Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

njd19634 t1_jac1vh2 wrote

I’m new to the sport so I don’t understand some of the more nuanced strategies, but when Foakes started turning down singles to protect Leach, I had a feeling something like this would happen.

7

whoareyouguys t1_jacottp wrote

Yeah why was he doing that? They had an easy single in the last few minutes of the match and they didn't run. At the time I thought it was because they were so confident they were going to win, but now I don't know what was happening.

1

5m1tm t1_jacud83 wrote

Foakes was trying to protect the tailender at the other end because tailenders obviously can't bat nearly as well and England couldn't afford to lose easy wickets. That's why he was taking singles only towards the end of the over, to minimise the balls that the tailenders faced so as to minimise their exposure to the NZ bowling.

It made total sense what Foakes was doing. In fact, it would've been stupid to not do that.

6

whoareyouguys t1_jacvkr6 wrote

Oh that makes sense. I didn't think about not wanting to give the other guy turns at the wicket. Thanks! I'm new to cricket

3

5m1tm t1_jacw7jw wrote

No problem! :D

Yeah so the thing is, ideally, you would want to "keep rotating the strike" (i.e., giving the strike to the other batter. It's a common cricketing phrase), because it "keeps the scoreboard ticking" as they say in cricket parlance. And when you're chasing, it's obviously helpful since 1 run regularly would keep getting deducted from your target. But it's only advisable to do this if the person at the other end is a specialist batter or an all-rounder (cricketers who can both bat and bowl), or atleast a tailender who can bat a bit decently. Anyone who comes after the 8th wicket falls is usually not any of those things, and you would obviously not want to lose 10 wickets in a chase coz that means losing the match. So you "farm the strike" (another common cricket phrase) in order to protect the tailenders at the other end.

Cricket is a game of permanent cost-benefit analysis for both teams on the field, in all aspects of the game.

4

5m1tm t1_jacunqp wrote

I replied to another comment on this comment thread and the same answer applies here so I'm just pasting that comment of mine here:

Foakes was trying to protect the tailender at the other end because tailenders obviously can't bat nearly as well and England couldn't afford to lose easy wickets. That's why he was taking singles only towards the end of the over, to minimise the balls that the tailenders faced so as to minimise their exposure to the NZ bowling.

It made total sense what Foakes was doing. In fact, it would've been stupid to not do that.

1

Itrlpr t1_jad5xih wrote

I mostly agree. They were definitely right not to take quick singles early in the over.

I think Foakes could have been more aggressive throughout the whole over though. He was pretty consistently getting a single on the 4th ball, and giving NZ two balls at Leach. An extra boundary or two from batting normally would have been worth the risk of not getting the late over single IMHO.

3

5m1tm t1_jad6jmw wrote

Yeah he could've hit more boundaries early on in those overs, but to be fair, he was trying to do exactly that. Many of the balls he hit went deep into the field near the boundary, but were cut-off by the fielders or ended up reaching right near them. Also, he did start hitting more boundaries later on in his innings. I wouldn't blame Foakes here.

2

Itrlpr t1_jad77rj wrote

Yeah, he handled it nearly perfectly. I just don't think Leach dead-batting an entire over would have been the end of the world if it meant getting a boundary off ball 5 or 6 of the previous over.

1

5m1tm t1_jad7ng7 wrote

Yeah I get what you're saying. But ultimately these are just "what-ifs" and if go into those, this will become a never-ending conversation lmao

1

njd19634 t1_jacxt9y wrote

Yeah I understand the part of protecting the tailenders. Hindsight is always 20/20 so who knows if Leach would have caught an edge or something to produce a wicket if Foakes hadn’t of stepped up and protected him. I felt like he (Leach) was battling well though even dropping his hands and taking one off of his chest there at the end too. Helluva test though. I’m becoming a huge fan of the game.

2

5m1tm t1_jacy37p wrote

Haha yeah these "what-ifs" always remain in cricket (and in sport in general). So usually it's better to side with common sense tactics. And here, the common sense was that it's better shield the guy who can't bat much haha.

I'm glad that you're getting into this beautiful game, especially Test cricket! Welcome the community! :D

2