South Africa A

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Oliver

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.

Weird that...

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Goatman

Until someone can give me good reasons why:-

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

Can't do it Goatman... I know how hard it is to hit the length hankie in the nets... particularly when the coach moves it up and down every six balls.

I remember a Jon Agnew v. Graham Gooch interview on the subject of Glenn McGrath.

Gooch kept on saying that McGrath was so good because he always pitched the ball in the same place.
Agnew responded with a question on the lines of: "why didn't you step into the right position to play him then?"
To which Gooch responded: "because he always pitched the ball in the same place"

The interview became cyclical, long, childish and inconsequential.

Somebody was probably hugely amused... probably Jon Agnew.

[Milo]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Goaty,

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

It would certainly help if I was six foot 8. Many potential sportsmen are robbed of careers because they were given the wrong bodies.

Troy Cooley couldn't bowl for toffee....but he appears to know how to.

[Goatman]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Can't do it Goatman... I know how hard it is to hit the length hankie in the nets... particularly when the coach moves it up and down every six balls.

I remember a Jon Agnew v. Graham Gooch interview on the subject of Glenn McGrath.

Gooch kept on saying that McGrath was so good because he always pitched the ball in the same place.
Agnew responded with a question on the lines of: "why didn't you step into the right position to play him then?"
To which Gooch responded: "because he always pitched the ball in the same place"

The interview became cyclical, long, childish and inconsequential.

Somebody was probably hugely amused... probably Jon Agnew.

So you concede that there are some skills a bowler has to learn and to an extent has to re-learn every time the conditions change?

That is my experience at least, and seems to fit the facts rather better than the Cartesian coordinates method described above (value X ("line") is a defined, giving only 1 variable (Y; "length") to be dtermined by trial and error in each case).

ON the accuracy point; I've always wondered that. Why is it so hard to play a bowler if you know where its going to pitch? If I were them, I'd change my stance so that the bowler was giving me juicy wide half volleys......

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Milo

It would certainly help if I was six foot 8. Many potential sportsmen are robbed of careers because they were given the wrong bodies.

I don't know, Simon Hughes had quite a long career with Middlesex.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Goatman

ON the accuracy point; I've always wondered that. Why is it so hard to play a bowler if you know where its going to pitch? If I were them, I'd change my stance so that the bowler was giving me juicy wide half volleys......

Exactamundo... exactly my point... however I concede that the quote should be: "he always pitched the ball in the right place" nevertheless, I would think a top batsman should be able to turn it into a juicy half volley, even if it isn't all that wide.

[Goatman]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Exactamundo... exactly my point... however I concede that the quote should be: "he always pitched the ball in the right place" nevertheless, I would think a top batsman should be able to turn it into a juicy half volley, even if it isn't all that wide.

I reckon its because even though the ball PITCHES in the same place it does not PASS THE BAT in the same place. It seams and swings both ways from the same action.

In other words:- pure accuracy is only half the battle! You have to make the ball DO something too.....

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Goatman

In other words:- pure accuracy is only half the battle! You have to make the ball DO something too.....

Of course... but if you can pin the beggars back and then stick it up round their ears as well... hey who needs movement?

What did I say about cyclical, childish and inconsequential?

Sorry I'll shut up now.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Back to Mcgrath (who btw has **** all to do with this thread !!) didnt he always get atherton out lbw or is my mind playing tricks on me ? If I'm right then surely if you're squaring a batsman in front of his stumps he aint bowling just outside off stump in the "corridor of uncertainty"

[Milo]

Originally Posted by Goatman

I reckon its because even though the ball PITCHES in the same place it does not PASS THE BAT in the same place. It seams and swings both ways from the same action.

In other words:- pure accuracy is only half the battle! You have to make the ball DO something too.....

Which leads us back to the start of the discussion. If you can't DO something with the ball, you shouldn't be playing test cricket. Only then does the strategy I outlined an hour ago work. We were talking about Harmison after all....I presume he does have the ability to make the ball do something. If he doesn't, he won't be world number one for long.