What should a inferior team do to combat England's pair of terror new ball bowlers

Imagine you are captain of a test team such as NZ which doesn't currently have a reliable enough pair of opening batsmen. So what should you do in this instance to make it awkward for the opposition test team which has a pair of dangerous pace bowlers who are excellent with the new ball (such as Jimmy Anderson and Steven Finn) but they aren't quite as effective when bowling with a older ball which is over 20 overs old?

1 Move 2 of the tailenders (Southee and Bolt) up to open the batting in the hope that they can stall the 2 new ball bowlers as long as possible so that when your normal openers (like McCallum and Guptill) come in lower down the batting order the opposition bowlers will be tired whilst having to bowl with a softer older ball.
2 Move 2 of your best middle order batsmen (Brownlie and Watling) who you think are the best technically equipped players for dealing with the moving swinging new ball menace of a Jimmy Anderson.
3 Move your 2 best players down to bat at numbers 10 and 11 so that they can try and recreate the rearguard batting heroics which the likes of Tino Best produced in the summer for the WI.

I would pick the two best openers available and trust them to counter Jimmy and Finn.

Whomever they select, (perhaps Williamson and Watling) tell them to leave as many balls as possible.

Stella wrote:I would pick the two best openers available and trust them to counter Jimmy and Finn.

Ahh wait but what would you do if you also knew that the 2 best openers available in your country were nothing more than meat and drink to England's 2 terror bowlers, which is what this article is all about. Which of the options I have given would you try as NZ captain in order to make it as awkward and to limit the damage which England's 2 terror bowlers are likely to cause when they bowl with the new ball.

Is it possible for a player to wear a mask to coverup/disguise his face prior to going out to bat? If so, a player such as Dean Brownlie or a Ross Taylor could come out to bat at the start of the NZ innings and then if they happen to get out early on it won't matter as then they have a second chance to come out to bat again later on in the NZ innings in their proper batting positions.

What about declaring the innings before its started to avoid the embarassment of the two "terror bowlers" running through the entire lineup in the first 10 overs?

VTR wrote:What about declaring the innings before its started to avoid the embarassment of the two "terror bowlers" running through the entire lineup in the first 10 overs?

Great

Just a quick question.

What do you guys see as "terror" bowlers?

The only terror I have seen was Alan Donald when Atherton nicked to the slips and the umpire didn't give him out. That was terror at its best.

Is what this thread refers to not more in the way of unplayable deliveries?

I would think it will be disconcerting to NZ, but terrorising, meh.

Well going by the definition of the OP, it seems a terror bowler is anyone who can get the NZ openers out cheaply. So that's everyone from Jimmy Ormond to Malcolm Marshall.

Biltong wrote:Just a quick question.

What do you guys see as "terror" bowlers?

The only terror I have seen was Alan Donald when Atherton nicked to the slips and the umpire didn't give him out. That was terror at its best.

Is what this thread refers to not more in the way of unplayable deliveries?

I would think it will be disconcerting to NZ, but terrorising, meh.

For me my understanding of a terror bowler is someone who can charge in whilst having the ability to hurl the ball at the batsman's head at over 90+ mph on a consistent basis with great accuracy. Australia had 2 terror bowlers in the 1920's in Jack Gregory and Ted McDonald. They were followed in the 1950's by Ray Lindwall and Keith Miller and in the 1970's Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson were the ones who terrorised England's hapless batsmen with Thomson in particular battering and bruising England's batsmen with lethal bouncers into the chest/ribs and toe crushing yorkers.

Is Jimmy a 'terror' bowler?

He bowls 85pmh swing.

Stella wrote:Is Jimmy a 'terror' bowler?

He bowls 85pmh swing.

Well it depends on who you ask. NZ's Daniel Flynn who had a couple of teeth knocked out by one of Jimmy's bouncers in 2008 will no doubt place Jimmy in the terror bowler bracket/category.

gboycottnut wrote:

Biltong wrote:Just a quick question.

What do you guys see as "terror" bowlers?

The only terror I have seen was Alan Donald when Atherton nicked to the slips and the umpire didn't give him out. That was terror at its best.

Is what this thread refers to not more in the way of unplayable deliveries?

I would think it will be disconcerting to NZ, but terrorising, meh.

For me my understanding of a terror bowler is someone who can charge in whilst having the ability to hurl the ball at the batsman's head at over 90+ mph on a consistent basis with great accuracy. Australia had 2 terror bowlers in the 1920's in Jack Gregory and Ted McDonald. They were followed in the 1950's by Ray Lindwall and Keith Miller and in the 1970's Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson were the ones who terrorised England's hapless batsmen with Thomson in particular battering and bruising England's batsmen with lethal bouncers into the chest/ribs and toe crushing yorkers.

I concur.

Chris Martin is terrified of batting full stop

Anyway the question is what can New Zealand do against two good bowlers of very different styles to avoid folding like a panckae as they did against a not entirely disimilar SA attack?

Try not to be terrified?
Speak to the groundstaff and import a drop in pitch from India?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Chris Martin is terrified of batting full stop

Anyway the question is what can New Zealand do against two good bowlers of very different styles to avoid folding like a panckae as they did against a not entirely disimilar SA attack?

Try not to be terrified?
Speak to the groundstaff and import a drop in pitch from India?

What about doctoring a couple of old cricket balls by removing the seam and painting them red so that they look brand new to the England new ball bowlers? Other than that their 2 best batsmen Ross Taylor and Kane Williamson should open the NZ batting wearing facemasks so that they can sneakily each have 2 chances of batting in the same innings. I'm sure that there isn't a law in the ICC rulebook which says that a batsman isn't allowed to coverup his entire face when batting.

Ban the import of Murray Mints and Jelly Beans then check the England captains pockets for dirt?

Boycs on you disguise idea they could all grow outlandish moustaches except for the weakest two batters... send Taylor and whoever out to open, them have them shave, and come out in place of the others, then use stick on moustaches for the post game press conference. Im CERTAIN this would work and they may even force England to bat twice.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Chris Martin is terrified of batting full stop

Anyway the question is what can New Zealand do against two good bowlers of very different styles to avoid folding like a panckae as they did against a not entirely disimilar SA attack?

Try not to be terrified?
Speak to the groundstaff and import a drop in pitch from India?

Chris Martin isn't terrified of batting, he's just rubbish at it. He at least tries to get into line and play the ball (yes Jeetan, I'm looking at you here)

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Ban the import of Murray Mints and Jelly Beans then check the England captains pockets for dirt?

Boycs on you disguise idea they could all grow outlandish moustaches except for the weakest two batters... send Taylor and whoever out to open, them have them shave, and come out in place of the others, then use stick on moustaches for the post game press conference. Im CERTAIN this would work and they may even force England to bat twice.

I was thinking more of covering up the entire face area with white or black cream so that it will be hard/almost impossible for the England players to work out who is actually out in the middle batting for NZ.

That sort of tactic could cause issues for the south african selection policy

I remember when I was captain of our club side a few years ago, and we only had 2 batsmen (including yours truly). First match, I thought "protect the batsmen" so stuck in a couple of no-hopers (nice guys though) to open, resulting in us being 2-2 in the 2nd over.

Next game I said "sod it", opened with our best two players and we put on 120.

Moral of the story: "protecting" players is a nonsense at any level, let alone international level. You put your best suited players in the relevant positions, and back them to do the job.

Boult and Southee wouldn't last more than 5 overs against a fresh and in-form Anderson, so you're just creating the same problem, except you're starting 2 wickets down.

Best batsmen at 10 and 11 just means you'll be 8 or 9 down earlier than intended, and if anything they'll play with less freedom.

Putting your players who are technically best equipped to deal with the new ball (in an attacking or defensive way) is of course the solution - New Zealand (wrongly IMO) felt that that was Guptil and McCullum. I don't mind McCullum too much, but Guptil should be at 3 or 4.

Moral of the story: "protecting" players is a nonsense at any level, let alone international level. You put your best suited players in the relevant positions, and back them to do the job

Indeed.

Declare for 0

Mike Selig wrote:I remember when I was captain of our club side a few years ago, and we only had 2 batsmen (including yours truly). First match, I thought "protect the batsmen" so stuck in a couple of no-hopers (nice guys though) to open, resulting in us being 2-2 in the 2nd over.

Next game I said "sod it", opened with our best two players and we put on 120.

Moral of the story: "protecting" players is a nonsense at any level, let alone international level. You put your best suited players in the relevant positions, and back them to do the job.

Boult and Southee wouldn't last more than 5 overs against a fresh and in-form Anderson, so you're just creating the same problem, except you're starting 2 wickets down.

Best batsmen at 10 and 11 just means you'll be 8 or 9 down earlier than intended, and if anything they'll play with less freedom.

Putting your players who are technically best equipped to deal with the new ball (in an attacking or defensive way) is of course the solution - New Zealand (wrongly IMO) felt that that was Guptil and McCullum. I don't mind McCullum too much, but Guptil should be at 3 or 4.

Well Tino Best certainly didn't play with less freedom when he scored that sensational century V England last summer in the 3rd test despite batting at number 11.

gb, I beginning to think you are Tino Best. Or if not, his stalker or something.

I'd certainly call any innings of 95 that is described as a century as sensational!

VTR wrote:I'd certainly call any innings of 95 that is described as a century as sensational!

Well 95 is as close to a century as what Tino is going to get with the bat throughout his test career.

Tino wasn't a batsman. Much harder for a batsman to play that kind of innings unless with the tail - so if with another batsman and both the last wicket... won't work.

Aye - A tailender does well its a Bonus, Two batsmen as last wicket and they give it away = the chop.