• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official** West Indies in England***

Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The coverage of the series over here has been patchy on Fox, but one thing which I've really noticed is the number of WI batsmen being caught on the crease with little or no footwork and geting out either lbw or edging to slip.

Now I know it's difficult when the ball is swinging in particular and some of their batsmen may not be as talented as others at international level, but it seems to me that they should have a plan for dealing with it, whether it be to make a conscious effort to get forward to negate the swing, or to play back and delay playing until they pick up the second line of the ball.

I know that propping forward has its own problems, while staying back leaves you vulnerable to lbws, but they must try to develop a method, because atm just propping on the crease is getting them no where. If they made a conscious effort to come forward, especially to Sidebottom, they may get more of the benefit with lbws.

Fwiw, Chanderpaul's innings was a wonderful knock, and it was good to see Morton really knucke down and fight hard in the second dig. imo he was a bit unlucky with that lb, but if you leave the bat above your head, you are asking for trouble.

Am I off track here? Is it impossible to make these conscious adjustments? It just frustrates me to see them stuck on the crease making no identifiable movements. I'm not decrying the England bowling, which has been good at times, but imo it has been made to look much better than it really has been owing to the inertia of the WI batting.

Thoughts anyone?
 
T

Tom Halsey

International Coach
Goughy said:
but Sidebottom did look very ineffective. Yesterday he had decent accuracy and today he may have swung the ball a little but he lacks penetration. He bowled pretty much as well as he could on that track and ended up with nothing. Thats a huge worry. He doesnt have any edge about his bowling unless there are massively favourable conditions.

Accurate medium pace bowlers dont often win you Test matches and Sidebottom isnt going to make match winning contributions unless gifted favourable conditions.

He did his job at Headingley and now let him go back to roam the County pastures.

As for Panesar, he got there in the end and a 10fer is no mean achievement but his bowling was nothing better than ok. The game could have been over on Sunday if he had bowled well (ie consistent length)

Good to see Plunkett gone. :)
Click to expand...
Didn't look very ineffective ti me, constantly passing the outside edge.

As for Panesar, the game would have been over on Sunday had he had a bit more luck. Obviously the appealing was way OTT, but he was still causing onstant problems and I lost count of the amount of times the ball popped up off a glove and didn't go to hand.
 
I

iamdavid

International Debutant
TheEpic said:
However, I do not think that Sidebottom is going to be a long term option for the Test side. Ultimately, he may lack that yard of pace or variety to offer something in all conditions, but I see no reason for him to return to county cricket at this stage, having probably been the best bowler in this series so far. A return to the erratic Plunkett and possibly Anderson would be disastrous at this point, and he at least seems a credible fill in whilst our precocious young talents are developing in County cricket.
Click to expand...

I agree, Sidebottom lacks genuine pace but he's a smart bowler and at least he's reliable which is handy when you've got Harmison and Plunkett all over the place and no Flintoff. Im very impressed with the consistently full length he bowls, means if there is anything to be gained from the pitch he'll get it, and being left handed and a guy who bowls a few yards slower and fuller is good variety with Harmison who generally bowls quicker and bangs it in and Plunkett who dosent look like he knows what he's doing.

When Flintoff returns and tougher batting lineups are encountered he is unlikely to have such a big role to play, but in the mean-time why fix it if it aint broken.
 
Gloucefan

Gloucefan

U19 Vice-Captain
iamdavid said:
I agree, Sidebottom lacks genuine pace but he's a smart bowler and at least he's reliable which is handy when you've got Harmison and Plunkett all over the place and no Flintoff. Im very impressed with the consistently full length he bowls, means if there is anything to be gained from the pitch he'll get it, and being left handed and a guy who bowls a few yards slower and fuller is good variety with Harmison who generally bowls quicker and bangs it in and Plunkett who dosent look like he knows what he's doing.

When Flintoff returns and tougher batting lineups are encountered he is unlikely to have such a big role to play, but in the mean-time why fix it if it aint broken.
Click to expand...
We don't even know that yet. If players like Jones (not a very big if) or Flintoff etc. are unfit I see Sidey or Jon Lewis as the obvious replacements (especially Lewis). I don't see the point in trying to replace pace with pace if the guy you are replacing him with is someone like Saj. I think both Lewis and Sidebottom should be the understudies. Although part of me thinks Lewis should tell England where to go after the way they have treated him.
 
I

iamdavid

International Debutant
Gloucefan said:
We don't even know that yet. If players like Jones (not a very big if) or Flintoff etc. are unfit I see Sidey or Jon Lewis as the obvious replacements (especially Lewis). I don't see the point in trying to replace pace with pace if the guy you are replacing him with is someone like Saj. I think both Lewis and Sidebottom should be the understudies. Although part of me thinks Lewis should tell England where to go after the way they have treated him.
Click to expand...
True, but I'm not suggesting they try and replace Flintoff with someone of similar pace, what they miss most about him is the control and reliability he brings to the attack, knowing you're always gonna have a seamer who'll front up even if Harmison has one of those days.
Flintoff and Hoggard both bring that security to the attack and Im assuming that with both of them out and Harmison and Plunkett all over the place the selectors were desperate for someone reliable which is why Sidebottom got picked in the first place.
And once they come back then in the short term Sidebottom won't be as important as he is now.
 
Gloucefan

Gloucefan

U19 Vice-Captain
iamdavid said:
True, but I'm not suggesting they try and replace Flintoff with someone of similar pace, what they miss most about him is the control and reliability he brings to the attack, knowing you're always gonna have a seamer who'll front up even if Harmison has one of those days.
Flintoff and Hoggard both bring that security to the attack and Im assuming that with both of them out and Harmison and Plunkett all over the place the selectors were desperate for someone reliable which is why Sidebottom got picked in the first place.
And once they come back then in the short term Sidebottom won't be as important as he is now.
Click to expand...
I thought in the last line you were saying that Sidebottom probably couldn't take wickets against the stronger teams, I just meant we don't know that yet. I was agreeing with what you said about replacing the first choice bowlers with someone who is consistent and someone who has more or less mastered their art ass opposed to someone with bags of potential but quite clearly not at all ready.
 
I

iamdavid

International Debutant
Gloucefan said:
I thought in the last line you were saying that Sidebottom probably couldn't take wickets against the stronger teams, I just meant we don't know that yet. I was agreeing with what you said about replacing the first choice bowlers with someone who is consistent and someone who has more or less mastered their art ass opposed to someone with bags of potential but quite clearly not at all ready.
Click to expand...
Lol nah I said he's "unlikely to have as big a role to play", referring more to when flintoff/hoggard is around the selectors are more likely to say they've seen enough. As for whether he's upto doing well against the better teams only time (maybe) will tell.
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Burgey said:
The coverage of the series over here has been patchy on Fox, but one thing which I've really noticed is the number of WI batsmen being caught on the crease with little or no footwork and geting out either lbw or edging to slip.

Now I know it's difficult when the ball is swinging in particular and some of their batsmen may not be as talented as others at international level, but it seems to me that they should have a plan for dealing with it, whether it be to make a conscious effort to get forward to negate the swing, or to play back and delay playing until they pick up the second line of the ball.

I know that propping forward has its own problems, while staying back leaves you vulnerable to lbws, but they must try to develop a method, because atm just propping on the crease is getting them no where. If they made a conscious effort to come forward, especially to Sidebottom, they may get more of the benefit with lbws.

Fwiw, Chanderpaul's innings was a wonderful knock, and it was good to see Morton really knucke down and fight hard in the second dig. imo he was a bit unlucky with that lb, but if you leave the bat above your head, you are asking for trouble.

Am I off track here? Is it impossible to make these conscious adjustments? It just frustrates me to see them stuck on the crease making no identifiable movements. I'm not decrying the England bowling, which has been good at times, but imo it has been made to look much better than it really has been owing to the inertia of the WI batting.

Thoughts anyone?
Click to expand...
Raises an interesting point for mine. I reckon not ten years ago (before hawkeye) no ump in the world would've given Morton out with the stride he got in. Now tho, with hawkeye regularly showing the ball going on to hit the stumps even when batsmen are struck a way in front, bowlers (and spinners in particular) seem far more likely to be given them. Although the umps don't yet officially use it, I reckon it could still be said to have had an effect on their decision-making.

Kudos to Hair, actually as (I think) he was the first to start to give them. I know he was anti batsmen "playing" the ball with the bat safely tucked behind the pad too and often gave them when they were struck outside the line for "no-shot offered". IIRC Ash Giles was changed ends so he was bowling from Hair's end when Chanders was doing that on their last tour. Had his faults, but it wasn't all bad from the big fella.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Inevitable. Blakey D, check the nominations accout, purleeaasee.

(There'll probably be none, but if he's read this thread he doesn't need it, obviously)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top