Swalec Stadium

[Son Of Coco]

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.

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

I assure you Richard, one that takes off from a good length will do two things, it'll hit a lot higher than the splice and it'll make the batsman **** himself. The third thing it might possibly do is get the edge as the batsman tries to get his bat out of the way.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The other factor is, how often do batsmen make contact with the ball when their bat is perpendicular to the ground; it's more often than not on some sort of angle. Thus, that extra bounce can result in edges.

 

[Son Of Coco]

The other factor is, how often do batsmen make contact with the ball when their bat is perpendicular to the ground; it's more often than not on some sort of angle. Thus, that extra bounce can result in edges.

Yeah exactly. Although the batsman in that 'Test Match' table-top game almost always has his bat perpendicular to the ground. Never managed to get extra bounce with the bowler either

 

[vic_orthdox]

Using that game, though, was pretty easy to tell between a chance and a half-chance... *hides*

 

[Goughy]

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.

I smell a ...... BOWL-OFF

 

[rivera213]

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

Ha ha, yep.

Though IIRC, nothing was done about it.

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.

You wont continually get results over a whole career, but it's possible over a short period such as a single series.

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.

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).

Well, sideways movement accounts for appearing to play the wrong line. Waqar Younis was king at this, but Siddle didn't really swing the ball (and the ball didn't move enough IAH) to account for playing completely the wrong line. Having said that, I don't reckon McKenzie at test level at all.

If you hit the seam, it should bounce HIGHER than hitting the side and a number of those wicket taking deliveries were lower than the bat and there were no pitch demons which resulted in such. The conclusion I come to is that it has to be down to misjudgement by the SA batsmen. If the ball were to bounce from back of a length and hit the gloves then sure, but to misjudge the ball when in fact it was low is really poor batting IMHO.

Today with the number of bowling machines and scouting reports, analysis etc our batsmen would've certainly practiced against Siddle's length. Some of the SA problems maybe down to ignorance of the bowler, but I still think some of those were shocking decision.

If Siddle can swing the ball in England and bowl a straightish line while doing so then he'll be successful, but if he bowls like he did against SA, I can't see him being as successful.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I smell a ...... BOWL-OFF

Haha, I think the odds are weighed in my favour. None of the guys here have ever played cricket before. Although there's no guarantee I'd hit the stumps.

You're not invited by the way.

Edit: Just in case anyone misinterprets, by 'here' I mean South Korea...not the forum.

 

[Goughy]

Haha, I think the odds are weighed in my favour. None of the guys here have ever played cricket before. Although there's no guarantee I'd hit the stumps.

You're not invited by the way.

Id be a good invite. I doubt Id hit the stumps either

 

[Son Of Coco]

You wont continually get results over a whole career, but it's possible over a short period such as a single series.

Well, sideways movement accounts for appearing to play the wrong line. Waqar Younis was king at this, but Siddle didn't really swing the ball (and the ball didn't move enough IAH) to account for playing completely the wrong line. Having said that, I don't reckon McKenzie at test level at all.

If you hit the seam, it should bounce HIGHER than hitting the side and a number of those wicket taking deliveries were lower than the bat and there were no pitch demons which resulted in such. The conclusion I come to is that it has to be down to misjudgement by the SA batsmen. If the ball were to bounce from back of a length and hit the gloves then sure, but to misjudge the ball when in fact it was low is really poor batting IMHO.

Today with the number of bowling machines and scouting reports, analysis etc our batsmen would've certainly practiced against Siddle's length. Some of the SA problems maybe down to ignorance of the bowler, but I still think some of those were shocking decision.

If Siddle can swing the ball in England and bowl a straightish line while doing so then he'll be successful, but if he bowls like he did against SA, I can't see him being as successful.

Of course you'll get results over a whole career. McGrath hit a good length and moved it a bit. Not suggesting Siddle's that good by the way

It depends on where you hit the seam, sometimes it'll move sideways more than gaining extra bounce. And practice against a ball machine doesn't equal match practice against someone with all the anomalies that come into it such as action and how different heights affect bounce etc etc.

The reason batsmen make bad decisions against balls on a good length is because it puts them in two minds thus giving them less time to commit to their shots.

 

[Top_Cat]

Haha, I think the odds are weighed in my favour. None of the guys here have ever played cricket before. Although there's no guarantee I'd hit the stumps.

You're not invited by the way.

Second.

 

[Top_Cat]

Well, sideways movement accounts for appearing to play the wrong line.

Not exclusively.

If you hit the seam, it should bounce HIGHER than hitting the side and a number of those wicket taking deliveries were lower than the bat and there were no pitch demons which resulted in such. The conclusion I come to is that it has to be down to misjudgement by the SA batsmen. If the ball were to bounce from back of a length and hit the gloves then sure, but to misjudge the ball when in fact it was low is really poor batting IMHO.

It's not just about surprise bounce. See previous post by vic_orthdox about bat position at the point of contact being affected by seam movement.

 

[Uppercut]

The other factor is, how often do batsmen make contact with the ball when their bat is perpendicular to the ground; it's more often than not on some sort of angle. Thus, that extra bounce can result in edges.

Trying to think of an example- anyone remember the ball that Kallis got Katich with on the first day of the third test in Australia this christmas?

 

[Uppercut]

Ha ha, yep.

Though IIRC, nothing was done about it.

You wont continually get results over a whole career, but it's possible over a short period such as a single series.

Well, sideways movement accounts for appearing to play the wrong line. Waqar Younis was king at this, but Siddle didn't really swing the ball (and the ball didn't move enough IAH) to account for playing completely the wrong line. Having said that, I don't reckon McKenzie at test level at all.

If you hit the seam, it should bounce HIGHER than hitting the side and a number of those wicket taking deliveries were lower than the bat and there were no pitch demons which resulted in such. The conclusion I come to is that it has to be down to misjudgement by the SA batsmen. If the ball were to bounce from back of a length and hit the gloves then sure, but to misjudge the ball when in fact it was low is really poor batting IMHO.

Today with the number of bowling machines and scouting reports, analysis etc our batsmen would've certainly practiced against Siddle's length. Some of the SA problems maybe down to ignorance of the bowler, but I still think some of those were shocking decision.

If Siddle can swing the ball in England and bowl a straightish line while doing so then he'll be successful, but if he bowls like he did against SA, I can't see him being as successful.

You're very quick to criticise South Africa's playing of the Aussie bowlers. Why do you expect England's batsmen to play him any better, bearing in mind that South Africa are miles better at batting than England?

 

[Top_Cat]

You're very quick to criticise South Africa's playing of the Aussie bowlers. Why do you expect England's batsmen to play him any better, bearing in mind that South Africa are miles better at batting than England?

And in far, far better form too. For guys who supposedly just played one bowler poorly, they've scored an awful lot of runs of late.

 

[rivera213]

Of course you'll get results over a whole career. McGrath hit a good length and moved it a bit. Not suggesting Siddle's that good by the way

Get results from bowling as Siddle did against South Africa I meant.

It depends on where you hit the seam, sometimes it'll move sideways more than gaining extra bounce. And practice against a ball machine doesn't equal match practice against someone with all the anomalies that come into it such as action and how different heights affect bounce etc etc.

There were still no deliveries in that vid which moved so far as to account for playing completely the right line though.

Siddle's action doesn't have too many complications to it- not like a Malinga or Thomson, you can practice against the length a bowler bowls and while you can't predict how the ball will react on a particular wicket, you will at least get used to that length.

The reason batsmen make bad decisions against balls on a good length is because it puts them in two minds thus giving them less time to commit to their shots.

Yes I realize that, but when your bat is higher than the bounce of the ball and there is no evidence to suggest the pitch is to blame then the conclusion is the batsman is to blame.

Not exclusively.

Though the huge majority.

Generally playing the wrong line comes down to:

1- Poor judgement

or

2- Sideways movement

Since there wasn't much evidence of No.2, it has to be No.1

You're very quick to criticise South Africa's playing of the Aussie bowlers. Why do you expect England's batsmen to play him any better, bearing in mind that South Africa are miles better at batting than England?

South Africa aren't "miles" better than us, they are miles better than the West Indies, they're better than us but there isn't as much of a gap as people seem to think.

I explained earlier why I don't expect our batsmen to play Siddle as poorly.

 

[Top_Cat]

Though the huge majority.

Generally playing the wrong line comes down to:

1- Poor judgement

or

2- Sideways movement

Since there wasn't much evidence of No.2, it has to be No.1

I'd say, add vertical movement to the list and check your assumption that all they did was play down the wrong line.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I'd say, add vertical movement to the list and check your assumption that all they did was play down the wrong line.

Yeah, agree with this.

 

[Top_Cat]

Also, focussing in the dismissal misses all of what the bowlers did before that point. Prima facie, what appears to be just poor judgement by the batsmen might really be the result of being worked-over by the bowler which drew a get-out shot - credit to the bowler for that one.

Put another way; if you're someone who relies purely on bowling so-called 'wicket-taking' balls to get batsmen out, you won't even play 1st grade. Bowling tightly then throwing in the wide ball which the batsman nicks isn't poor bowling at all. Siddle strikes me as one of those bowlers who is tough to face not just because he bowls quick and back-of-a-length but because he really can apply some pressure. Concentrating on the dismissals alone becomes deceptive with a bowler like him and, arguably, any decent bowler.

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

I think that's an extremely optimistic way of looking at things. I'd say without any real doubt that Magoffin, Geeves, Harris, Hopes and Swan have next to no hope of being Test-class bowlers, probably ever and certainly at the current time, and that Cleary and Cameron are less likely than more to be.

Australia currently have Clark who is almost certainly still Test-class, Johnson who is top-notch, Siddle who is very promising, Hilfenhaus who is promising, Lee who might still have a bit left in the tank but might be finished, Tait who there's no knowing what'll happen with him, Bollinger who might have something to offer but equally might not, McKay who seems vaguely promising, and nothing else which gives-off the suggestion of being Test-match material.

I must say this seems to be a suprisingly (for me) astute summation. I would agree totally with every one of those. Especially impressed that you selected McKay from the rabble as the vaguely promising one.

Of the rest they all seem substandard although Magoffin is a slim chance of being ok (more likely crud though). Laughlin did some good things in his first season and obviously impressed the selectors; another good season and I might consider him vaguely promising too. Don't see anything else in the cupboard though.

Nah, there's massive similarity in the position of the arms as they gather (elbows pointing in polar-opposite directions) and their mechanism is similar - ie, they both do the same things with near enough the exact same timings.

If you can find a bowler who is more similar to Siddle than Hughes I'll be surprised.

Yeh I've thought this too.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Also, focussing in the dismissal misses all of what the bowlers did before that point. Prima facie, what appears to be just poor judgement by the batsmen might really be the result of being worked-over by the bowler which drew a get-out shot - credit to the bowler for that one.

Put another way; if you're someone who relies purely on bowling so-called 'wicket-taking' balls to get batsmen out, you won't even play 1st grade. Bowling tightly then throwing in the wide ball which the batsman nicks isn't poor bowling at all. Siddle strikes me as one of those bowlers who is tough to face not just because he bowls quick and back-of-a-length but because he really can apply some pressure. Concentrating on the dismissals alone becomes deceptive with a bowler like him and, arguably, any decent bowler.

Yeah, if you get a batsman bogged down and not moving his feet and then throw him a fuller and slightly wider one it often works wonders. Remember watching Jason Gillespie talking about this being one of the ways he'd bowl to left-handers. Tried it that afternoon and it worked well.