I always suspected. We all did.

What a bunch of wimps, those antipodeans.

Here in the real world, Daisy and I took great pleasure in watching the second half of the netball this morning, after which Daisy has been watching “Hitler Channel” documentaries while I have finally got around to sorting out my backups. That sort of day.

In order for anyone to play any ball at all it needs to stop raining.

#justsaying

#allthisrainisjustsoirritating

I think ‘the ball’ in this context is the unit of play (ie one-sixth of an over). So the context (including the field placement, the game situation, the overhead conditions, whether the bowler has bowled 10 overs straight without a break, whether you have just insinuated something about the wicketkeeper’s family history, the absence or presence of a bestial roar in response to the previous delivery, etc) is included.

It’s the short-term version of playing one game at a time, taking it day by day, etc.

When people say they are “playing the ball on its merits” they don’t just mean the physical object – how shiny or hard or polished it is. They’re definitely referring to the possible trajectory of the ball, its line, length, pace, how much it’s been moving or bouncing or turning and so on. But also if you play the ball straight into the hands of a fielder placed for exactly that shot, then say “the ball was the perfect trajectory to hit to that position”, nobody would say “that’s okay, it just proves you played the ball on its merits”. So definitely the field placement also counts as part of “the ball” and its “merits”. This may even extend to which fielder is positioned where, once you get to the stage of which ones are worth trying a quick single to.

I think this proves “the ball” has always gone beyond “the ball”, to include certain situational elements. A proactive strategist would realise that manipulating the ball into particular areas gives you a degree of extra control over that situation by letting you manipulate the field placement, or at least putting the fielding captain under pressure to react to retain control. A new ball that has the potential to be given a good thwacking is also a ball that is going to start feeling decidedly less “new” in the near future. Perhaps these features were not classically considered to be part of “the ball” and “its merits” but it’s just an extension of things that were accepted before, and if it’s serving a good purpose then why not?

I suppose the problem is where do you stop, before “just playing the ball on its own merits” involves a massively complex matrix of overcomplicating factors and the batter is too bogged down to think clearly and quickly. But the Bazballers don’t seem overburdened by such things – it seems more like a realignment to seeing the merits of a typical ball as more likely to involve being dispatched, or at least struck, than had previously widely been believed. There are some things that don’t count as part of “the ball” – presumably the match situation (you might want batters to adapt in tone, more aggressive or more defensive, based on whether quick runs would be very valuable right now for example, but that doesn’t count as “the ball”) and certainly batters thinking about career preservation when considering how they play the ball are not really playing “the ball” (which is why management backing their selection choices rather than threatening to wield the axe on them is so useful).

Yeah, the article is as much about assessments of each ball’s merits and recognition that there is in fact much to be gained from erring on the side of hitting the thing.

Sometimes our headlines are more about getting people through the door than 100% accurate synopses of what’s being said in the body of the article. This one’s a bit disingenuous.

The final line is really our way of saying that once you’ve reduced risk, you don’t necessarily need to go and seek it out.

Sehwag always claimed he played each & every ball by its merit. & having watched his various test innings I can confirm it is 100% true.

It is the KP like scatter the field strategy

When the field is in, then the gaps are outside & he plays the lofted shots. What happens next is most crucial. When the field gets spread out, he is very content to pick the singles on offer. Not the stereotypical Sehwag we know.

I mean to say that in attitude & approach Sehwag is 100% a proper test batsman.
It is only his technique/skills that let him down, especially in English conditions

In the early days of T20, when test cricket was still on free to air TV, I recall Mark Nicholas interviewing Boycott, including a discussion about the “attacking from the word go” style of opening.

Boycott suggested that he wouldn’t have had the ability to bat that way. Nicholas suggested that Boycott probably could have done well playing that way, had he trained from the outset to play that way. Faux modesty it might have been, but I do recall him saying it…

…on free-to-air TV…not at one of those pompous cricket dinners/talks that I (and Daisy) mostly eschew. Mercifully we don’t move in the sort of corporate circles within which attendance at such events is virtually a requirement.