Rod Marsh had a good feature article on Ricky Ponting in yesterday's Observer. It's even critical at one point:A nice line...

He talks of 'bouncer sessions' in the indoor centre at the Adelaide Oval: tennis balls with leather on the outside, projected from a bowling machine at 100 mph and directed at the batsmen's heads: The point of comparison is also far better than the usual contrast with Bradman.A sad inditement of fast bowling at the end there if ever there was one: if anyone can play your bouncer off the front foot... you surely ain't got any business delivering it!

Well im not sure if it is sad for bowlers because Ponting has done it to everyone including Aktar, he is just saying that Ponting is that good. He is a dominant batsman like Viv Richards, and will have an unbeliveable record at the end of his career. He has done more so far in his career that most previous great batsman have not done in there careers.

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

Surely the point of a short ball is to force the batsman onto the back foot (or at least discourage them from coming forward): if the delivery cannot achieve that one, small goal... then surely the delivery is wasted!

Rod Marsh notes that Ponting sometimes hooks off the front foot... but I trust Ponting would not even attempt that shot against what Gower would call "properly grown up fast bowling": looking to hook off the front foot against late model Curtley Ambrose (who used the ball sparingly) at the WACA ground in the days when it WAS the fastest pitch on earth would have been just plain stupid - and whatever else Ponting is, I don't think he's stupid!

Of course, some nits (like Lee and Akhtar) send down short balls twice an over rather than twice in a spell... and Ponting might well cart them off the front foot no matter how fast they are... simply because he's getting so many sighters he can hardly go wrong... but that's just carting poor bowling - fast bowlers who are any good surely use the fact that they are capable of a short ball to their advantage... whilst simultaneously using it so sparingly that the shock factor isn't lost.

Anyone trying more than 2-3 short balls in a 6 over spell to Ponting is either working to a very poor plan... or just not bowling to the plan: as with Atherton, Robin Smith, Viv Richards and many others... it's just serving up what the batsman wants.

A lot of cricketers rate Ponting as the best bat since Bradman, and his pulling and hooking are probally the best part of his game along with his on driving. There is a reason why he averages 60 and has 33 centuries at 31 years old.

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

Who would these people be?

Do you actually understand what you are talking about here Rachael. This is a comment of praise about the batsman (in this case Ponting and Richards who can exercise a shot of class). You're a tennis player. If a player like Agassi takes a return early on the the top of the bounce, this is highlighting the excellence of that player....and not the poorness of the serve. He did return the fastest serve ever by Roddick and won the point at Queens. Was this a poor serve because it was returned or should we marvel at the returing ability of Agassi.

Viv Richards used to hook every great bowler off the front foot (Lillee and Hadlee included). This shows Richards' ability because every other player would have been dismissed trying something so difficult. Ponting hooks off the front foot, no other modern test player does with as much ease. It is an indicator in showing the class of a batsman NOT the poorness of a bowler.

Which begs the question... did they bowl well to a bad plan... or did they bowl badly? Any plan that gives Viv short balls to hook is just plain stupid... and if the plan was to pitch the ball on a good length and ideally outside off stump (to deny Viv his perferred on-side scoring shots)... the bowler that failed to implement that plan was presumably suffering from an acute case of egomania.

I'm sure there's a tale of an umpire trying to warn an English seamer (Pingle? not sure) about "intimidatory bowling" for sending down a series of short balls (maybe at Headingly): as I understand it... most of the balls had been going to the boundary and Viv actually protested at the umpire's intervention.

I'm not sure how much of the tale is true... but if I've got it right.. the captain asked the bowler what the **** he thought he was doing.... got a reply about trying to get Viv caught in the deep... and retorted along the lines of "which side of 200"

Point is.... that bowler had no business sending down those short balls!

ps. Agassi had an awesome return of serve... hence the importance of NOT sending down predictable, straight bullets: Sampras had a beautifully disguised slice (developed by the coach telling him what to hit as his racket arm started the upward arc to the ball).... and others succeeded against the guy on clay with such heavy topspin... but mere speed-obsessives like Roddick and Rusedski always struggled

The short ball often got Viv out, it often went to the boundary. There is no black and white in this one Rachael. Viv played every shot in the book. The lofted cover drive, the off drive, the square drive, the cover drive and all the leg side shots. In your case of planned attacks, the bowler should simply not bowl to him. I really do wish you'd wathced cricket back in the old day and not simply read about it.

Any plan that gives Viv the opportunity to hook the ball is stupid then is it Rachael? I suppose you shouldn't bowl short outside off stump to Martyn or feed Ian Chappell with his favourite hook shot. In 72, Chappell was caught at fine leg by Mike Smith on a number of occasions (he also put the ball in the crowd a few times but it didn't stop Snowy bowling short at him). Overall Lillee and Richards were pretty much even in their contests. That Lillee got hooked is something that just happened, a great player scoring runs from a great bowler. Nothing more nothing less. It's what cricket is all about.

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

The craft of seam bowling is based on getting lateral movement... and the craft of getting wickets with lateral movement is getting the batsmen driving and taking an edge... which is why informed commentators praise the full length routinely preferred by conventional swing bowlers from before Lindwall to recent exponents like Hoggard, and reverse swing merchants from before Waqar to recent masters like Simon Jones.

Of course... bowlers don't want batsmen getting too close to the pitch of the ball and thereby smothering the lateral movement... which is why great bowlers let batsmen know they are capable of a well disguised shorter delivery (and/or yorker)... but let's not get carried away - short pitch bowling and yorkers are basically about keeping the batsman honest (about pinning him to the crease) in order to get them driving without getting sufficiently close to (or far from) the pitch of the ball.

Now... I appreciate that when lateral movement is not forthcoming... plan 'B' is needed... and that plan 'B' sees the above turned on its head: guile comes to centre stage and aside from trying to get the batsmen to score in their least favoured areas... seam-bowling strategy is basically reduced to trying to induce a false shot - but under these cicumstances... I'd suggest the seam bowlers should mostly be putting their feet up and leaving the job to spinners.

Of course.. I'll accept exceptions: Marshall had as much guile as any spinner... and his disguise on different deliveries made him a threat even when lateral movement was not available... and Shoaib Akhtar's slower ball, Cairn's cutters and so on have shown that guile isn't ENTIRELY the preserve of the spinner - but let's not confuse the fact that seamers can do a job when the ball isn't swinging/seaming with the job of a seam bowler... which (as we saw in the 2005 Ashes, through McGrath at Lords and Jones elsewhere) remains getting wickets through lateral movement!

Had I been a seamer in the Lillee-mould in a side facing Viv and ABLE to get lateral movement... I'd have pitched it up... and if I'd been a seamer in a side facing Viv and NOT able to get lateral movement... I'd be asking where the ******* spinners were!

ps. I still maintain that a fate worse than death is the least a groundsman should suffer for producing a pitch that doesn't guarantee the sort of lateral movement seen in the days of uncovered wickets.. but that's another story