Take a leaf out of Zimbabwe

[Tigers_eye]

Make strategies that suites you and hurts opponents.

No pacers!!! Utesa and Price openning in T20 and in ODIs. They successfully defended an undefendable total in T20. First over is maiden and they are making Gayle and Barath look like PNG openers. 21 balls has been bowled as I type. 18 dot balls.

+++

We know England has only two spinners in their squad. Collingwood and Wright are medium pacers. Why not make the pitch a turner from day 1 session one?

+++
We have some serious spinners in our pipeline who are doing good in domestic cricket. Our strategy making is so poor. Curator, selectors and coach all should butt heads together and get a win in test.

There is no reason we can't do that. We can play one pacer and win the test series.

[BD-Shardul]

Agree.

[al-Sagar]

zimbabwe have 7 spinners (full and part time) and 2 pacers.

lets see if they ever gonna introduce pacers or not.

anyway WI are making pitches to hurt themselves

[Eshen]

Well, the strategy does not seem to be working too well for Zimbabwe at this point.

I will prefer to see Shafi-Shak pair to open. IMO, a spinner-pacer combo will make it harder for openers to settle.

[al-Sagar]

zimbabwe are bowling out two of their best spinners who could have been economical in the middle and thus put more pressure. if they fail to take wicket then this could be problem for zimbabwe. WI will be happy to see of these two without giving them wickets.

[Tigers_eye]

What strategy will hurt England the most? What would get their potent weapon be ordinary? Taking out Chris Broad and Bresnan would make England fight with only one hand Swann. Wouldn't it be the best way to take down England? So making pitches that way is the first step.

Second would be taking advantage of that pitch. If Broad - Bresnan are taken out so would Rubel and Shafiul. As much as I like both these guys I would want to have only one of them with Enam Jr. taking the other ones place.

[Fazal]

Originally Posted by offstump
zimbabwe are bowling out two of their best spinners who could have been economical in the middle and thus put more pressure. if they fail to take wicket then this could be problem for zimbabwe. WI will be happy to see of these two without giving them wickets.

Ya ...the way gayle is playing.... looks like ZIM will be out of leaf pretty soon

[Tigers_eye]

Now England don't have a Gayle. Just like the T20 game where Zim won.

[al-Sagar]

Originally Posted by Fazal
Ya ...the way gayle is playing.... looks like ZIM will be out of leaf pretty soon

13 overs gone wicketless.... .... and 13 of 20 overs from price and utseya has been bowled out. WI will now be confident of handling the rest of zimbabwe spinners

[sadi]

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye
Now England don't have a Gayle. Just like the T20 game where Zim won.

But they do have Pieterson eventhough he hasn't scored much yet.

[Tigers_eye]

Originally Posted by sadi
But they do have Pieterson eventhough he hasn't scored much yet.

He is very uncomfortable against Spin. Gayle is not.
+++
What Zim did is they created a strategy that would suit them best. That is what I am trying to suggest. Most of the time we see BD playing without any startegy.

Shuvo getting 3 overs, Shafiul getting 2 overs and people complaining. Studing opponents and creating a strategy is a must if we want to get out of this losing streak in all format.

[Nafi]

West Indies 95/0 (21.2 ov)



This thread is fail

[Eshen]

Originally Posted by Nafi


This thread is fail

Don't be so rude to the Cricket Sage

[Tigers_eye]

Originally Posted by Nafi
West Indies 95/0 (21.2 ov)



This thread is fail

You did not read my first post obviously. Going by the title will make you look bad.

[BD-Shardul]

This thread didn't fail. What TE bhai highlighted here was ZIM had a definite strategy, which we do not have most of the time. Unfortunately the startegy didn't work for them, but at least they were well planned before they took the field.

And see, in batting our team has a team rule, about which people used to make fun of not so long ago. Although people may still be in denial mode, our batting team rule had some influence in our batting improvement, as I think it instilled responsibility among our batters and most of them know their roles.

[Tigers_eye]

Originally Posted by Eshen
Don't be so rude to the Cricket Sage

I thought you knew your game pretty well.

Last checked we lost to (well let me say the way only you would understand) the worst WI team, whereas, Zim had a strategy against a better WI team and defended 105. We could not defend 115. The worst WI team finished it off with 19 balls to spare.

As long as there is a strategy and intent to implement it I am fine with it. Lately Bd's selection of players and their roles is questionable to say the least.

Against better opponents without a sound strategy we stand no chance.

[Raynman]

121/1 for 28. RRR is already above 6.

If only Siddons were the coach of ZIM. They could be happy with individual accomplishments and we wouldn't have to worry about anyone catching us up from behind.

[Nafi]

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye
You did not read my first post obviously. Going by the title will make you look bad.

Let me see... this is what you wrote

There is no reason we can't do that. We can play one pacer and win the test series

Im sorry but this idea is just fail, nobody in test cricket's history has played a single pacer..Nobody. Now so if the great cricketing brains in the past have never fielded such a team, why do you think its a good idea.

You will never win a test match, with just one pacer, especialy if his name is Shahadat. Pacers are more likely to get five wicket hauls. We only have one spinner that is capable of getting a five wicket haul, and that is Shakib, no other spinner even comes close, theyre just support roles.

So I say again the above is stupid and idiotic. I apologise that I cannot restrain any offense.

Now going on strategies, you promote the idea of strategies, yet I do not see any evidence of you researching any english players' weakness, and identifying, its so easy to, oh spin will do the trick, that is a very lazy thing to say. We know KP cannot play left arm arm-balls full stop, because he always anticipates turn, and gets forward all the time, a clear lbw candidate.

But what about all the players, are there any clear strategies, fields you have proposed...no there isnt. Its all good saying team A has to do this, but without the analysis. What point are you making in this thread?

My post is a bit arrogant, I know, I apoligise if I came too strongly, but I just wanted to make my point.

[AsifTheManRahman]

I wouldn't mind playing with one pacer (just in case) against teams like England, WI, NZ or even SA on dust bowls in ODI's. It's not a long term solution, but at the moment our pacers suck and their batsmen forget the art of holding a bat when having to deal with quality spin.

Except for Amla and Kallis, of course. They are the bosses of men and women.

[AsifTheManRahman]

About Tests, I agree with Nafi.

[Eshen]

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye
As long as there is a strategy and intent to implement it I am fine with it. Lately Bd's selection of players and their roles is questionable to say the least.

Against better opponents without a sound strategy we stand no chance.

Guess what? I been saying the same exact thing for months and am getting bashed as a blind Siddons hater. Individual performers can't win us matches if there is no strategy to maximize their contribution towards the team's goal.

However, I think Zimbabwe went overboard with spinners. I guess they don't have much of a choice as their pace department is real poor. But you can't win an ODI (let alone a Test) with such an one-dimensional attack.

Again, I think our best bowling strategy would be to mix up pacers and spinners better. Opening with a pacer-spinner combo is nothing new, many teams including ours have used the strategy in past.

But yeah, current BD team management don't seem to be spending much time strategizing, they are just leaving things for players to figure out on the fly.

[Fischer]

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye
Now England don't have a Gayle. Just like the T20 game where Zim won.

Neither did the WI team (heck none of first choice players) that BD 'whitewashed'; which made you guys claim that BD has put behind those dark days and shredded the minnow label .

You guys ask for respect when others are taking a shot at BD team but you convincingly show Ireland, Zim et al are 'minnows' and proclaiming yourself as a big bear. Follow what you preach folks.

Mind you Zim hardly face the top 8 teams and they obviously have been playing cricket against fringe teams giving them the false gauge of their players' (in)ability). And moreover, their cricketing team's performance is one of the last things that country thinks about given the political turmoil in that country.

[ahms]

Originally Posted by Eshen
Well, the strategy does not seem to be working too well for Zimbabwe at this point.

I will prefer to see Shafi-Shak pair to open. IMO, a spinner-pacer combo will make it harder for openers to settle.

You are wrong. It may not be enough to hold WI back. But it was smart move. Chris Gayle was out of water for a while, that made chasing that much difficult for WI. WI fail to capitalize power play period. I strongly believe Zim still has chance to win, 2 wickets down, required run rate 6.7. BD should learn something from this match.

[Raynman]

I propose we host a 5 Way series between WI, BD, Zim, IRE and AFG to truly settle who is number 8.

[Eshen]

Holly Molly, Zimbabwe clawed back into the game!

Win or lose, have to say they are playing well!