SL A vs Eng A, Columbo, 7-10 March

[Milo]

I would consider none of the four bowlers you mention 'Edwards, Sami, Lee or Steyn' wicket taking bowlers.

Another thing Rach: Any bowler who is 'out of ideas' when they are playing in a test match should not be there in the first place.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Milo

Another thing Rach: Any bowler who is 'out of ideas' when they are playing in a test match should not be there in the first place.

Doesn't that rule out pretty well everyone except Marshall?

Shane Warne knows when he's stuffed: he just keeps it tight and hopes. Murali likewise: he just fires them faster and flatter and hopes. Kumble rarely seems to do much else.. likewise Giles... and Kallis. McGrath and Pollock switch from hunting for wickets to damage limitation without hesitation.

Most of the WI pace bowler (Marshall excepted) knew when plan "B": it was basically slow the over rate and whistle balls through to the keeper wide and high so that no-one could score off them - very negative.

WAqar Younis, of course, had no plan B.. but that's why, even at his best, he frequently sucked: he refused to accept that none of his ideas had merit... and wouldn't just buckle down and be patient (a charge one might also level at Akhtar).

[Milo]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Doesn't that rule out pretty well everyone except Marshall?

Shane Warne knows when he's stuffed: he just keeps it tight and hopes. Murali likewise: he just fires them faster and flatter and hopes. Kumble rarely seems to do much else.. likewise Giles... and Kallis. McGrath and Pollock switch from hunting for wickets to damage limitation without hesitation.

Most of the WI pace bowler (Marshall excepted) knew when plan "B": it was basically slow the over rate and whistle balls through to the keeper wide and high so that no-one could score off them - very negative.

WAqar Younis, of course, had no plan B.. but that's why, even at his best, he frequently sucked: he refused to accept that none of his ideas had merit... and wouldn't just buckle down and be patient (a charge one might also level at Akhtar).

This post amazes me. If you are for one minute suggesting that Warne is ever 'out of ideas' you clearly have never watched the game. He is the one player who consistently seeks to mix it up and often gets a battering for it. But he always ha a plan. And as for the others - if switching from hunting for wickets to keeping it tight is 'out of ideas' then I don't really know the sport at all. Keeping it tight by definition is a successful way of hunting for wickets if the bowler isn't getting extravagant movement.

You talked about who I would want in the side if things weren't going well. The West Indian quartet never gave up looking for wickets and on the occasions they didn't get them they would maybe throw in more bouncers, but this was still part of effort to win the games. Did you ever watch them bowl Rachael? Holding and Garner 'out of ideas' you do make me laugh sometimes. Four bouncers and a yorker, a wide one followed by three bouncers, two pitched up outside off stump, five more bouncers another one short of length, straight one. This was pretty much what they always did anyway. Out of ideas is what Brett Lee and Waqar Younis do. They jsut try to bowl as fast as they can and hope. Great bowlers are different.

Stop trying to analyse the game as if it is worthy of a MSc disseration and you might actually find that it really isn't that complicated at all if the players are any good. Your analytical machinations about pitch, balanced attack, strike/stock bowlers are all geared towards trying to understand/explain players that should never play test cricket in the first place.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

[quote=Milo ].

Stop trying to analyse the game as if it is worthy of a MSc disseration QUOTE]

Can you do an MSc in Cricket ?? I think you can in Klingon in a univeristy in california (surprise)

So (in klingon)...[stop] oH SoH cha'

Look it up like I did

[Andy Mellon]

Originally Posted by Milo

I need to stop rising to her clear bait

Ok.... but

Originally Posted by Milo

Stop trying to analyse the game as if it is worthy of a MSc disseration and you might actually find that it really isn't that complicated at all if the players are any good. Your analytical machinations about pitch, balanced attack, strike/stock bowlers are all geared towards trying to understand/explain players that should never play test cricket in the first place.

Great stuff. A real ding-dong battle between Milo's 'mixing it up' approach, and Rachael's relentless 'on-a-length' attack. Its akin to handbags at dawn. I'll have to remember that analogy next time a batsman upsets Andre Nel!!

[Rachael]

Surely the great beauty of cricket is that there are times when bowlers can attack... mixing up their deliveries... trying to outwit their oppenent... and there are times when bowlers just have to be patient and wait for the game to come to them - a critical but rather less glamorous side of bowling, just as surviving rather than accelerating the run rate is the less glamorous side of batting.

A good batsman knows when to stop looking for runs: the time wil come, as the ball / pitch wears... or the bowler tires.. or the clouds lift.. or the batsman the other end starts playing more fluently.. but they know that at other times the most critical job they face is not getting out - great batsmen have always done both jobs well.

Why is it different with bowlers?

If you're Muralitheran and it's a green track and the ball's not really gripping and the batsman's taking you apart every time you try anything you just take your stock ball and concentrate on finding a consistent line, length and pace that is hard to get away - great. In time someone wil get out and youll have a new batsman to try things out on.. or the track will wear more.. then you can start thinking again.. but in the interim one attepted variation per over going for runs is one attempted variation per over too many.

Same with Warne: on a slow, low pitch his variations are meaningless. Without the bounce they can all be played with ease.. and they come off so slowly that a good batsman who has got his eye in can easily smother any ball that's overpitched and pick off any ball that's overpitched. What does he do? Stock delivery inthe same place every single ball - no tricks.

Have you watched Pollock? If there's anything in the pitch / conditions he'll find it.. but when no ball he could produce could be backed to take a wicket he moves his line: instead of aiming at off stump and giving the batsman a tough choice about playing or leaving he just aims 10" wider.. and instead of looking for movement he focusses on making sure there's none (because any movement that did occur would be more likely to cost runs than to take wickets).

Have you not seen top seam bowlers grip the ball accross the seam to make sure it did NOT swing? Then do the same very delivery of an over? They are not trying to get a wicket.. they are trying to restore some control!

I've great memories of successive English bowlers being slated for thinking and trying too much: Fraser was routinely singled out in my youth as the one guy who would put it in the right place 5 times ina row and then... do the same again. The **** bowlers were the ones who though: right, I've set him up now, let's do something else. They then got their slower ball / yorker / bouncer / whatever caned.. letting of all the pressure and undoing all the good work.

There are times when ideas are good.. and times when they suck: surely the great bowlers are the guys who new when the timing ws right.