I really think the "shine takers" are dinosaurs. Unless you are playing test match cricket, your goal should always be to put the bowlers under pressure.
Like you say bowlers probably love bowling to you as they get maidens. As a captain I might even want to keep you in for an extended period.
No need to go out and tee off but sometimes you may need to take a few risks. Fields up, balls hard, be positive mate.
I don't always agree with Michael Vaughan, but in a recent article in the Telegraph he said: "...New Zealand have just realised the best way to get the most out of their players is to give them the freedom to play their natural game. If they try to sit in and play attritional cricket it hinders their players’ attacking instincts and will end in failure. They have realised their players are geared more towards the shorter format of the game. They are playing one-day cricket over five days....You need good pitches and the mindset of not being bothered about getting out, so you commit to the stroke. We have seen in Twenty20 cricket over the past few years that the guys who commit to the trick shots are successful and difficult to get out. We have seen from this New Zealand side in Test cricket that when they commit to the shot the ball travels."
This threw up some interesting comments: "After the first test when everyone was gushing about Cook's century, I made the point that the real story was in the batting strike rates, and that the Australians would likely be more impressed with Stoke's effort at a run a ball. Cook's batting is a holdout from a vanished game where the opening batsmen were there to take the shine off the new ball, wear out the bowlers and win some kind of antiquated war of attrition. The only certainty to be had by adopting that attitude in the 21st century is you will bore the fans to death.
Increasingly, Test sides (and the Kiwis were by no means the first, but good on them anyway) realise that you have to have a go from the first over. When it first started out, 50-over cricket was played like a shorter Test match, with batsmen playing themselves in, and not worrying too much about the run rate until about the 30th over or so. The realization that run rate was important from the start of play emerged in the 1980s. Then by the turn of the century, the relationship between the two forms of the game turned upside-down. I reckon Steve Waugh's Australian side were the first, but national sides started adopting one-day batting strategies to Test matches. Waugh's sides rarely scored less that 3.5 runs per over in domestic Tests, with 4 RPO becoming common.
Today it's progressed to the next level. One-day cricket is now being informed by T20, as we saw in the recent World Cup. England, playing the older form of ODI, never stood a chance, though on paper they should have made the quarters at least. Test cricket is evolving just as rapidly, and we now see the emergence of batting shots and bowling approaches developed mainly in the 20-over format. Michael Vaughan is correct in recognizing the trend in scoring rates; but its evolution began long ago, and not with New Zealand."
And: "The main thing T20 seems to have brought to Tests is that batsmen have realised that playing aggressively isn't as risky as was previously thought. You won't get out as soon as you have a go. There's even a hint of village cricket in there too - eventually you're going to get a ball you can do nothing about, so you have to put away every bad ball that comes your way before then."
Countered by: "Cook can continue playing his game. Yes it's not riveting cricket, but it's effective. Balance is always the key. If all your batsmen play like Cook, you will have a problem. If all your batsmen play like Stokes, you will have a problem too. England currently have a pretty good balance in that regard, provided they continue to let the flair players play their game, even when it doesn't come off for a few games."
Cue jokes about Ballance.
Author
Topic: Scoring against good bowling (Read 6020 times)