I could go and have a very similar attack with SA and if/when Harmison is corrected then England will have two available. Are you going to start saying you won't play people who pick three fast bowlers next?
You still haven't told me what's so different about my field. Most of the position in that field are echoed in your ring field except mid on & off are up and the two boundary riders are behind square on the leg side. I've stopped using the short cover in all my games as agreed.
The randomness of where you put the bowling cursor (very wide as soon as i scored a boundary)
It's not random - it's varied. I know exactly where I want to put the cursor - I just don't put it in the same place every ball and I try not to give you any clues with the cursor prior to delivery.
The "very wide as soon as I hit a boundary" bit is BS - a lot of your boundaries were on the legside, so of course I'm going consider bowling it wider to try and catch the edge if you play the same shot. However, I did not do it all the time - I'd equally vary the length or the delivery or bowl it into your legs. (I think the only time I got wided that match was down the legside)
combined with your excellent ability to hit the execution meter 100%
How do you know where I'm hitting the execution meter? I can promise you, a lot of my balls were in the light green and even the top of the dark green.
made the game no fun at all.
Personally I find being challenged enjoyable as long as they don't contravene the spirit of the game. In my opinion "wideline", the 9 close fielders, 9 fielders on the ropes (not played a no field restrictions game so not faced that one) and (in it's current over powered state) short cover, all do this. I can't see how I bowl now does.
Please explain it to me as I just don't get it. If it's not me coming down the wicket too much while I'm batting then it's my field which is a problem. If it's not my field, it's my fast bowlers. If it's not my fast bowlers, then it's me varying my deliveries too much and so on...
The only thing I've ever complained about with your tactics are the wideline overs and we've drawn a line under that.
Whilst you should be applauded for the latter, the other three make it impossible to score runs when in effect the random length and width should be easy to score off.
How should they be? IRL, if you're a batsmen with split-seconds to react and are aware that there are half a dozen different places and deliveries the bowler could be about to send down, how easy is that to score off when the onus is on you to score due to the over quota?
When its coming down at 95-100mph, and you know where ever you hit it unless its perfect meter there is a strong chance of a catch.
Without the banned short cover you could hit it through the large gap in the covers or similarly through midwicket - if you time it well enough it'll go for four, otherwise it's at least a single.
Then there is behind square, where I have no fielders protecting. (Indeed, you scored quite a few runs to those parts of the ground.)
There is also the gap between cover and point (I threaded it through the even smaller gap of cover point and point in your field.)
This is often not the case with the default field, and here in lies the problem.
I disagree - with the ring field with you bowling consistently outside off stump it was very difficult to score off. It was only when you pitched it fractionally closer to my legs that I was able to play the cover and on drives. Otherwise I was left picking up ones and twos through the point/cover point gap when I timed it.
If you still want that win i feel like i owe you just say.
I feel you owe me treating me as a decent player, not seemingly as some kind of glitcher to be avoided.
