Swalec Stadium

[Son Of Coco]

Edges imho are more due to batsmen playing shots instead of leaving the ball right? McGrath was as skilled as any fast bowler ever to have bowled on planet earth, and he had the bonus of nagging accuracy. He owned lesser batsman with his superb skill and he owned the best ones with their weakness, by gripping a deathhold on their egos. For me he is the best modern fast bowler.

I think that's what I was saying...

I interpreted 'playing your shots' as meaning batsmen had a go at him, not just got caught playing a defensive prod, which happened a lot of the time with McGrath. This means he beat them a lot, which I think means he was brilliant.

I did say 'playing risky shots'...not 'playing shots'.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Think so.

Johnson bowled superb, Siddle didn't own the batsmen by any means.

You seem to have missed the part in that video you showed us where Siddle got repeated edges. I remember watching the telecast and the commentators were saying some of Siddle's deliveries had moved into or away from the batsman off the deck.

A ball swinging a foot and a half looks impressive, but not doing that doesn't mean you get 'no movement'.

The delivery that jagged in off the pitch and took the top of McKenzie's off stump certainly owned him.

 

[Uppercut]

Of course he has. I saw him get past 140km/h a few times in the 2003 WC against Namibia too.

That equates to 87mph though, so if you've seen him break 90 that's kinda the given .

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

That equates to 87mph though, so if you've seen him break 90 that's kinda the given .

Only for those still using antiquated measuring systems

 

[Jarquis]

Could be going to the 5th day of this test match...
If there is a 5th day

 

[rivera213]

Haha, what? Who said he did? You're essentially charging he bowled poo and took poles which is just a smidge harsh.

Accusation of nationalistic bias is a nothing statement and a cheap shot.

He didn't bowl poor, but his wicket taking deliveries weren't unplayable. I wouldn't begrudge him taking wickets from the edges, however that will be slightly nulled in England with slower and less pacey wickets.

Says who? It's a pretty non-sensical thing to say anyway since just about everyone uses Dopler speed guns anyway. If the guns used in Aus are inaccurate, so are the rest.

Not nowadays, but certainly up to 2001. There wasn't a uniform speed gun used across the world. A number of people have a theory those used in Pakistan were reading too fast, this of course pissed-off a lot of Shoaib fans. Lol

I still think you're focussing in on his top pace. His average pace, without knowing for sure myself, would have dropped 5km/h over his career. Max. No doubt he had more zip early on, as is to be expected, but even then all that really meant was that he was more consistently in the 135-140km/h bracket than ratcheting it up past 145km/h regularly.

TBH, it's a moot point. Even when bowling slower, McGrath was still beating top players with movement and doing it just as well as he was with a little more speed. Harking way back to the key point, there's no way McGrath was merely an accurate bowler who waited for mistakes from the batsmen.

McGrath still beat top batsmen when his speed diminished, but he didn't beat them as regularly as when he was also bowling around 85mph.

The fact he was a great bowler didn't change but I definitely noticed less play and misses, less lbw and less clean bowled once McGrath's pace came down. Of course the deliveries to Vaughan and Pietersen in the 2005 Ashes were quality unplayable dleiveries.

He wasn't JUST a line and length bowler who waited for batsmen to make mistakes, but he got alot of wickets that way.

This I've never heard before

maybe I should have contested all those speeding fines....

It's pretty well known. There wasn't a uniform speed gun used across the world.

You should've contested the speeding fines considering some guns used by police are altered to read a faster speed (conspiracy theory!). You wouldn't get them to admit it though.

You seem to have missed the part in that video you showed us where Siddle got repeated edges. I remember watching the telecast and the commentators were saying some of Siddle's deliveries had moved into or away from the batsman off the deck.

A ball swinging a foot and a half looks impressive, but not doing that doesn't mean you get 'no movement'.

The delivery that jagged in off the pitch and took the top of McKenzie's off stump certainly owned him.

I said earlier his best deliveries didn't take wickets, but I'm simply talking about the wickets he did get. You can't afford to play that many careless shots in test cricket.

McKenzie's bat was nowhere near the ball and the ball seamed IN, is that not a complete misjudgement?

He is really out of his depth at test level IMO. If he played the correct line and it jagged in between his bat and legs then sure, great delivery, but he was so far away from the ball that I wonder what the hell he was trying to do.

 

[Richard]

This I've never heard before

maybe I should have contested all those speeding fines....

Different technology. Speed cams (at least over here) are actually based on really rather ridiculously rudimentary technology, the like of which could not possibly be used on cricket-balls.

 

[rivera213]

Different technology. Speed cams (at least over here) are actually based on really rather ridiculously rudimentary technology, the like of which could not possibly be used on cricket-balls.

How do you come to than conclusion?

Radar guns are effective regardless of what shape/type of object it is pointed at.

There's nothing in theory which says a cricket ball should read any less accurate information than a car.

 

[Richard]

No there isn't, but that's different to the conclusion that I came to - which is that cricket speedos are completely different to motoring speed cameras. And they are.

The technology used on the latter - which as I say is amazingly basic - would never have a hope in hell of working on cricket balls.

 

[Goughy]

No there isn't, but that's different to the conclusion that I came to - which is that cricket speedos are completely different to motoring speed cameras. And they are.

The technology used on the latter - which as I say is amazingly basic - would never have a hope in hell of working on cricket balls.

Ok, please breakdown the difference in technology.

 

[Richard]

Cricket ball speedguns measure the horizontal and vertical velocity of the ball every 1\100th (or something - don't remember it exactly) of a second as it's on its way down. This measurement is made purely on the basis of the ball itself with no requirement for any surrounding.

The speed cameras that I'm aware of the usage of (that's not to say this method is the universal one, though it would seem incredibly odd to use high-tech expensive stuff when something as rudimentary and cheap as this will do) have a camera and white lines painted on the road. Two pictures are taken of the car as it moves, horizontally, over the white lines and the average speed calculated via the time taken for it to move from one to the other. If the average speed is over the limit of that road then the car will have its number-plate reported to the DVLA who will then issue a speeding fine.

As I say - one the sort of thing you could do with a home PC and the other something that required extensive military research to finally perfect.

 

[rivera213]

No there isn't, but that's different to the conclusion that I came to - which is that cricket speedos are completely different to motoring speed cameras. And they are.

The technology used on the latter - which as I say is amazingly basic - would never have a hope in hell of working on cricket balls.

Cricket ball speedguns measure the horizontal and vertical velocity of the ball every 1\100th (or something - don't remember it exactly) of a second as it's on its way down. This measurement is made purely on the basis of the ball itself with no requirement for any surrounding.

The speed cameras that I'm aware of the usage of (that's not to say this method is the universal one, though it would seem incredibly odd to use high-tech expensive stuff when something as rudimentary and cheap as this will do) have a camera and white lines painted on the road. Two pictures are taken of the car as it moves, horizontally, over the white lines and the average speed calculated via the time taken for it to move from one to the other. If the average speed is over the limit of that road then the car will have its number-plate reported to the DVLA who will then issue a speeding fine.

As I say - one the sort of thing you could do with a home PC and the other something that required extensive military research to finally perfect.

The sports specific cameras are no less accurate than the radars used for clocking vehicles.

There have been instants with lesser quality speed guns being used in baseball and reading too fast (or even reading the bat speed if the ball is clobbered for a HR).

There is often the case of the camera technology (used in the MLB for gameday broadcasts) and the TV speed gun (for live TV games) reading the exact same speed once rounded up to 1 decimal point.

The problem of inaccuracy only comes into effect if 2 types of banding are used or if the quality of gun used is poor (most pro guns are accurate to within 1mph based on cross-testing).

The photo radar you talk about is different from how police who sit in a car at the side of the road clocking passers-by.

The sideroad radar and sports pecific radars are equally accurate/inaccurate.

There's a case for saying all guns are inaccurate and only high-motion cameras which shoot 1,000 (or even 4,000fps) and relay that info back to a laptop are credible.

Personally, there isn't that much of a difference in speed readings using quality cameras from real speed (or as I mentioned earlier using high speed camera tech).

 

[Richard]

The sports specific cameras are no less accurate than the radars used for clocking vehicles.

They're both extremely accurate, but there's no way the car method would work with cricket-balls. It depends on the application of things which cannot be applied.

Cars moving along a road are just much, much, much, much, much, much easier to clock than cricket-balls moving in any given direction with massive decelleration.

 

[Top_Cat]

Cars moving along a road are just much, much, much, much, much, much easier to clock than cricket-balls moving in any given direction with massive decelleration.

What's your basis for this? Seriously. Dopler speedguns are used all over the place in Aus by cops and there's been no suggestion they're inaccurate. The stationary cameras are the ones which have been subject to court proceedings, in fact.

 

[Richard]

I don't know how many people I'm going to have to say this to but I'm not suggesting anything is inaccurate. Merely that some things require basic technology while others require much more hi-tech stuff.

 

[social]

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




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.




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.




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




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.

This is a quote from a guy that has played 126 tests about Siddle during the Sydney test last season

He's a great bowler, especially on a wicket like this. He's the type of guy who runs in all day," Boucher said.

"You look at his speeds all day, he's always above 142 (km/h) and he asks questions, bringing the ball back to the right-handers on a wicket like this.

"With a little bit of uneven bounce in the deck he always seems to hit the splice of the bat.

Now when you consider that Siddle had played just 4 tests at the time and that players arent renowned for lavishing praise on the opposition, it says a lot about his potential/quality.

Bottom line is that Siddle performs in Eng the way he did in the last 5 tests vs SA, he'll take bags of wickets

 

[Son Of Coco]

He wasn't JUST a line and length bowler who waited for batsmen to make mistakes, but he got alot of wickets that way.

I said earlier his best deliveries didn't take wickets, but I'm simply talking about the wickets he did get. You can't afford to play that many careless shots in test cricket.

McKenzie's bat was nowhere near the ball and the ball seamed IN, is that not a complete misjudgement?

He is really out of his depth at test level IMO. If he played the correct line and it jagged in between his bat and legs then sure, great delivery, but he was so far away from the ball that I wonder what the hell he was trying to do.

I really don't think McGrath did get a lot of his wickets that way. I watched McGrath bowl a hell of a lot during his career.

I think you'll find the reason McKenzie's bat was nowhere near the ball when it seamed in is that given its initial trajectory he wasn't going to play it and then when it seamed in it was too late to get near it. There's no way he was going to play the right line to a ball jagging back like that.

 

[rivera213]

This is a quote from a guy that has played 126 tests about Siddle during the Sydney test last season

He's a great bowler, especially on a wicket like this. He's the type of guy who runs in all day," Boucher said.

"You look at his speeds all day, he's always above 142 (km/h) and he asks questions, bringing the ball back to the right-handers on a wicket like this.

"With a little bit of uneven bounce in the deck he always seems to hit the splice of the bat.

Now when you consider that Siddle had played just 4 tests at the time and that players arent renowned for lavishing praise on the opposition, it says a lot about his potential/quality.

Bottom line is that Siddle performs in Eng the way he did in the last 5 tests vs SA, he'll take bags of wickets

Having seen Boucher's dismissals, I'm sure he'd try to cover his ass. Lol. J/k.

If Siddle bowls well in the Ashes, I'll be the first to say it (though it'll be something akin to "not another sodding Aussie paceman!"), but I don't think his dimissals were all down to good bowling put it that way.

Pace wise, I reckon he'll average 140kph. I saw him hit 145+ a number of times in SA, but that's a country where the wickets reward pace. Over here, I'm sure he'll intentionally drop his pace a touch to get some movement in the air.

Hopefully we can counter him.

I really don't think McGrath did get a lot of his wickets that way. I watched McGrath bowl a hell of a lot during his career.

I think you'll find the reason McKenzie's bat was nowhere near the ball when it seemed in is that given its initial trajectory he wasn't going to play it and then when it seamed in it was too late to get near it. There's no way he was going to play the right line to a ball jagging back like that.

* In the latter part of his career I meant.

I'm not a fan of McKenzie in general. He often misjudges deliveries (not the Siddle, but a number of times from memory when he played over here- though I can't come up with exact examples), but if the same happens with Pietersen or Bopara in the Ashes (who are both very good judges of a ball) then I'll give him more credit.

 

[cowboysfan]

watching the aussies play spin recent times mgiht help ECB decide on the choice of 2 spinners.even mediocre spinners have looked good against australia.looks a no-brainer to me.

 

[rivera213]

^ Though give Monty's ridiculously bad start to the season (I thought he'd have a great start when I mentioned he will play in the 1st test earlier in the thread) I think Rashid may get the nod.

The fact Rashid can bat will (unfortunately) help his cause.

Leg spinners generally like bounce though and even though he is more akin to Kumble than Warne, I'm sure he'd like a bouncy surface to bowl on.