 07:53 PM
hmm... Bashar was saying at the presentation their was no order from Dav to start attacking like that... but it's hard to imagin batting like this wasn't planned.

mind u... it was Sri Lanka who started the "tradition" of slogging in the first 15 overs. It was Dav Whatmore's idea. Other countries later adopted it.

Blah
January 31, 2005, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by Pundit
Another generalization, yet. Ofcourse, the Zims are a fighting outfit. But what about yesterday ? That is the only question that I am asking. Next time someone feels to respond, please leave your emotional baggage somewhere behind.

talking about generalization, not having seen the game yourself, arent you doing the same, along with a bit of speculation?

Blah

Pundit
January 31, 2005, 09:01 PM
talking about generalization, not having seen the game yourself, arent you doing the same, along with a bit of speculation?



Amazing hypothesis. Can you not even take a moment to see that I have been asking questions and nothing else, all the while ------>


I did not see the game, but how hard did the Zims try to win the game - from body language ??




But what about yesterday ? That is the only question that I am asking.




But the issue real here is different altogether - my initial question was out of concerns of our strategization - not to question the validity of yesterday's victory.


Edited on, February 1, 2005, 2:02 AM GMT, by Pundit.
Reason: Typo

Blah
January 31, 2005, 09:18 PM
taking things out of context, you also said:



I mean, they probably got slightly discouraged by the "unfair" decisions, and hence did not bat well lower down the order. And once they scored below < 200, they simply gave up hope.


You are accusing others of generalizing while making unreasonable speculations yourself.

:)
Blah

cisco-guy
January 31, 2005, 10:35 PM
Here we go again....
Mr. Pundit has all the answers :rolleyes:

Pundit
January 31, 2005, 11:26 PM
You are accusing others of generalizing while making unreasonable speculations yourself.


No, I am accusing others of accusing me. Speculation, why ? It was a mere presentation of a possible answer following a question.



Mr. Pundit has all the answers


Today he has mainly questions. Have you not been reading ?

rafiq
January 31, 2005, 11:35 PM
guys, don't bother trying to make sense of nonsense from this guy

Pundit
January 31, 2005, 11:39 PM
Look, its our own master - spinner, waking from his winter slumber to wrought havoc in the name of freedom and what not.

Just when I thought this thread was reaching a closure, he has to step in and stir the nest.

rafiq
January 31, 2005, 11:47 PM
I can stir up a lot more than your little nest Pundit. You're the one that seems to need a lot of validation. You have zero respect for most people, and are too insecure to handle anyone like me who may have a whole different viewpoint. Most people here would prefer if you said less, corrected your grammar, were less abusive, and tried not to provoke people into fights. Paraar mostani akhane korte paro, but one day you may have to operate in the real world.

Pundit
January 31, 2005, 11:51 PM
Consider yourself really really fortunate that this charade is going on here, only !!

rafiq
January 31, 2005, 11:54 PM
actually it is unfortunate that it is going on here pundit. you aren't the type of person to have the courage to meet anyone in person. after all we don't even know your real name, do we?

your tiny threats are laughable. what are you going to do, throw a grenade at me! that would be a sorry way for me to die, blown up by Pundit!

Pundit
February 1, 2005, 12:01 AM
That is a cruel analogy - just revealing your' true self ? Anyway, all that is needed to scare a commie is a "tiny threat." Tear down the wall Mr. Gorbachev, tear down the wall.

Not that you are one. :)

Blah
February 1, 2005, 12:26 AM
No, I am accusing others of accusing me. Speculation, why ? It was a mere presentation of a possible answer following a question.



http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=speculation


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.

Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doh!

Pundit
February 1, 2005, 12:33 AM
Ok, now I we're back on track.

Looking up a dictionary ? How pude.

"Doh!"

...and condescending.

Dhakablues
February 1, 2005, 01:09 AM
Somewhere between spinning of words, instead of discussing the spin of the balls, the thread got off-spinned outside the boundary...My two cents to attempt cheap humor...

I think: Whatever happened yesterday,,,is not really a change of strategy rather a sudden outburst of two in-form left-right stroke makers. Whether or not this formulates a strategy,, only time will tell along with Dav Whatmore's students. Nevertheless, it was just ' ...............' to see them bat last night. I hope that this confidence does later brew into a strategy that wins the game....

Edited on, February 1, 2005, 6:11 AM GMT, by Dhakablues.
Reason: typo

BangladeshFan
February 1, 2005, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by Pundit
We are strategizing based upon our superiority against the current Zimbabwe team ? That is alarming.

I did not see the game, but how hard did the Zims try to win the game - from body language ??

I mean, they probably got slightly discouraged by the "unfair" decisions, and hence did not bat well lower down the order. And once they scored below < 200, they simply gave up hope.

any side will give up when they score 200 and then got murdered. they were discouraged because their bowlers had no answer to rafiq and aftab onslaught.i think the player zim missed most is andy flower, who was their best player against spin. Streak wouldnt have done much as the wickets in bd are mostly spin friendly.

the tactics of using rafiq, to me , was just trial and error as rajin was injured. Rafiq knows only one way to play, and aftab was just encouraged by him to go into full gear. i guess there was no "power opening" strategy before hand.