Remember the days in BD's early Test history when they always played aggressivly and were often all out after 50 overs?
I wish we could bat 50 overs now!
Jokes aside, I'm not saying to bat mindlessly attempting to go at 6 an over. But strike rotation doesn't occur out of thin air. I think Jaybro was saying he'd have liked to see more strike rotation from Prince and Kasuza, but that he liked their approach. Well, an overly defensive approach actualy negates strike rotation, because you're just looking to defend or leave and not work the ball into gaps to rotate strike.
I am willing to give a pass to Prince and Kasuza who are essentially debutants. But on this kind of surface, against this bowling attack, you should back yourself to go at 3 an over otherwise you do yourself a disservice IMO.
The other option knowing our guys if they batted aggressively is that we would have been bowled out for 270 after 80 overs. How exactly would that have helped us? Sri Lanka would have been able to bat slowly and still kill us. Now if they want to win the game they have to attack which will create more opportunities for us.
The problem is not the slow run rate by the guys who actually scored runs. Its the guys who didn't score much before they got out. Had you asked our captain would he have taken coming out at number 5 on day 2 with over 200 runs on the board and our best batsman still out there partnering him, he would have taken it. Nothing wrong with the slow start. It's the guys who failed to use the platform set.
This is test cricket. There are multiple approaches to it. We have to figure out what works for us because we are a special case.
i beg to differ, given the condition (slow outfield taken into consideration) its a very good batting wicket, the commentators did mention that Zim may have missed a trick by choosing to bat time instead or rate, 180/2 on day 1 isnt bad but considering conditions it wasnt good either and we are now on the cusp of being exposed for our inferiority complex, so yes there was something wrong with scoring slowly on a pitch which wont likely get better for batting.
im not deliberately being negative but assessing plausibly what could have done better from Zimbabwe, we have to stop the mentality of playing not to lose and play the conditions and scenario. we beat Bangladesh in 2018 by being ruthless batting Bangladesh into submission. same mentality applies, play to win
The other option knowing our guys if they batted aggressively is that we would have been bowled out for 270 after 80 overs. How exactly would that have helped us? Sri Lanka would have been able to bat slowly and still kill us. Now if they want to win the game they have to attack which will create more opportunities for us.
Batting time and 'hogging' the good batting conditions is more important than run rate IMO
Different pitch but similar situation to the Sylhet Test in 2018, Zim batted really slow but took up most of the good batting conditions and Bangldesh were never in the game from there
To use an extreme example. Let’s say zim bag a full two days for 50 runs only. It would gain nothing as Sri Lanka would only need 4 overs to swing at it.
To use an equally extreme example: Let's say Zim bat at 5 rpo and are all out after 10--where's the gain?
As I said above, there's a lot of ifs and whens involved in all our arguments and calculations, which is in essence the beauty of Test cricket
I'll for now sit back and enjoy (and try to do some work).
The other option knowing our guys if they batted aggressively is that we would have been bowled out for 270 after 80 overs. How exactly would that have helped us? Sri Lanka would have been able to bat slowly and still kill us. Now if they want to win the game they have to attack which will create more opportunities for us.
Well we have to assume that runs are constant and the only variable is how quickly or slowly they are being scored. So 270 off 80 will set you back, not because it was only 80 overs, but because it was only 270 runs.
If you score 270 off 150 overs, you're in a marginally better position.
Now 350 in 100 overs vs 350 in 200 overs, you might start getting more of a difference, but thats because you've now got a reasonably large total on the board.
Well we have to assume that runs are constant and the only variable is how quickly or slowly they are being scored.
And this is where all those fine theories and calculations depart from the real world
Damn it, Regis out, over to the Don!
But we aren't talking about the real world, FF. We are taking tactics/strategy. Should one bat overly defensively or in a naturally fluid way?
Suppose we were having the opposite discussion about say Afghan batsmen blasting away in a Test match from ball 1. Couldn't the Afghans claim to also be a "special case" (virtually non-existant pace attack, hardly any Test class batsmen)? Would that warrant Afghanistan from taking a T20 approach to Tests given the field placements. If Afghanistan bat conventionally, they will be all out against an Australia inside 50 overs for 150. So why not just bat 20 overs and score 150?
