Well said Sourav

[Richard]

I have just read an article on an interview with Sourav Ganguly. In it was contained something I think lots of coaches and pundits\summarisers could do to take note of the truth of:

There was feeling that the Australians didn't bounce you too much.
They did bounce a bit. But the point is you don't get people out with short balls, you get them out by pitching it up. I have heard this short-ball rubbish for a long time now. How many times do you get batsmen out hooking or fending? I have played enough cricket, scored enough runs, but how many times have I got out to a short ball? They have been bowling short to Steve Waugh for years now, and while he might sometimes look awkward playing the short ball, how many times has he actually got out to it? He's got 32 centuries and people are still saying he can't play the short ball. I have no time for such nonsense.

You are a proud man, Sourav, does it bother you when people say that you can't play the short ball?
You know, I have had enough of this short-ball business. I have got 33 international hundreds. You don't score so many runs without being able to play the short ball. And you get plenty of short balls in international cricket.

 

[krkode]

Precisely. :P

 

[masterblaster]

well said indeed

 

[Kenny]

He has 33 international hundreds?

I think the great Windies teams of the 80's got plenty of people out with the short ball........by bowling it repeatedly and in a menacing fashion, many batsman did not have the stomach to stay at the crease.......you don't neccessarily have to get the batsman out with a short ball, but you can certainly make them think twice about staying out there.

 

[Richard]

It's just like the "take wickets at the other end" and "accuracy creates pressure" arguments - for me, if a bowler doesn't take wickets in his own right he can't just be picked because he keeps it tight and the team keeps winning. And I don't give bowlers any credit for wickets unless the actual ball that took the wicket was good; what has gone before has gone, it is in the past.
Similarly, if the short-ball doesn't get wickets, why bother wasting deliveries? The odd one is obviously useful every now and then, but consistent short bowling simply doesn't work any more. Similarly, short-leg is a complete waste of a fielding position to a seamer, because catches there happen once in a blue moon. I don't go in for any of this "doubt in the mind" rubbish.

 

[luckyeddie]

He has 33 international hundreds?
I

Yup.

11 in tests, 22 in ODIs.

 

[Rik]

His technique against the short ball is very poor, and in ODIs you are limited in your use of bouncers...

 

[krkode]

His technique against the short ball is very poor, and in ODIs you are limited in your use of bouncers...

He can play other balls quite well. So it doesn't really matter that he is not supremely perfect. He's doing fine. :rolleyes:

Hey Rik. Long time no see/talk. :P

 

[age_master]

* looks at tendulkars dismissal in the Aust A game with interest*

short balls are a good way to get batsmen caught even when they are set, doesn't always work but it can take key wickets sometimes

 

[Rik]

He can play other balls quite well. So it doesn't really matter that he is not supremely perfect. He's doing fine. :rolleyes:

Hey Rik. Long time no see/talk. :P

In England Ganguly was worked over many times with the short ball. In India the series before, he was worked over by the short ball...I'm only going on what I saw...

Anyway your 2nd comment, the answer is because you haven't been on MSN and I've been very very busy! Nice to see you though

 

[Craig]

I remember that well. Cork seemed to bounce the Indians at will.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I remember that well. Cork seemed to bounce the Indians at will.

Ah yes. Dominic "Not quite lightning" Cork.

 

[Craig]

He picked up 8 wickets for that summer.

 

[krkode]

In England Ganguly was worked over many times with the short ball. In India the series before, he was worked over by the short ball...I'm only going on what I saw...

It may not make him any better of a batsman, but it sure doesn't make him any less of a batsman than he already is. :P

 

[Don Ricardo]

It's just like the "take wickets at the other end" and "accuracy creates pressure" arguments - for me, if a bowler doesn't take wickets in his own right he can't just be picked because he keeps it tight and the team keeps winning. And I don't give bowlers any credit for wickets unless the actual ball that took the wicket was good; what has gone before has gone, it is in the past.
Similarly, if the short-ball doesn't get wickets, why bother wasting deliveries? The odd one is obviously useful every now and then, but consistent short bowling simply doesn't work any more. Similarly, short-leg is a complete waste of a fielding position to a seamer, because catches there happen once in a blue moon. I don't go in for any of this "doubt in the mind" rubbish.

Theoretically this may make sense, but in reality i have to disagree with what you have said here.

Persistent short bowling forces a batsman back time and again, and it eventually develops a tendancy to do so, so when a bowler follows a barrage of short stuff with a wide half volley the batsman is quite likely to nick it because he may only go on the front foot half-heartedly.

Bowlers regularly get wickets with this type of strategy, so to not give credit to the bowler because the actual wicket taking ball was not a 'good' one (it was full and wide) is losing sight of the reality of the situation.

 

[Richard]

Theoretically this may make sense, but in reality i have to disagree with what you have said here.

Persistent short bowling forces a batsman back time and again, and it eventually develops a tendancy to do so, so when a bowler follows a barrage of short stuff with a wide half volley the batsman is quite likely to nick it because he may only go on the front foot half-heartedly.

Bowlers regularly get wickets with this type of strategy, so to not give credit to the bowler because the actual wicket taking ball was not a 'good' one (it was full and wide) is losing sight of the reality of the situation.

From the evidence of what I've seen a non-hooker\puller batsman who has been ducking, back-defending and evading for a sustained period (ie 4 or 5 overs) who gets a wide Half-Volley is far more likely to delightedly slam it through the off-side for four than nick it.
It's very, very hard to hit a Half-Volley in the air, because you can't get under it. Maybe a batsman might chase a wide, just-short-of-Half-Volley-length ball and nick it, but for me a decent batsman will always know his shots and when to play them, whether he's been on the opposite foot for ages or not.
Some beg to differ but the evidence I've seen leads me to come to that conclusion.

 

[Richard]

* looks at tendulkars dismissal in the Aust A game with interest*

short balls are a good way to get batsmen caught even when they are set, doesn't always work but it can take key wickets sometimes

Every batsman, no matter how good, plays poor strokes sometimes.