The Road to the 2009 Ashes

[DaRick]

Adams was just noted for his defensiveness, really. He could certainly bat, though, and it was generally considered very tough for spinners to get him out. Not as good against spin as Lara (or Chanderpaul) of course, but his wicket wasn't one a spinner would particularly fancy their chances of getting.

Even during the second half of his career?

True, I guess. He's been woeful of late, but he actually started-off OK.

Well, he did look very promising when he toured Australia in 2005.

Nah, of course all slow bowlers try to turn the ball, but sometimes they can't spin it enough to do so.

Yeah, you're right, I suppose. If they can impart some revolutions, though, it would still be distinct from 'Right Arm Slow' bowling. IMO, the arm ball would be the spinner's equivalent to a non-deviating 'Right Arm Slow' delivery.

The point is that weakness against a spinner who wasn't turning the ball would simply be weakness against the ball bowled at 50mph, which would be odd TSTL.

Assuming that there are no revolutions on the ball, wouldn't it demonstrate a weakness against the arm ball, as I opined above?

First, Second, Third Tests in West Indies, Third and Fourth Tests in England.

 

[pasag]

Next year, can we have some new English commentators?

I mean, we get these posters from overseas telling us how dire Healy, Lawry et al are over here, but fair dinkum, Gower and even Lloyd are cures for insomnia. Their routine with each other is as tired as I feel after year's work, while Botham and Hussain are as impartial as one of those coaches of 6 year old soccer teams whose own kid gets man of the match each week.
All opinion of course, but I'd have some new talent with Athers and Holding, and limit Lloyd to just telling some self-deprecating tale at lunch (which is what he spends all day doing now anyway as he seems to think we turn a test match on to hear him talk about getting hit inthe cobblers by Thommo again), and throw subtitles on for him, coz his accent is that thick you canna understand a word the blighter says.
Botham should ditch commentary and put on a short skirt and pom poms, he's that much a cheer leader for England (and he's entitled to be, my point is it detracts from his commentary imo, and there can't be much doubt the bloke knows his cricket), and Nasser just strikes me as someone who's still bitter he never got to skipper the side until 05 and have a crack at winning the Ashes.
Yes Bumble, you were good for a giggle, but I fear that like skull over here, it's all getting a bit tired.

Only saw this because of the awards thread. Congrats but I couldn't disagree more, the Sky team are by far the best in the world. Gower, Lloyd, Hussain and Atherton as a group are a treat to listen to and one of the real highlights of watching cricket in England, for me anyways.

 

[zaremba]

the Sky team are by far the best in the world.

I've not watched much cricket away from England but if what you say is true then there must be some shockingly dire commentary teams in the rest of the world.

The Sky team is dominated by Botham who casts a long shadow over the commentary. It's all about being "mates with Beefy". Proper analysis and insight are invariably lacking (with the occasional exception of Hussain).

The overall standard is desperately poor and Sky provides a terribly graphic example of why former star players often make low-grade commentators. Take Gower and Botham: both were wonderful, richly talented players but as commentators rarely impart any knowledge or insight to their viewers.

 

[pasag]

I've not watched much cricket away from England but if what you say is true then there must be some shockingly dire commentary teams in the rest of the world.

The Sky team is dominated by Botham who casts a long shadow over the commentary. It's all about being "mates with Beefy". Proper analysis and insight are invariably lacking (with the occasional exception of Hussain).

The overall standard is desperately poor and Sky provides a terribly graphic example of why former star players often make low-grade commentators. Take Gower and Botham: both were wonderful, richly talented players but as commentators rarely impart any knowledge or insight to their viewers.

Gower is a top presenter and gives the whole thing some serious class. I agree though Botham isn't great and cricket needs broadcasters and trained TV men before ex-sports stars.

Here's a good article from Osman Samiuddin on it - http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/354158.html

 

[Richard]

Even during the second half of his career?

Yeah, even so. I'm not entirely sure of exact data, but I'd bet there weren't all that many spinners who dismissed him very often.

Easy enough to have a look, mind.

Assuming that there are no revolutions on the ball, wouldn't it demonstrate a weakness against the arm ball, as I opined above?

A weakness against the arm-ball, for mine, is basically the inability to pick it as distinct from the ball that turns. If the ball isn't turning and the batsmen are still having problems, it's (for mine) simply weakness against the ball bowled slowly. If the stock-ball is turning and the arm-ball (the variation that doesn't) is causing problems, then that'd be more like it.

As I said - West Indies, in the Lord's Test at least, simply couldn't play the ball which didn't turn. It wasn't like they were failing to pick the arm-ball - they simply kept playing for turn which was never there.

 

[Richard]

Gower is a top presenter and gives the whole thing some serious class. I agree though Botham isn't great and cricket needs broadcasters and trained TV men before ex-sports stars.

Here's a good article from Osman Samiuddin on it - http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/354158.html

Haha, good lord.

Thank god I don't like Twenty20, else I'd be outraged at some of the stuff that was apparently being done in the IPL.

 

[zaremba]

Gower is a top presenter and gives the whole thing some serious class.

I know that quite a lot of people think this but I just can't see it myself.

I find his interviews shallow and bland. Once you pick up on his irritating habits he can be seriously irritating. Here's a few:

- saying "indeed" after everything his interviewee has said;
- saying "again" when introducing each point he's trying to make;
- losing his thread so that most of his arguments are only half-made;
- failing to press on with an interview or discussion just when it's about to get interesting;
- saying "GARN" all the time (he means "gone").

For me, the pity is that he was such a great player that you imagine he must have a huge amount of knowledge to pass on. But he doesn't.

In fairness, though, I suppose he's better than Peter West and less irritating than Mark Nicholas.

 

[pasag]

I know that quite a lot of people think this but I just can't see it myself.

I find his interviews shallow and bland. Once you pick up on his irritating habits he can be seriously irritating. Here's a few:

- saying "indeed" after everything his interviewee has said;
- saying "again" when introducing each point he's trying to make;
- losing his thread so that most of his arguments are only half-made;
- failing to press on with an interview or discussion just when it's about to get interesting;
- saying "GARN" all the time (he means "gone").

For me, the pity is that he was such a great player that you imagine he must have a huge amount of knowledge to pass on. But he doesn't.

In fairness, though, I suppose he's better than Peter West and less irritating than Mark Nicholas.

Honestly though, these are tiny, tiny things compared to the crap that goes in cricket commentating these days.

 

[DaRick]

Yeah, even so. I'm not entirely sure of exact data, but I'd bet there weren't all that many spinners who dismissed him very often.

Easy enough to have a look, mind.

You're right; pacemen seemed to have a greater hold on him than spinners (over his whole career, not just the second half).

A weakness against the arm-ball, for mine, is basically the inability to pick it as distinct from the ball that turns. If the ball isn't turning and the batsmen are still having problems, it's (for mine) simply weakness against the ball bowled slowly.

The thing is though, from experience, the arm ball tends to go straight on with the arm. If you impart any revoultions on the ball, it is unlikely to do so by as much. It's not like every delivery, on a non-turner, is like an arm ball.

As I said - West Indies, in the Lord's Test at least, simply couldn't play the ball which didn't turn. It wasn't like they were failing to pick the arm-ball - they simply kept playing for turn which was never there.

It seems that I'm not the only person that disagrees with you on that count.

Andrew McGlashan makes reference to his use of the arm ball when tricking the West Indian batsmen.

Sorry for taking so long to respond to this, BTW. I just didn't see your response.

 

[The Masterplan]

I agree though Botham isn't great

You don't say.. I'd rather have my dog commentating than Beefy

 

[The Masterplan]

...On the subject of commentators though how many times does Nasser Hussein say..

''Bowled him!.. full, and straight...''

He seems to say it every time a wicket falls!!...

 

[GIMH]

Even when it's caught at fine leg?

 

[Richard]

The thing is though, from experience, the arm ball tends to go straight on with the arm. If you impart any revoultions on the ball, it is unlikely to do so by as much. It's not like every delivery, on a non-turner, is like an arm ball.

True. But the difference is minimal. If a fullish ball goes from turning 10 degrees to turning 0 degrees, it will still hit fairly comfortably on the face of the bat provided the correct line is played.

It seems that I'm not the only person that disagrees with you on that count.

Andrew McGlashan makes reference to his use of the arm ball when tricking the West Indian batsmen.

No, you're right, I've heard people say what you're saying before. TBH, I think many people are just seeking to give credit where it's not due - the "see the figures in the scorebook and try to find a way to justify why the player deserved them" effect. (Note: not everyone is of this nature)

MSP simply virtually never turned a ball that game. I lost count of the number of batsmen who were hit on the pads (not always given out BTW) that game by playing the break ball for turn, which just wasn't there. I'm not sure McGlashan isn't just imagining arm-balls because that way he can give MSP the credit which, frankly, most people want to give him, because he's so popular.

Sorry for taking so long to respond to this, BTW. I just didn't see your response.

NP.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Gower is a top presenter and gives the whole thing some serious class. I agree though Botham isn't great and cricket needs broadcasters and trained TV men before ex-sports stars.

Gower and Botham are two peas in a pod. Neither particularly enjoys watching cricket but it's the only thing they can do to earn a living.

 

[zaremba]

Gower and Botham are two peas in a pod. Neither particularly enjoys watching cricket but it's the only thing they can do to earn a living.

You have put your finger on it.

During the last Test Botham was asked by one of his simpering lackeys (Hussain I think) - "So Beefy, have you watched more cricket or golf during this match?". "Golf, definitely" was Botham's proud reply. Well thanks a buch, Beefy, you utter cretin, for caring so much about the match which we've paid to watch, and which you've been paid to analyse.

 

[Uppercut]

You have put your finger on it.

During the last Test Botham was asked by one of his simpering lackeys (Hussain I think) - "So Beefy, have you watched more cricket or golf during this match?". "Golf, definitely" was Botham's proud reply. Well thanks a buch, Beefy, you utter cretin, for caring so much about the match which we've paid to watch, and which you've been paid to analyse.

I'm going to leap to Botham's defence, as i usually do, because i feel he simply knows more about the game than most other English commentators. He's the least inclined to let wanting England to win cloud his judgement. But they're all guilty of overrating England, just look at how they talk about Stuart Broad's bowling for an example.

 

[zaremba]

Botham should know more about the game than any of the others. But if he does, he doesn't seem to want to let on to the rest of us. He was (at one stage) a truly great swing bowler. When has he ever imparted any of his knowledge about swing bowling? He either can't or won't. Very much like Gower (and Botham himself) re batting technique. I rather suspect it all came too easily to them, and this is why the likes of Simon Hughes make far better commentators with regard to the technical side of the game.

Besides which, he casts a huge blokeish shadow over the entire commentary team and makes them want to behave like overgrown schoolboys just like him.

 

[GIMH]

They do all love Broad it must be said

 

[zaremba]

I suppose they're mates with his dad

 

[zaremba]

People see me, and they see the suit, and they go: 'You're not fooling anyone', they know I'm rock and roll through and through. But you know that old thing, "live fast, die young"? Not my way. Live fast, sure, live too bloody fast sometimes, but die young? Die old. That's the way - not orthodox, I don't live by "the rules" you know. And if there's one other person who's influenced me in that way I think, someone who is a maverick, someone who does that (puts middle finger up) to the system, then, it's Ian Botham. Because Beefy will happily say 'that's what I think of your selection policy (jerks fist about), yes I've hit the odd copper, yes I've enjoyed the old doobie, but will you piss off and leave me alone, I'm walking to John o' Groats for some spastics.