Swalec Stadium

[rivera213]

Have to disagree with you on Siddle, thought he bowled good lines in SA and deserved his wickets. Mcdonald hasn't been as bad as people like to make out either.

I think you're over-rating the English bowling a tad too, but there are a few unknowns in the Australian line up with Lee and Clark's comebacks from injury. It's also possible Clark's recent poor form was directly attributed to him carrying an injury. He could be a much better bowler fully fit again. Did fine without them in SA though so I think we can do well again if they're in some sort of reasonable form.

England supporters full of confidence is good to see, but after the Windies I'm not sure it's entirely warranted. It wasn't long ago they got bowled out for 51 in the West Indies and the WI team didn't look that interested in being in England. Australia will be I'd imagine.

I guess we'll see when The Ashes actually kick off, and one of us will be wrong
I certainly think it'll be fairly close.

He bowled good lines, but too many Saffie batsmen got out to deliveries which were bread and butter defensive shots or leaves in test cricket IMO. Don't know why, maybe they thought they could jump on him?

Some of the dismissals were shocking, I've posted a YT link at the bottom of this quote, see if you disagree with my analyses.

I don't think our bowling is great by any means, but this is a home series. I can't see us doing much in Australia 2010/11 unless we really improve (though if Broad really is bowling ca 88-93mph) then with his 6'5" frame and high trajectory, he may cause problems in Perth and Brisbane.

If we lose this series it will because the Oz batting is better than ours not that your bowling is better.

With Clark, a lot of his poor form was linked to his injury, but that's part of the problem. He is in his early-mid 30's and is coming off an injury. That's normally not good for bowlers and while pace has never been part of his armoury, there's nothing saying the injury wont keep occuring like with Ian Botham.

Lee can still get the pace up there but I can't see how, with his lack of prep, he's going to last the whole series (or even past the first couple of games).

Johnson is 1 of my favourite bowlers. If he doesn't get the most wickets in this series it'll be down to bad luck.

The 51 all out was a joke. In fairness we've bucked up a lot since then. It was probably the kick up the ass we needed at the time and I doubt we'll repeat that under Strauss' captaincy.

Post quoted for possible Greigy come August.

Ha ha.

But what If I turn out to be right?

The "Glenny"?

I'd prepare to be pissed-off TBH - our batsmen are far worse than South Africa's so there's no real reason to assume they'll outdo SA's efforts against Siddle.

And he has demonstrated his ability to swing the ball, albeit not yet bowled especially well via doing so.

I hope there's no way we will misjudge as many deliveries as the SA batsmen did.

If the SA batsmen got out to good deliveries then fine, but look at this video: YouTube - Siddle vs South Africa

1st wicket: VERY rash shot
2nd wicket: Playing wrong line (even with the ball angling in ffs!)
3rd wicket: Loose shot with no footwork (they'll aim to get Cook out like this though)
4th wicket: Complete misjudgement. After half a spell I could've told the batsmen the ball angles in!
5th: As above- MacKenzie isn't test level IMO.
6th: 1 of the worst shots I've seen to a ball like that.
7th: Nice ball, but a genuine batsmen I'm sure would've been earlier on it. Walked across his stumps and completely misjudged the length/bounce.
8th: Tailender's shot
9th: Almost as bad as wicket 6 and Boucher knows it.
10th: Boucher- wtf mate? Very poor shot choice form someone who is usually very good.
11th: Can't play that shot to that ball. Schoolboy stuff.
12th: Harris again. Complete misjudgement.

Ironically, Siddle's best stuff (not in the vid) didn't take wickets so he deserved a bit of luck.

Whether he will swing the ball well in England or not obviously remains to be seen. Some of those deliveries (and that he bowled against SA in general) were nicely angled in, but our wickets wont be as fast or bouncy as in SA & Australia which will null some of his danger and I hope our shot selection will be more, er... selective.

Strauss doesn't normally flap around, Cook may get out like Graeme Smith did- playing at a wide slower delivery with no footwork, though he seemed to have sorted his front-foot problems to a degree and played some nice shots in his century vs WI.

Both Siddle and JOhnson are better against RH batsmen and both our openers are LH, so hopefully they'll put on some big partnerships.

 

[Goughy]

YouTube - Siddle vs South Africa.

1- End of innings shot. Pretty meaningless wicket
2- Great length and movement
3. Loose shot though we dont know how Smith was set up.
4. Great length
5. Great length and movement
6- Swing and miss. Didnt get forward
7- Poor shot trapped on crease
8- Intimidated a tailender
9. Full and straight. Swing and a miss
10- Lucky with a full toss
11. Typical AB, playing a cut off the front foot but got the length wrong
12. Great length. Trapped on crease. Kept low though.

He clearly hits a length that people find hard to get forward to and they get trapped. Typical of someone that isnt particularly tall, nips it in off the seam and is a shade quicker than he looks.

I wrote this after seeing the concept of Richard's post but not reading the descriptions. Interested to see how they differ or are similar.

 

[Smith]

Generally referred to as green-top bullies. Well, not entirely I don't think - he's already demonstrated that he can perform on non-seamers - but it's hardly unusual for a seam-bowler to be far, far better on green wickets than bare ones.

We'll wait and see how Clark's career pans-out but I've always said that those looking for him to be the next McGrath were asking far too much. I don't think anyone should really doubt that he has plenty to offer in Test cricket though - plenty.

Ahem, you forget the Sahara desertesque difference between his averages on greentops and Kiera Knigtleys.

 

[rivera213]

1- End of innings shot. Pretty meaningless wicket
2- Great length and movement
3. Loose shot though we dont know how Smith was set up.
4. Great length
5. Great length and movement
6- Swing and miss. Didnt get forward
7- Poor shot trapped on crease
8- Intimidated a tailender
9. Full and straight. Swing and a miss
10- Lucky with a full toss
11. Typical AB, playing a cut off the front foot but got the length wrong
12. Great length. Trapped on crease. Kept low though.

He clearly hits a length that people find hard to get forward to and they get trapped. Typical of someone that isnt particularly tall, nips it in off the seam and is a shade quicker than he looks.

I wrote this after seeing the concept of Richard's post but not reading the descriptions. Interested to see how they differ or are similar.

Are you Peter Siddle by any chance? lol

The amount of movement for those wickets should be countered by test level batsmen especially since the angle to the right hander was almost always coming in. There's absolutely no way the SA team should've been done by length and minimal movement like they were. Shocking display of batting.

If it was Waqar Younis in the early to mid 90's then sure, but Siddle doesn't move the ball anywhere near as much- certainly not enough to acount for the crappy judgement shown by Neil MacKenzie who I'm not a fan of at all at test level.

If we bat that poorly, we don't deserve to win a match let alone the series.

Picking line and length and playing accordingly is schoolboy stuff. If you get the basics wrong, you deserve to be gotten out.

 

[Goughy]

Picking line and length and playing accordingly is schoolboy stuff. If you get the basics wrong, you deserve to be gotten out.

That inbetween length is the key to a bowler like Siddle. Guys playing back when they could be forward. It isnt schoolboy stuff in the slightest, its key at all levels to seam/fast bowling (swing is a little different)

 

[Richard]

Ha ha.

But what If I turn out to be right?

The "Glenny"?

Marsh-Lillee, it's called. I guess you know where the name is derived from.

I hope there's no way we will misjudge as many deliveries as the SA batsmen did.

You can surely see that that's not likely though - SA's batsmen are better than ours, thus ours are likely to make more mistakes than they did.

 

[rivera213]

Marsh-Lillee, it's called. I guess you know where the name is derived from.

I think I've ehard of those 2.

You can surely see that that's not likely though - SA's batsmen are better than ours, thus ours are likely to make more mistakes than they did.

That was not the typical SA batting performance (in the home series vs Australia). I can't see them making as many mistakes in another series. That really was the worst shot selections & decision making I've ever seen from this group of Saffie batsmen.

I can't see our batsmen making THAT many mistakes- regardless of how good we are in comparison. Some of the batting was club level.

I agree that if you take a 2-year period for example, we will make more errors in the batting department than SA but in the home series against Australia, they made as many mistakes as they normally make in a whole year (10-12 tests) in just 3 games.

 

[Richard]

I think I've ehard of those 2.

And their - successful - acceptance of odds of 500 to 1 against their own team at Headingley in 1981?

That was not the typical SA batting performance (in the home series vs Australia). I can't see them making as many mistakes in another series. That really was the worst shot selections & decision making I've ever seen from this group of Saffie batsmen.

I can't see our batsmen making THAT many mistakes- regardless of how good we are in comparison. Some of the batting was club level.

I agree that if you take a 2-year period for example, we will make more errors in the batting department than SA but in the home series against Australia, they made as many mistakes as they normally make in a whole year (10-12 tests) in just 3 games.

Well it remains to be seen, and I can't say I watched that series with enough attention-to-detail to be able to say for sure, but some (not me I'd add) would label that an extraordinary claim. I've made similar-ish claims in the past and have had experience of such a thing.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Are you Peter Siddle by any chance? lol

The amount of movement for those wickets should be countered by test level batsmen especially since the angle to the right hander was almost always coming in. There's absolutely no way the SA team should've been done by length and minimal movement like they were. Shocking display of batting.

If it was Waqar Younis in the early to mid 90's then sure, but Siddle doesn't move the ball anywhere near as much- certainly not enough to acount for the crappy judgement shown by Neil MacKenzie who I'm not a fan of at all at test level.

If we bat that poorly, we don't deserve to win a match let alone the series.

Picking line and length and playing accordingly is schoolboy stuff. If you get the basics wrong, you deserve to be gotten out.

The ball to McKenzie moved in quite a bit, so he may have been initially thinking he'd leave it. You don't have to move it a foot to be effective...half the width of the bat is plenty. You're talking about a ball moving at 140kph, so the batsmen don't have a lot of time to counter good length and movement. If it moves off a good length there's a fair chance they'll either miss it or get an edge, just like we saw in the video with Siddle getting a number of edges.

You can put it down to poor batting, but you don't continually get similar results without being able to do something with the ball and being decent. In my opinion, South africa were extremely lucky to get away with being behind in the first innings in the tests in Australia. If the bowling attack was more settled as it is to an extent now I think the result could have been different. That's by-the-by though and SA did very well to win from the positions they found themselves in.

Picking the right length isn't schoolboy stuff if you bowl on a good length and move it around. If you can hit an area short of a length and do a little with the ball it makes it hard for the batsman with only a short amount of time to decide what to do. Siddle makes batsmen play and he has the ability to generate movement. He's also right up there to the tailenders meaning when they miss he hits. I think he'll go well in England.

Loved the reaction of the batsman in the 9th dismissal (Steyn!?) by the way. Was funny to see him swearing after taking a swing and missing

 

[Top_Cat]

Are you Peter Siddle by any chance? lol

The amount of movement for those wickets should be countered by test level batsmen especially since the angle to the right hander was almost always coming in. There's absolutely no way the SA team should've been done by length and minimal movement like they were. Shocking display of batting.

If it was Waqar Younis in the early to mid 90's then sure, but Siddle doesn't move the ball anywhere near as much- certainly not enough to acount for the crappy judgement shown by Neil MacKenzie who I'm not a fan of at all at test level.

If we bat that poorly, we don't deserve to win a match let alone the series.

Picking line and length and playing accordingly is schoolboy stuff. If you get the basics wrong, you deserve to be gotten out.

You're only taking into account sideways movement. Siddle's focus is on hitting the seam which, especially at pace, can be far tougher to play. Just because a ball doesn't swing/cut left or right =! no movement. As Goughy said, the key to Siddle's bowling is his length and is far more difficult to play than it appears. Someone who nails the so-called 'in-between' length is going to take Test wickets. Someone who does that and combines it with a little movement either way is on the way to being a great of the game (Glenn McGrath, take a bow).

 

[Richard]

You're only taking into account sideways movement.

Apart from up-and-down movement (ie, uneven bounce), which no bowler however skillful can manufacture, it's purely down to whether the pitch is true or indifferent, what other movement is there?

As Jack Iverson once said: "The ball can only do three things - break (in a seamer's case seam\swing) to the left, break to the right, or go straight on. It can't disappear or explode."

 

[Son Of Coco]

Apart from up-and-down movement (ie, uneven bounce), which no bowler however skillful can manufacture, it's purely down to whether the pitch is true or indifferent, what other movement is there?

As Jack Iverson once said: "The ball can only do three things - break (in a seamer's case seam\swing) to the left, break to the right, or go straight on. It can't disappear or explode."

It will bounce a bit more if it hits the seam though on occasions.

 

[Richard]

I've yet to see any real demonstration of notable extra bounce when a ball hits the seam as opposed to the leather, but even if there was - is it really notable enough to go under the bat \ hit the glove and carry to a close fielder?

Not a chance.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I've yet to see any real demonstration of notable extra bounce when a ball hits the seam as opposed to the leather, but even if there was - is it really notable enough to go under the bat \ hit the glove and carry to a close fielder?

Not a chance.

Well, there's the final word.

Seen it and done it, but experience counts far less than narcissism.

 

[Richard]

Nah.

I have experience as well - it just leads me to a different conclusion to you. Inexperience =| different experience.

 

[Top_Cat]

Might wanna ask some good bowlers about seam movement. Only on the flattest of flat decks do good ones not extract something.

And Iverson was a bushie spinner who was rubbish at everything else cricket-related. As if he'd know anything about pace bowling!

 

[Uppercut]

Dicko- ever bowled cross-seam? The ball most certainly bounces differently according to what part of the ball it lands on.

 

[Richard]

I've tried it a handful of times in nets as a novelty thing. Yet to really look seriously into it.

Never gave it the remotest of thought until last summer as I'd never seen anyone else doing it.

 

[Richard]

Might wanna ask some good bowlers about seam movement. Only on the flattest of flat decks do good ones not extract something.

I'm aware of this. However, a little bit of variance in bounce (maybe a few cm for a short ball and a few mm for a full one) is not going to produce any difficulty, because all that'll do is hit high on the splice rather than slightly high on the splice.

Sideways movement of course is a different matter but even there a degree or two makes no difference, same way massive amounts of movement are not often too useful because they just result in a play-and-miss.

And Iverson was a bushie spinner who was rubbish at everything else cricket-related. As if he'd know anything about pace bowling!

I'm sure quite a few other people have said the same thing with less wryness.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Might wanna ask some good bowlers about seam movement. Only on the flattest of flat decks do good ones not extract something.

And Iverson was a bushie spinner who was rubbish at everything else cricket-related. As if he'd know anything about pace bowling!

Yeah, that was going to be my next comment. I don't want to sound conceited Rich, but I would go as far as to venture I'm a better bowler than you by quite a margin. Not good enough to play FC or Tests though I'll admit. Nowhere near it. I was good at hitting the seam though and moving it around and have had a large number of deliveries jump off the seam.

As someone else has since mentioned, the ball reacts different off the seam and the flat part of the leather. A very good bowler I played with once taught me to bowl the leg-cutter by rolling my fingers down the inside of the ball as I delivered it (kind of slightly split grip with one finger down the seam and the other on the leather so they automatically rolled down the inside of the ball). His reasoning for bowling it this way was that if it hit the seam you had your legcutter, and if it didn't you had one that kept a bit low and skidded through. (The reason I had to bowl it like this was my natural delivery, and wrist position, was an off cutter). The legcutter used to take off a bit too, very effective delivery...if anyone actually got near it haha

Now, he may have had no idea what he was talking about. But he was right and it worked beautifully.