South Africa A

[flanflinger]

McGrath....hmmmm

First Test in England http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_data...08JUN1997.html

2 wickets for 150 runs. It was well documented he strugled to find the right length to bowl on... However he finished the sereies with 36 Wickets at 19...

Basically he had to learn how to bowl in English conditions, and particularily the most effective length....It took him one Test match and two innings, once he got it right though - he was devastating http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_data..._TEST_AVS.html

[Goatman]

Actually, I'm somewhat aghast that I've had to post that!

If "a good length" was a constant the first line of every cricket coaching manual would read:-

"thou shalt bowl the ball so that it should pitch 80cm short of the batting crease."

They don't. It isn't that simple.

[Milo]

This should take a Test class bowler about three overs at best to work out. It is the 'length' that makes it difficult for the batsman to know whether to come onto the front foot or play it off the back foot. We can all see when a player is bowling too short or too full - why can't they?

If they are not good enough to do anything about it (once they too recognise - I can only assume test cricketers are aware when they are bowling the wrong length) then they really shouldn't be playing test cricket. Of course, if the bowler is spraying the ball consistently down the leg side, then they really will struggle to recognise what length to bowl.

Once again - I say let's not complicate it. Bowl the right line and then observe and determine the right length. Job done.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Milo

This should take a Test class bowler about three overs at best to work out. It is the 'length' that makes it difficult for the batsman to know whether to come onto the front foot or play it off the back foot. We can all see when a player is bowling too short or too full - why can't they?

Once again - I say let's not complicate it. Bowl the right line and then observe and determine the right length. Job done.

Yup, right on the money there Milo... totally agreeing again.

It is surely this recent inability of bowlers to "see" this, that governs the reasons for Test cricket becoming a batsman's game of late. The logical end of that argument is the reason why the ICC have found it necessary to make it easier for bowlers by "adjusting" perfectly obvious and engrained rules.

But that's that whole other argument about which..... (wow five dots, I must be on the edge.)

[Goatman]

Originally Posted by Milo

This should take a Test class bowler about three overs at best to work out. It is the 'length' that makes it difficult for the batsman to know whether to come onto the front foot or play it off the back foot. We can all see when a player is bowling too short or too full - why can't they?

If they are not good enough to do anything about it (once they too recognise - I can only assume test cricketers are aware when they are bowling the wrong length) then they really shouldn't be playing test cricket. Of course, if the bowler is spraying the ball consistently down the leg side, then they really will struggle to recognise what length to bowl.

Once again - I say let's not complicate it. Bowl the right line and then observe and determine the right length. Job done.

Hey - why don't you send that message to Dennis Lille and Troy Cooley! You could be in for a job here!

Its not that simple. If it were, people would do it.

[Milo]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

McGrath....hmmmm

First Test in England http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_data...08JUN1997.html

2 wickets for 150 runs. It was well documented he strugled to find the right length to bowl on... However he finished the sereies with 36 Wickets at 19...

Basically he had to learn how to bowl in English conditions, and particularily the most effective length....It took him one Test match and two innings, once he got it right though - he was devastating http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_data..._TEST_AVS.html

I remember this test match well. I would suggest that during the left/right hand partnership of Thorpe and Hussain partnership, McGrath consistently bowled the wrong line. That is a different issue and has nothing to due with the pitch conditions whatsoever. He just bowled very poorly - maybe due to the pressure of Australia falling apart in thier first innings - or maybe due to overtrying. He certainly didn't keep his cool and served up rubbish as a result.

[Rachael]

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 ?

I thought the general consensus was that McGrath "hunts" for wickets.. but he does so with subtle variations on / around off stump... shaping the ball either way.. but only looking for the odd inch or so of movement rather than the 9" that Hoggard used to look for... and only varying his pace enough to get players slightly mis-timing strokes, rather than enough to comprehensively bamboozle them.

As I understand it that's pretty much what Harmison did for his 7-12: he slowed it all right down (mid 80s)and pitched the ball up on a good length from which (unlike his clleagues) he was able to get steep enough bounce to ensure that any seam movement was very, very tough to counter.

Shorter balls would have presented far less threat as the distance from the pitch of the ball to the batsman would have been greater. Faster balls would have been pointless as they would have involved sacrificing accuracy.. and without the ball landing in exactly the right spot the threat wouldn't have been there.

This seems to be Harmison's best plan in most situations... playing the straight man (in the manner of Caddick) rather than going through a huge repetoire and mixing everything up (in the manner of Gough).

Hoggard's tightening his game up lots from what I've heard.. abandoning the search for extravagent movement on the understanding that it's better to get a small amount of movement in the right place than a lot of movement in the wrong place (which a lot of movement usually seems to produce, as the more the ball moves the less the bowler seems able to control the movement and the greater the likelyhood of poor balls).

Seems to me that what's missing in the English line up at the moment is a partner for Harmison who CAN do the mixing it all up stuff: if Jones or Anderson could come in and just let rip with the full array of bouncers, yorkers, cutters and the like.. with Harmison the other end.. and Hoggard and Flintoff at first change... that would be great :-D

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Hoggard's tightening his game up lots from what I've heard.. abandoning the search for extravagent movement on the understanding that it's better to get a small amount of movement in the right place than a lot of movement in the wrong place (which a lot of movement usually seems to produce, as the more the ball moves the less the bowler seems able to control the movement and the greater the likelyhood of poor balls).

Seems to me that what's missing in the English line up at the moment is a partner for Harmison who CAN do the mixing it all up stuff: if Jones or Anderson could come in and just let rip with the full array of bouncers, yorkers, cutters and the like.. with Harmison the other end.. and Hoggard and Flintoff at first change... that would be great :-D

OK now I have a problem.

You are suggesting that Hoggard has become a better bowler through tightening up and abandoning extravagant movement in favour of control. And he should bowl (ideally) in tandem with Flintoff - who formerly, in your humble opinion, was not a good bowler, because he was so controlled and tight that he had no extravagant movement.

Hmmm

[Goatman]

Until someone can give me good reasons why:-

1) The world is not full of Glenn McGraths.

2) Bowlers do not peak at when they reach thier athletic peak - typically in thier early 20's - but do so in thier late 20's/30ish.

3) Bowling manuals are not all 1 side of A4.

4) Seamers who are tremendously effective on home pitches (eg. Vaas or Ntini) are ordinary on other strips.

I will find it rather hard to belive that bowling is as simple an operation as is being suggested above.

[flanflinger]

Goaty,

Bowling is a very simple thing when you have never done it....