I just can't understand why there are a very few people interested in watching middle overs of an ODI game. It's a matter of fact that most of them don't like ODI cricket at all. Some of them like tests and t20’s, some of them just like tests, and some of them don’t really like cricket at all, they just like how many stories there are in a cricket match. I hear people saying things like “there’s those horrible overs between over 10 and over 40” and “it’s dreadful, killing the game.” Both of these sentiments make me wonder if they actually like cricket at all. Because for me the middle overs of an ODI are almost as pure as cricket gets. Let me explain why is it so?
Cricket is more than a simple bat and ball game that involves hitting a ball as far as you can. These are a few things which make it better than baseball, handball, or other similar games. Cricket is a game of risk vs good decisions. Some batsmen are able to maintain a strike rate of 200.0, the problem is that when they try it, it becomes risky. They tend to get out more quickly. They try to keep a tradeoff between the scoring rate and risk. So, instead of trying to hit the ball over the inner circle, they try to hit it past along the ground. Instead of trying to hit the ball over the cover aread, they hit it to third man for a single or leave the ball to go to wicketkeeper.
A defensive shot is pure foolishness in baseball, it’s abused ,but it has merit in cricket. Even the most attacking players have a balance between attack and defence.A spin bowler is more likely to take wickets with a slow, flighted delivery, that's full enough to bring a batsman forward, but short enough to turn. But that has a risk involved that the batsman may come out of crease and hit him over long-off or long-on.A captain has a lot of options when it comes to setting a field, even within the ODI rules about field placement. The art to setting a defensive field is often damage limitation. The most heart-breaking runs are those which are given easily in the cricket.
This balance, and battle of wits between batsman and fielders is most on display during the middle overs of an ODI. When watching this period I ask myself what the plan is to try and get a wicket without taking a risk. What is the shot that the captain is letting the batsman have, and what’s the risk for him in that? These are the questions that make the middle overs enjoyable.Sure there are less fours, sixes and wickets. However there is still the battle of wits. I’m not sure what the attraction is in watching big hit after big hit. I prefer the balance between the mental and physical battle that only cricket really provides. And, for me, there’s nowhere better for that than the “boring middle overs.”
I hope you agree with me in this.
Cricket is more than a simple bat and ball game that involves hitting a ball as far as you can. These are a few things which make it better than baseball, handball, or other similar games. Cricket is a game of risk vs good decisions. Some batsmen are able to maintain a strike rate of 200.0, the problem is that when they try it, it becomes risky. They tend to get out more quickly. They try to keep a tradeoff between the scoring rate and risk. So, instead of trying to hit the ball over the inner circle, they try to hit it past along the ground. Instead of trying to hit the ball over the cover aread, they hit it to third man for a single or leave the ball to go to wicketkeeper.
A defensive shot is pure foolishness in baseball, it’s abused ,but it has merit in cricket. Even the most attacking players have a balance between attack and defence.A spin bowler is more likely to take wickets with a slow, flighted delivery, that's full enough to bring a batsman forward, but short enough to turn. But that has a risk involved that the batsman may come out of crease and hit him over long-off or long-on.A captain has a lot of options when it comes to setting a field, even within the ODI rules about field placement. The art to setting a defensive field is often damage limitation. The most heart-breaking runs are those which are given easily in the cricket.
This balance, and battle of wits between batsman and fielders is most on display during the middle overs of an ODI. When watching this period I ask myself what the plan is to try and get a wicket without taking a risk. What is the shot that the captain is letting the batsman have, and what’s the risk for him in that? These are the questions that make the middle overs enjoyable.Sure there are less fours, sixes and wickets. However there is still the battle of wits. I’m not sure what the attraction is in watching big hit after big hit. I prefer the balance between the mental and physical battle that only cricket really provides. And, for me, there’s nowhere better for that than the “boring middle overs.”
I hope you agree with me in this.
No comments:
Post a Comment