I believe the article is very well-articulated and provides valuable insight into how modern cricketers perceive the game. That said, I’d like to make a point: while I’m perfectly fine with lap shots or scoop shots—even when they’re premeditated—attempting a premeditated cross-batted sweep against a bowler delivering at 135 kmph borders on arrogance, if not outright crosses the line.
Shots which work always appear to be safer and more inevitable than shots which don't. When a player attempts a cover-drive and edges to 2nd slip, the cover drive also appears to be arrogant and ill-judged. Players get out to ramps and those ramps also appear to be similarly reckless. Such appearances are deceptive.
Excellent article. The criticism of Brook and the shot he played to get out, will essentially depend on whether India score the remaining 135 runs today or England bowl them out. If England lose, he'll be the villain, even though his shot had little to do with them being 191 all out. If England win, everyone will praise the English bowling, even though they have not looked too threatening in the series thus far.
Good insight. I think England’s approach is widely misunderstood as mindless aggression, but as you say it’s more about reappraising the relationship between risk and reward.
I believe the article is very well-articulated and provides valuable insight into how modern cricketers perceive the game. That said, I’d like to make a point: while I’m perfectly fine with lap shots or scoop shots—even when they’re premeditated—attempting a premeditated cross-batted sweep against a bowler delivering at 135 kmph borders on arrogance, if not outright crosses the line.
Shots which work always appear to be safer and more inevitable than shots which don't. When a player attempts a cover-drive and edges to 2nd slip, the cover drive also appears to be arrogant and ill-judged. Players get out to ramps and those ramps also appear to be similarly reckless. Such appearances are deceptive.
Excellent article. The criticism of Brook and the shot he played to get out, will essentially depend on whether India score the remaining 135 runs today or England bowl them out. If England lose, he'll be the villain, even though his shot had little to do with them being 191 all out. If England win, everyone will praise the English bowling, even though they have not looked too threatening in the series thus far.
Good insight. I think England’s approach is widely misunderstood as mindless aggression, but as you say it’s more about reappraising the relationship between risk and reward.