South Africa A

[Occasional Fan]

But you do admit to thinking, eh?

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

But you do admit to thinking, eh?

Oh yes, and far too hard! Gotta cut that out, otherwise no-one'll unnerstand me.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Can a bowler truly be number one in the world, when he can only work out where to bowl after he's seen how the opposition bowl on the track?

LOL - and not a bad point!

Originally Posted by Oliver

IF the opposition bowl first, then Harmison can see where to put the ball.

That presumes that the opposition bowlers got it right of course :-D

It must cross Vaughan's mind when he's got the option to put the opposition in to bat on day one to exploit early conditions that even if he CAN work out what length to bowl.. it seems to take Harmison for ever to settle down, find his rhythm and actually start producing a decent spell. Add in the act that Jones hates the new ball... an that Flintoff's best saved for the older ball... and that Giles really DOES need soe wear and tear from the bowlers follow through.. and it's suprising he ever takes the aggressive route.

The killer, for me, is not the bowler's problem though: it's the inability of the batsmen to judge a pitch and judge a run rate that would make me put the opposition in if given a chance. Maybe Strauss will sort this problem out.. but with Tresco and Vaughan opening it always seemed to me that our batsmen needed to watch the opposition innings to even get a sense of what would count as a decent way to approach an innings and a decent run rate to aim at!

[Goatman]

Originally Posted by Oliver

And regarding Goatman's Harmison baiting... that is my biggest bug-bare regarding the big man's world number one status.

He's number one. Its a fact. It doesn't mean he's the best in the world, it means he's taken more wickets than anyone else and cheaper than anyone else over the last 6-12 months. Thats all. Still something to be impressed by in my book.

From my point of view I see a bowler in his early-mid 20's (24?). He's raw. He's not actually bowled that much outside of ENG either. In terms of experience and age, he can only be considered to be on a learning curve.

I see no reason at all for him to know where to put the ball on a dry Kingston pitch.

It does him great credit that he has the intellegence and application to watch and learn from those that do know when the opportunity presents itself. Suggests to me that the kind of intellegence bowlers like Ambrose, to whom he is so often compared, is present in him. For Harmison, Ambrose-like consistency may not just be something to aspire to. It may be something within his grasp.

But we can't expect him to turn up to his first test with that kind of know-how. Thats just plain daft.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

I agree with you there Goaty. Theres nothing wrong with looking at the home team to see what there doing. Would the saffer bowlers no where to bowl a durham ? No. miond you harison might need a refresher course himself. A bowler, or many other sportsman for that matter dont have local knowledge implanted into them - so to use the locals shows a bit of sense to me.

[Milo]

Seems to me that he should just bowl on a length on or around off stump regardless of the pitch. If anyone heard the interview Glenn McGrath gave a couple of months ago, he said that far too many people complicate the art of bowling. He said if you bowl it in the corridor ball after ball after ball, you will always pick up wickets. Always. To him it is the most effective form of attack.

This isn't rocket science - in fact, I'm amazed we are even suggesting that a world class bowler should not know where to bowl the ball until he is shown. The likes of Ambrose, Marshall, Donald etc always knew where to bowl it, and often made breakthrough swith the new ball in the first couple of overs of away series.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Milo

Glenn McGrath said if you bowl it in the corridor ball after ball after ball, you will always pick up wickets. Always. To him it is the most effective form of attack.

This isn't rocket science - in fact, I'm amazed we are even suggesting that a world class bowler should not know where to bowl the ball until he is shown.

Thanks Milo. Need I say another thing? I think not.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

But did they ALWAYS know where to bowl it ? Yeah you can go dow nthe mcgrath road of on a length on off stump and eventually you will get a wicket. Correct, and that aint rocket science. And that what hoggard does and hopefully he'll get a bit o f lateral movement as well. Harmison seems to look for wickets and make the batsmen think. I didnt wtach the test when he got 7-12. Was that on a length hitting the top of of off stump or was it something else ?

[Goatman]

Originally Posted by Milo

Seems to me that he should just bowl on a length on or around off stump regardless of the pitch. If anyone heard the interview Glenn McGrath gave a couple of months ago, he said that far too many people complicate the art of bowling. He said if you bowl it in the corridor ball after ball after ball, you will always pick up wickets. Always. To him it is the most effective form of attack.

This isn't rocket science - in fact, I'm amazed we are even suggesting that a world class bowler should not know where to bowl the ball until he is shown. The likes of Ambrose, Marshall, Donald etc always knew where to bowl it, and often made breakthrough swith the new ball in the first couple of overs of away series.

What is "a length"? In cm from the stumps? Or inches if you insist.

I've bowled on four types of surface; Down on the drained fens of the lovely Dearne Valley, and even more so in the nearby Isle of Axholme, you get these very puddingy surfaces. If you pitch it more than a decent stride short of the crease, its too short. Its slow, and wont bounce and the batsman will lap it up. However, its usually pretty humid down there - much of the Isle is below sea level. So it swings like crazy. You have to pitch it right up to the bat.

In the Pennines around Sheffield the pitches tend to bake hard as the soil is thin - it doesn't retain rainwater well. A few hours after a rainstorm it will already be greying. They are bouncy and much faster than the ones on the fens. But its not so humid - you don't get much swing. Bowl it at the fen length and you get driven all day long. Pull it 10 or even 20 cm back and the extra pace and bounce is enough to get the ball coming up to hand height and the batsman can no longer just plonk his front foot down the pitch and bosh it.

In Southampton the pitches I played on are all on this horrid sandy soil that abraids the ball like crazy. I hated those pitches and in 3 years never quite worked out which length to bowl. It was shorter than the fens length but longer than the Pennines length.

In NL we play on artificial strips. They are, put bluntly, crap. When we have played on grass the pitches have been amazingly slow - almost sticky-dog types, even when they are dry. They take spin, and the ball swings well. I've taken to bowling a stock ball thats almost yorker length. That would be absolute rubbish bowling either in the Pennines or in Hants.

McGrath is exactly right - bowl the ball "on a length" - thats all you need to do! But this is exactly what I have been talking about - you need to learn were that good length is. The length that is good at Chester-le-Street is not necessarily any good in Kingston. And that information is what Harmison learnt from the WI bowlers.

As for Ambrose, Donald, etc etc. you are exactly right. They did know. For most of thier careers they had played on those conditions before, and it was then that they learnt where to do it for next time. Otherwise bowlers would not improve as they got older - they should all peak at about 21 when they are at thier most athletic. And they don't.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child

Harmison seems to look for wickets and make the batsmen think. I didnt wtach the test when he got 7-12. Was that on a length hitting the top of of off stump or was it something else ?

Judge for yourself here: http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/C...14MAR2004.html

I particularly like this:

"Last night Harmison's radar was marginally off-beam, and Devon Smith didn't have to put bat to any of the eight balls he received. But today Harmison was right on target from the word go."

Sums Harmison up pretty well. On such fine lines... etc