***Official*** England in Sri Lanka

[TT Boy]

No, he hasn't bowled well, at all

Don't know what game your being watching...

 

[Richard]

Gotta feel sorry for Swann - guy was Eng's best in the ODI series and hasnt been given a chance despite no-one else looking remotely threatening once Hoggard was injured

It's because one-day and First-Class cricket are very different games.

That and the surfaces the ODIs were played on have been rather different to those the Tests have been.

 

[Richard]

Yeah bro, why have a life when you could be making a post about cricket!

Could've done both, if I'd just been going out on a night when there wasn't a Test on the next morning.

 

[Richard]

Don't know what game your being watching...

By bowling well in a Test-match you need to bowl wicket-taking deliveries. Harmison hasn't.

 

[TheEpic]

Harmison was excellent, the only one to look remotely threatening after the first 10 overs or so when the ball was doing all sorts. A little low on pace but he still got good bounce and was remarkably accurate, especially after tea. Maybe not the GBH of 2004, but you've got to start somewhere, and I thought he was especially good at smothering then bagging Silva in the evening.

Go on son!

 

[Goughy]

He might have bowled decently (or, at least, better than he usually does), and better than the other two. He did not, however, bowl with any penetration whatsoever and had he got 0-for it'd have been absolutely no injustice whatsoever.

Anyone could have got the 3 wickets he got, he just happened to be bowling when the required poor strokes were played.

He bowled well below full pace today but it certainly wasnt powder-puff bowling. He regularly jammed the batsmen and he hit his length.

What you seem to fail to appreciate is that a bowler like Harmison with his height and action doesnt have to do much apart from hit that inbetween length.

Once you have the batsman unsure of when to come forward or back they can play false shots, get caught being slow getting into position on the backfoot or get trapped on the crease.

Repeatedly an area of fast bowling you overlook is length.

As a fast bowler, Id kill for Harmisons extra 3-4 inches in height but even someone shorter, like myself, looks to hit that inbetween length and put the batsman in unclear water as to whether to come forward or back. Hitting that length is more important than swing.

To call the balls he got wickets with 'nothing balls' is verging on the clueless.

 

[Richard]

What you seem to fail to appreciate is that a bowler like Harmison with his height and action doesnt have to do much apart from hit that inbetween length.

Once you have the batsman unsure of when to come forward or back they can play false shots, get caught being slow getting into position on the backfoot or get trapped on the crease.

Repeatedly an area of fast bowling you overlook is length.

As a fast bowler, Id kill for Harmisons extra 3-4 inches in height but even someone shorter, like myself, looks to hit that inbetween length and put the batsman in unclear water as to whether to come forward or back. Hitting that length is more important than swing.

That's the way you see it. I see it differently. I've seen far, far too many instances of batsmen having negligable trouble playing the right shot - not being at all unsettled purely by bowling a certain length - to make me believe it's mostly purely theoretical.

On the other hand, I've yet to see batsmen not troubled by bowlers who can make the ball swing. I might be a bowler of far lesser calibre than yourself, and you may have far more experience of batsmen being troubled by certain things when you are involved than I have, but I do believe my watching experience sufficient to spot required patterns.

 

[Goughy]

That's the way you see it. I see it differently. I've seen far, far too many instances of batsmen having negligable trouble playing the right shot - not being at all unsettled purely by bowling a certain length - to make me believe it's mostly purely theoretical.

Open your eyes. It happened today

Theoretical my arse. You just cant recognise it.

McGrath, Ambrose, Fraser to name a few did the same often

 

[Richard]

McGrath, Ambrose and Fraser were all very fine bowlers of the leg-cutter and off-cutter and also brilliant exponents of using the seam, none of which Harmison is.

It may have happened today to Chamara Silva, but I never said it never happens, ever. Just that it won't happen anywhere near often enough for a bowler to make a career of it.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Gotta feel sorry for Swann - guy was Eng's best in the ODI series and hasnt been given a chance despite no-one else looking remotely threatening once Hoggard was injured

Sidebottom was our best bowler in the Lankan ODIs for mine, but probably a fair point all the same. Top Cat made the point earlier in the thread that he thinks Vaughan doesn't really trust spin (Monty's performance thus far possibly justifying his reticence somewhat, admittedly) and I think he's onto something there. I'd have liked to see us play 5 bowlers today, but realistically it was never on.

Anyway, have now seen the three contentious decisions. Vandort's was a smeller, but the other two were marginal shouts. Didn't like Sangakarra's headshake tho, there's no way he could've known with that much certainty given snicko seemed to confirm a faint tickle. I've no problem with the benefit of the doubt going to the batsman, but I don't like selective walkers. I think they assert an almost sub-conscious pressure on the ump. Bloke's known as a walker and doesn't trudge off; the umpire has to be slightly influenced by that.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Anyway, FFS why did I have to go out last night? Looks like there was actually some decent in-match activity today.

I love you Richard.

 

[Richard]

Anyway, have now seen the three contentious decisions. Vandort's was a smeller, but the other two were marginal shouts. Didn't like Sangakarra's headshake tho, there's no way he could've known with that much certainty given snicko seemed to confirm a faint tickle. I've no problem with the benefit of the doubt going to the batsman, but I don't like selective walkers. I think they assert an almost sub-conscious pressure on the ump. Bloke's known as a walker and doesn't trudge off; the umpire has to be slightly influenced by that.

Shocking form, for mine. Has gone down in my estimation a bit after today.

 

[Richard]

I love you Richard.

Was actually one of the worst nights out I've had for a fair while in certain terms TBH, music was rubbish (didn't even play C'est La Vie, which he usually does ), place was so packed you could barely move - only reason it was good was 'cos there was guys I've not seen for months going.

But as I said - really rather annoying that my night out couldn't have coincided with most of the earlier days on this tour where there's been a sum-total of about 5 posts during play.

 

[Neil Pickup]

He might have bowled decently (or, at least, better than he usually does), and better than the other two. He did not, however, bowl with any penetration whatsoever and had he got 0-for it'd have been absolutely no injustice whatsoever.

Anyone could have got the 3 wickets he got, he just happened to be bowling when the required poor strokes were played.

Like McGrath and Pollock get all their wickets from luck, then. Seeing as that's as close as you'll ever come to praise, I'll take that.

 

[JBH001]

Pity I cant watch this test in NZ, although it seems Sky (in their wisdom) are showing the South Africa vs WI ODI's. Hmmmm...even a highlights package would be welcome. Anyway.

Didn't like Sangakarra's headshake tho, there's no way he could've known with that much certainty given snicko seemed to confirm a faint tickle. I've no problem with the benefit of the doubt going to the batsman, but I don't like selective walkers. I think they assert an almost sub-conscious pressure on the ump. Bloke's known as a walker and doesn't trudge off; the umpire has to be slightly influenced by that.

Wasnt Cowdrey another famous selective walker?

Dont have a problem with it, and always thought it a somewhat clever tactic.

Good on Sanga if he is a selective walker (bearing in mind that replays were inconclusive).

 

[Prince EWS]

I for one don't really think Harmison bowled very well at all. The ball he got Silva out with was a decent nut but I don't think he really built up any pressure or really looked very threatening at all throughout the day. He wasn't horrible, but he wasn't great either and I think his figures flattered him quite a bit.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Wasnt Cowdrey another famous selective walker?

Dont have a problem with it, and always thought it a somewhat clever tactic.

Good on Sanga if he is a selective walker (bearing in mind that replays were inconclusive).

Reputedly, I believe. I've heard both Bumble & Gower mention it during commentaries over the years, so he certainly had a rep for it, whether justified or not I don't know.

& I'm sure it has efficacy as a tactic, but wouldn't condone it as it's a form of gamesmanship for me. It's easy to tuck your bat under your arm for a meaty slash that carries to third slip, but if a batsman is going to stand for the more marginals their halos are tarnished somewhat.

 

[Mister Wright]

I thought Harmisson bolwed very well. At least his early spell before lunch, thought that was a beauty of a spell.

 

[Pup Clarke]

How can some people say Harmison bowled very well and others say he bowled pretty poor?. Seems very strange to me.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

only reason it was good was 'cos there was guys I've not seen for months going.