Strategising in Limited Overs Cricket
"There has been so much talk of plans for each Indian batsman—from the captain, the coach, the bowlers themselves, and even the batsmen—that one wonders if the bowlers think instinctively at all."
This got me thinking about an important aspect of the game—bowling strategies.
It is but logical that bowlers develop specific plans for particular batsmen. But are bowling strategies for Tests and limited over games similar? Aren't the priorities different? Aren't the batsmen different in their approaches?
Given such a vast difference in the two formats, it may make sense that bowlers should have flexible plans for different batsmen.
And yet, I wonder if those plans are in fact double-edged swords. In trying to implement the game plans religiously, does a bowler become unresponsive to a batsman's attack? Does too much planning take away the common sense factor from the game?
It is meaningless to say one has made extensive plans and has followed it to a T. What matters is the result. The New Zealanders seem to keep reiterating their meticulous preparation and have nothing to show for all that.
As per their plan, the Kiwi bowlers cut off Sehwag's strength—the square area on the off (he scored just 6 behind sqaure on off in his 125*). So does that mean the bowlers did their job? Did the plans produce the desired result?
A strategy is only as good as the results it produces.
The game is as much about strategies as it is about instincts and common sense. Ask Virender Sehwag.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?