*Official* Second Test at Lords

[Richard]

It wasn't the line that got him in the first place though, it was the length. He went back to a ball that was, by all rights, a ball that he should have gone forward to.

REF: Michael Vaughan. When he got dismissed by Lee, it was because he misread the ball because of a combination of pace and the right length, thus he went back instead of going forward.

Vaughan did that all the bloomin' time, not just against Lee, it was one of the biggest reasons for his failure to live-up to expectations all career. Cook doesn't do it that often and that's why it's particularly disappointing. Nonetheless, he still played with a relatively perpendicular bat and missed the ball, so it suggests to me that line as well as length was a problem - and also the fact that he just didn't get the bat down into the right place in time. He'd just almost set himself up for wide balls by that time, having got more than you could possibly bargain for getting.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Didn't see the last session, but...

a) Australia really hasn't tried to "bounce out" Strauss. They've left blokes back for the pull and hook, mainly as a reason to make him sit back and think that they're going to try and bounce him out, and then get him pushing at full balls to nick them, or get him LBW when he's only half forward. They just haven't executed well enough.

b) Hilfenhaus' bowling to Bopara was bloody top class. Showed a lot of people that you don't try and get a bloke out within one over; it's Test cricket. You make him work hard for his runs, plans extend over a number of overs before you come along and execute the "wicket ball".

c) To say that Johnson's ball wasn't a good one is pretty silly. If you think that Cook wasn't late on that, you'd be kidding yourself.

d) Johnson's head fell away throughout the first two sessions. His eyes were on a slant, and it made him bowl more round arm than normal, rather than over and through his body. As bad as I've seen him bowl; I've seen him bowl in a mediocre fashion, I've never seen him bowl (for Australia) poorly like he did throughout the first two sessions today. The thing about him is that, he has that ability to still bowl a ball that will rip through you. Thank buggery, because nothing else worked for him today.

e) Amazing how much harder it is to bowl to Cook when he has that pull shot going. When he's pulling off a good length, it messes with the bowler's head so much. You can't bowl straight to him, on a good length or full (once he's in), and you can't give him any width because he cuts so well.

Just one more question about Cook to the English who've seen him more than I have:

Does he ever actually "hook", or try to hit the ball that is at eye level? Not saying it's a weakness or anything like that, but just the way that he pulled today reminded me more of a guy who likes to play the pull from just above stump height, rather than in front of his face. As opposed to a Strauss or a Ponting, who are happy to take that ball from in front of their schnozz and put it over backward square leg.

 

[Richard]

From memory, yes, he does. Pretty sure I've seen him play shots off his nose, or from just outside the line of it, before now.

No YouTube to prove it though.

 

[Pizzorno]

Anderson swinging it both ways at 90mph and Hughes was dismantling him through the offside. Anderson was looking clueless and got removed from the attack.

So not swinging the ball either way is classed as swinging the ball both ways these days is it? It really is a batsmen's game.

 

[Uppercut]

Just one more question about Cook to the English who've seen him more than I have:

Does he ever actually "hook", or try to hit the ball that is at eye level? Not saying it's a weakness or anything like that, but just the way that he pulled today reminded me more of a guy who likes to play the pull from just above stump height, rather than in front of his face. As opposed to a Strauss or a Ponting, who are happy to take that ball from in front of their schnozz and put it over backward square leg.

Generally with Cook, once it's above waist level it's gone.

 

[Prince EWS]

Just one more question about Cook to the English who've seen him more than I have:

Does he ever actually "hook", or try to hit the ball that is at eye level? Not saying it's a weakness or anything like that, but just the way that he pulled today reminded me more of a guy who likes to play the pull from just above stump height, rather than in front of his face. As opposed to a Strauss or a Ponting, who are happy to take that ball from in front of their schnozz and put it over backward square leg.

From memory, yes, he does. Pretty sure I've seen him play shots off his nose, or from just outside the line of it, before now.

No YouTube to prove it though.

Yeah, he possesses the shots closer to eye level, but he doesn't tend to play them until he's very well set. In my experience, he tends to let it go if it's above nipple height much, much more often than not, preferring to play the shot off balls just short of a length in the way Jack described.

If there's one thing Cook's good at, though, it's judging the precise length of balls short of a good length or shorter.

 

[Prince EWS]

Generally with Cook, once it's above waist level it's gone.

Disagree TBH, at least on quicker pitches. If you can get the ball up to shoulder level at a good pace I think you can restrict his scoring, at least early on. It's a waste of effort generally as he does a good job of getting out of the way if he's not going to play it, but I don't think I've seen him punish bowlers backward of square much at all.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

So not swinging the ball either way is classed as swinging the ball both ways these days is it? It really is a batsmen's game.

You've obviously been blinded from watching that rubbish sport, soccer. Anderson was swinging it both ways.

 

[Uppercut]

Disagree TBH, at least on quicker pitches. If you can get the ball up to shoulder level at a good pace I think you can restrict his scoring, at least early on. It's a waste of effort generally as he does a good job of getting out of the way if he's not going to play it, but I don't think I've seen him punish bowlers backward of square much at all.

You may be right, but to me it always looked like he didn't hit the ball backward of square much because he was so quick onto the short ball. Likewise, taking the ball so soon often makes the ball look less short than it actually is.

Either way, the conclusion is the same. Don't bowl short to him under any circumstances.

 

[superkingdave]

Cook has had hist problems with the short ball, been out miscuing the pull quite a bit when he;s not in form.

 

[Richard]

You've obviously been blinded from watching that rubbish sport, soccer. Anderson was swinging it both ways.

Yeah, sure he was, that's why he barely elicited a play-and-miss, out of even Katich.

Anderson and the rest were so intent on banging it in short that they almost completely wasted their principle weapon, that is swing.

 

[zaremba]

First-chance averages exist. Deal with it.

Yeah!!! Grrrr!!!!

 

[zaremba]

Well I've just got home and watched the highlights on Channel 5.

I'm a bit happier having seen them. Generally the balls which got the batsmen out were good balls. KP's in particular was an absolute snorter and no-one can accuse him of throwing it away today. Others will be disappointed: Colly's chip to mid-on, Prior's failure to keep out what was admittedly a wonderful inswinger from Johnson.

The Ch 5 team seemed to think that 364-6 was a good score, and both Slithery Reptile Nicholas and Strauss reckoned England were ahead. Not sure I agree, but then again I didn't have to bat on that pitch, whereas Strauss has had a good close look at it all day.

I'm so so happy for Levi. A brilliant captain's knock. I really hope he can go out to bat just as well tomorrow, and that the tail bats as well as it did in Cardiff to support him. In which case we might get to 450.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Yeah, sure he was, that's why he barely elicited a play-and-miss, out of even Katich.

Anderson and the rest were so intent on banging it in short that they almost completely wasted their principle weapon, that is swing.

He did pitch it up to Hughes early on and it was swinging and Hughes hammered him, which is why Anderson stopped pitching it up. Anderson didn't bowl to Katich much first up with the new all, due to Hughes hogging the strike.

 

[Richard]

KP's in particular was an absolute snorter and no-one can accuse him of throwing it away today.

They can, will and have. As you noted yesterday(?), with Pietersen it is only right that all and sundry criticise him for any innings totally less than 158. Anything less would be a dereliction of duty of the cricket-watching public of this good country.

 

[Richard]

He did pitch it up to Hughes early on and it was swinging and Hughes hammered him

Yeah, sure, you go on living in your own imaginary World where batsmen can hammer good both-ways swing at 85mph+. In reality, such a thing is essentially impossible, and for most it will prove their undoing on the vast majority of occasions.

Fact is Anderson may have swung the odd ball at Hughes in said first-innings, but most did nothing, and thus Hughes did what any good batsman would be expected to do, and clattered it. Then Flintoff came on and he got out.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Yeah, sure, you go on living in your own imaginary World where batsmen can hammer good both-ways swing at 85mph+. In reality, such a thing is essentially impossible, and for most it will prove their undoing on the vast majority of occasions.

Fact is Anderson may have swung the odd ball at Hughes in said first-innings, but most did nothing, and thus Hughes did what any good batsman would be expected to do, and clattered it. Then Flintoff came on and he got out.

Go watch it again then, because it did happen. Anderson did bowl a few inswingers first up in the first over before unleashing a massive outswinger that Hughes crashed through the offside. How quickly Hughes got into possession and adjusted was amazing. I know what I'm talking about because I was watching it closely, to see how Hughes would perform against swing, something that Hayden struggled from time to time against in the past. I'm living it an imaginary world? You're the one who thinks Andrew Strauss can hit the ball as hard as what Viv Richards can.

 

[zaremba]

For my money, Richard was spot-on about how hard Richards and Strauss hit the ball.

As for Hughes, the jury's still out - these are early days for him. Time will tell how good he is, and we shall shortly find out whether his Ganguly-esque start to his Test career will continue.

 

[Richard]

Go watch it again then, because it did happen. Anderson did bowl a few inswingers first up in the first over before unleashing a massive outswinger that Hughes crashed through the offside. How quickly Hughes got into possession and adjusted was amazing. I know what I'm talking about because I was watching it closely, to see how Hughes would perform against swing, something that Hayden struggled from time to time against in the past. I'm living it an imaginary world? You're the one who thinks Andrew Strauss can hit the ball as hard as what Viv Richards can.

The fact you think otherwise suggests you live in several imaginary Worlds. So the fact that Anderson bowled one outswinger that hit the middle of the bat is the basis for the entire "Anderson swinging it both ways at 90mph and Hughes was dismantling him through the offside" notion?

I see.

 

[Pizzorno]

The fact you think otherwise suggests you live in several imaginary Worlds. So the fact that Anderson bowled one outswinger that hit the middle of the bat is the basis for the entire "Anderson swinging it both ways at 90mph and Hughes was dismantling him through the offside" notion?

I see.

This is the kind of hyperbole Ben is brilliant at. Hughes hits Anderson for a boundary which is immediately regarded as a "destruction of Anderson's bowling". Anderson gets the slightest hint of swing with one delivery and the ball is supposedly swinging around corners both ways.

But then again, what can you expect from someone who has already said that Hughes will go on to be better than Bradman? And believe me he has said that; although the site he said it on shall remain nameless.