A positive, aggressive brand of cricket

Posted by
< 1 minute read

There’s definitely an opening for an opportunistic side to play a negative, attritional brand of cricket during this World Cup. That approach is so rare, the opposition won’t know what has limply and boringly hit them.

More about this in the form of a satirical news report over at Cricinfo.


Mike Gatting wasn't receiving the King Cricket email when he dropped that ludicrously easy chance against India in 1993.


Why risk it when it's so easy to sign up?


  1. I was wondering why you didn’t alert this site to that article sooner. Turns out you were stockpiling. Smart move.

  2. Shouldn’t the positive stuff be assertive rather than aggressive, though?

    Like driving motor vehicles in London. Aggressive drivers, bad. Assertive drivers good. Attritional drivers, people sitting in stationary vehicles acquiring parking fines even while the engine is running.

    I too read this piece some days ago. I thought about commenting on Cricinfo, but the moderators there don’t like my comments and/or know that I am one of KC’s subjects, so i thought I’d wait for the inevitable alert here in King Cricket.

    1. They don’t approve of having a sense of humour on Cricinfo. Being mindlessly insulting towards other people’s countries/teams is fine, though.

      Maybe David Warner works as a Cricinfo moderator in his time off.

  3. Because, as you rightly say, everyone claims to play positive, aggressive cricket TM, its success rate as a tactic cannot be more than 50%. In a World Cup the success rate among the top eight teams will be as low as 12.5%. This is a rubbish return for any tactic.

    What is needed is a 100% tactic, a foolproof method. Based on a thorough analysis of past World Cups, I think I’ve found one – Be Not England. I am confident that this year’s winners will have adopted this tactic fully.

    1. I hate to point this out, Bert, but in every World Cup, at least seven of the quarter-finalists have adopted this strategy, and six have failed every time. That’s only a 14.3% return – hardly much better.

      I do, however, have a better one, and it’s quite simple: Win The Final. Of course, this works even better if the opposition in The Final have failed to adopt your strategy.

    2. You liar! You didn’t hate pointing that out; you took massive delight in it. You need to admit that to yourself before you can start to deal with your pointy out problem, going round the world pointing things out to people without a care for the consequences.

      Anyway, I knew that, so there was even no need to point if out. What a waste of an outpointing. In fact, it was the single worst most useless pointing out of something since someone said “Oh look, there’s Big Ben” to the man who lives in Big Ben.

      And before you point it out, I know it’s the bell and not the tower and you can’t live in a bell. God you people are hard work with your incessant pointing outs.

Comments are closed.