***Official*** South Africa in England

[Richard]

If it moves more before it reaches the batsmen, isnt that more swing? My point though is that the slower you bowl, the more likely you are to swing it. Its almost like the inverse of reverse swing, even though Jones has claimed that he has been able to get the ball to reverse at 65mph. Yes the batsmen will be able to negate swing if they had more time to react to it or the ball starts to swing earlier and that is essentially why Bicknell would probably have never cut it at the test match level. Thats not a mark against bicknell who did his job admirably against SA that summer but IMO his pace meant that he was always likely to swing the ball.

According to Chris Pringle (NZ bowler circa 1990/91) Martin Crowe and Mark Greatbatch could get the ball to reverse-swing at 60mph or whatever speed they bowled - and lots.

The amount of swing depends (apart obviously from the condition of the ball) overwhelmingly on the seam position. Pace is not a particularly important criteria for mine - apart from the fact that obviously the ball will be in the air longer at 75mph than it will at 90mph so will therefore move a bit more. If your seam position is good, you'll swing the ball at 90mph and plenty, and conventionally and reverse as long as the ball is in the right condition - Malcolm Marshall, Waqar Younis (of 1990/91-1994/95) and Brett Lee (of the last 6 months) being three examples of very quick bowlers who were also masters of swinging the ball, and lost nothing in amount of swing compared to slower merchants.

 

[Prince EWS]

If it moves more before it reaches the batsmen, isnt that more swing?

No, IMO. It swings the same amount but appears to swing more because it starts swinging earlier. The new angle the ball is taken on creates more movement if the ball changes line earlier. You haven't actually created more swing as such though.

 

[Richard]

Just out of interest, given how much you harp on about it regarding other English summers(), what were the balls like in 2003? Did they offer much swing to anyone? I think I remember a pretty useful spell of swing bowling by Kallis in that series actually, but I don't remember anyone doing it consistently.

As tec sort of alluded to, it swung quite a bit at Headingley for most bowlers, including James Kirtley and Dewald Pretorious. But in all the other Tests that summer, 2003 was no different to any year 2001-2006 - swing was extremely difficult to get at most grounds under most circumstances.

That's not, BTW, to say the ball never swung at all for anyone those 6 summers, but bowlers commented early in 2001 how relatively speaking difficult it was to get the swing you normally would; and in 2007 people talked at length about the fact it was really doing plenty very early on. Dominic Cork really struggled in 2001 (having just come back from a bad back injury, admittedly) and Ryan Sidebottom of course stepped-up to the plate in 2007. Just two of the best examples.

As regarding Anderson, too, one thing he's certainly improved on in recent times in making sure he takes advantage when conditions suit. When conditions don't suit him he can vary from decent to absolutely pathetic but I can't remember the last time the ball was swinging consistently for him/other bowlers in a Test and he completely wasted it.

I can - happened in the Second Test in NZ, after his opening spell. Didn't really show, as he still got 4-115 or something. But the ball swung, and the only reason he got wickets was through poor strokes, not the swinging ball.

I think the most recent sea-change in Anderson is more to do with the fact that he's had better-quality balls in recent times than he did less recently in his career TBH.

 

[Richard]

Anyway another pretty decent day for the SAffers - Amla piles-up another huge score (161 from 233 this time), Prince ends the day 104* to properly stamp his mark on the tour. Kallis out for 2, which is a bit of a shame, as I'd have liked him to have spent some time at the crease following that whack on the elbow. Biggest disappointment is Smith only getting 35 here though - there was a massive score just begging to be taken and he - like Kallis - gets out to Alan Richardson.

Annoyed Christopher Peploe hasn't played this game mind - wonder if he's going to play again this season. Yeah, it's good for Lawson to get a game, but this is a small ground and it's an international batting-line-up - hardly the sort of thing a young wristspinner needs. And this is a prime example of a county using one of another's rather than one of their own. Also rather surprised this is Richardson's first appearance of the season, given it was only last winter he was an England A tourist. Has he been injured? EDIT: apparently he has.

And who on Earth is this Burton fellow? Apparently he's on his 7th county and he's gone for 97 off 23 with 12 no-balls, and despite all this he's still bowled more overs than anyone else. Wouldn't Robbie Williams have been a better choice?

 

[stumpski]

Anyway another pretty decent day for the SAffers - Amla piles-up another huge score (161 from 233 this time), Prince ends the day 104* to properly stamp his mark on the tour. Kallis out for 2, which is a bit of a shame, as I'd have liked him to have spent some time at the crease following that whack on the elbow. Biggest disappointment is Smith only getting 35 here though - there was a massive score just begging to be taken and he - like Kallis - gets out to Alan Richardson.

Annoyed Christopher Peploe hasn't played this game mind - wonder if he's going to play again this season. Yeah, it's good for Lawson to get a game, but this is a small ground and it's an international batting-line-up - hardly the sort of thing a young wristspinner needs. And this is a prime example of a county using one of another's rather than one of their own. Also rather surprised this is Richardson's first appearance of the season, given it was only last winter he was an England A tourist. Has he been injured? EDIT: apparently he has.

And who on Earth is this Burton fellow? Apparently he's on his 7th county and he's gone for 97 off 23 with 12 no-balls, and despite all this he's still bowled more overs than anyone else. Wouldn't Robbie Williams have been a better choice?

Even Gary Barlow couldn't have done any worse tbh.

And I thought Peploe had left the club, once they signed Kartik he was never going to get much of a run anyway.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

22 years and hardly a chance for Burton so far. I wouldn't judge him until I know the circumstances surrounding his career to date. ITSTL.

 

[Richard]

Even Gary Barlow couldn't have done any worse tbh.

And I thought Peploe had left the club, once they signed Kartik he was never going to get much of a run anyway.

Apparently Kartik is injured currently. You thought Peploe had left the club after last season, you told me that earlier this year. But no, he took 2-15 in some game earlier this season so currently has a 2008-ly average of 7.50. Robbie Williams, having taken 4-39, averages 9.75.

And I was rather hoping both might play this game so Amla and co might give 'em a whack and push those averages up... but never mind.

BTW, I don't know whether to be impressed or ashamed that someone of your vintage knows Take That members' names.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

What's the grudge against Williams about? Hate his namesake?

 

[Richard]

Nah, just irritates me when some upstart student waltzes into a game (which somehow apparently deserves First-Class status) against an underprepared county on a tricky batting pitch and ends-up with one of the season's best averages. Happens far more years than not.

Not a massive Robbie Williams (musical) fan FTR, but can happily listen to a few of his earlier pieces and be reminded of good times. Like so many of our generation in this country.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Maybe he's a good bowler though...

 

[Richard]

If he is, then he should damn well be getting a chance to show it ahead of some of these excuses for bowlers Middlesex are sending out this season.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Quite possibly a full-time student and part-time cricketer.

 

[Richard]

You're a full-time student... you've noticed how students, like, y'know... get holidays at this time of year? Thus freeing them up to play cricket for a county if the county picks them.

 

[Langeveldt]

Slightly worried about our practices being a bit easy? Or are we really that strong?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

You're a full-time student... you've noticed how students, like, y'know... get holidays at this time of year? Thus freeing them up to play cricket for a county if the county picks them.

Maybe he's on vacation outside of England. Maybe he's a good bowler who doesn't want a career in cricket. Maybe he's injured.

 

[tooextracool]

TBH I don't know what more he has to do to convince you. He's never going to repeat 2002 and 2002/03 (not that those series were anywhere near as good as the number of let-offs he had made them look, but he still made several chanceless massive scores, yes). Vaughan in 2007, against both teams, played well. Same against NZ in the opening series of this summer. No-one is going to score 70 or 80 + every time they come to the crease. Vaughan has made the odd massive score and the odd other important contribution (at least one of which was a not-out). He's done absolutely fine for me, and I'd not remotely question his place based on his non-opening form in the last year.

Its just not about numbers and averages. Your theory behind doing well is essentially, oh he averaged 40+ in the series hence he did well. That is essentially the Mike Atherton way of looking at it, as he constantly suggests in his autobiography that hisown performance in certain series were good because he averaged 40 odd without analysing in depth into when and where his performances came in during the series. Even in his last series against NZ, Vaughan averaged 50 odd but what good is it if you average 50 odd by scoring a century and failing 3 times? scoring 30s and 40s are simply not good enough in test match cricket and nothing is going to change my view on that. Vaughan essentially has been doing this for not just the last year since his return, one can look back at his record all the way since he has taken over the captaincy and it has been exactly the same. Now i can understand if he had 1-2 series where he was prolific and then had series like these where he scored a century and did sod all for the rest of the series, but the fact is Vaughan hasnt had a consistent series since the Ashes 2002/03. Im not saying drop him because his captaincy is worth his place in the side, but one needs to look at his performances recently with an unbiased eye on statistics to realize that he hasnt been exactly doing particularly brilliantly.

 

[tooextracool]

The amount of swing depends (apart obviously from the condition of the ball) overwhelmingly on the seam position. Pace is not a particularly important criteria for mine - apart from the fact that obviously the ball will be in the air longer at 75mph than it will at 90mph so will therefore move a bit more. If your seam position is good, you'll swing the ball at 90mph and plenty, and conventionally and reverse as long as the ball is in the right condition - Malcolm Marshall, Waqar Younis (of 1990/91-1994/95) and Brett Lee (of the last 6 months) being three examples of very quick bowlers who were also masters of swinging the ball, and lost nothing in amount of swing compared to slower merchants.

Waqar Younis was hardly the best conventional swinger of the ball. Yes he did bowl outswingers occasionally, but he didnt do it with the consistency as his own bowling partner Wasim Akram. I dont know how fast Marshall bowled given that they were no real accurate speedometers at the time, and havent watched much of him except on highlight reels so Im not going to comment on him. For Lee read Waqar.

IMO its a lot harder to swing the ball conventionally at 90mph than it is to do so at 80 mph. Yes some bowlers have been able to do it at 90mph such as Allan Donald and Darren Gough occasionally but there is no coincidence that most bowlers bowl a yard or 2 slower when the ball is swinging and its not just to be more accurate. For example, at the Oval in 2005, Flintoff was consistently bowling in the low 80s to get as much conventional swing if not for anything else. I dont dispute that bowlers like Lee can swing the ball but the bottom line is they will never be able to swing the ball as consistently or as far as Bicknell and Sidebottom can in certain conditions.

 

[tooextracool]

As tec sort of alluded to, it swung quite a bit at Headingley for most bowlers, including James Kirtley and Dewald Pretorious.

Wasnt/isnt Pretorious a swing bowler anyways?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Wasnt/isnt Pretorious a swing bowler anyways?

Above all he was a substandard, which I presume to be Richard's point.

 

[tooextracool]

Above all he was a substandard, which I presume to be Richard's point.

Well if someone is a swing bowler (no matter how substandard), it shouldnt exactly be a 'Look its the Pope' surprise that he managed to swing a ball at Headingly.