***Official*** Pakistan and England in UAE

[Ruckus]

Hmm, when the ball is swinging conventionally it almost always (i.e. whenever Midge isn't defying physics) has the seam slanted towards the way the bowler wants the ball to swing, whereas reverse swing seems to work best with the seam pointing straight down the pitch.

WACA breeze. The laws of physics are safe after all.

 

[benchmark00]

Hmm, when the ball is swinging conventionally it almost always (i.e. whenever Midge isn't defying physics) has the seam slanted towards the way the bowler wants the ball to swing, whereas reverse swing seems to work best with the seam pointing straight down the pitch.

That's for swing straight out of the hand, yes. And yes and the seam will be pointed that way because of the action. If you are an outswing bowler, and you want to bowl an in-swing delivery, your arm will need to go really high where your elbow 'pit' will brush your ear and the ball will practically be released over your head. That will cause the seam to point slightly towards fine leg and result in in swing.

Reverse, as you mention, is just the air doing the work, so getting the seam straight is all that's required.

 

[uvelocity]

Possibly. You really need to work on the one ball for ages at training, then at the end of the session, pack it in your bag and use it again the next sesh, then repeat. You need to really lather the one side so it's really red and shiny and the other side a light colour. Only way I can describe it. Training balls are **** and if you just pick up a ball at the start of training that hasnt had any work on it you can't expect it to reverse even at the end of it.

To speed it up, scratch one side on the concrete. That's if you're into ball tampering (which I am ftr).

Don't really go to training anymore (lower grades, getting old etc) but I still have a ball I bought new (Red King) and used for years. I reckon she would have a few miles on her. One side is pretty good, and the other has wear. Swings, but I don't get it going innards.

 

[Prince EWS]

Hmm my point was really that the South African attack (and team) consistently adds up to less than the sum of its parts. You can have better bowlers in every position but a worse attack. This has even been the case since Philander came into the team- he's been phenomenal but they've still lost a couple of tests they should really have won, partly because Steyn and Morkel haven't been anywhere near as good as they were last year.

It would be silly to count the performances of Tsotsobe and Harris against the current attack but the story of South African bowling has been "not half as good as it really should be" for a couple of years now and the addition of Philander and Tahir didn't change that at all this home summer. I don't think it really suffices to do a "Steyn+Morkel+Philander=WIN" calculation because focusing purely on the quality of the players misses some of the problems that have been evident in their poor results over the past few years: a tendency to seemingly lose interest for long periods when wickets aren't falling, the uncanny ability to lose every match that they ever get anywhere near losing, a lack of ruthlessness when bowling to the tail. Adding someone as good as Philander can't exactly make those problems worse, but will it fix them? Maybe, but the early signs aren't promising.

I suppose it depends on how you viewed the attack pre-Philander. Personally I don't think it really did underachieve as to what its personnel was. Typically South Africa's random losses have come due to randomly terrible batting efforts, and I just didn't think the attack was that good on paper anyway. An all-time great bowler, a good albeit somewhat inconsistent bowler, a solid fifth option from the top six and two bowlers who are realistically not Test standard is not a particularly good attack on paper to me so they were always prone to a bit of inconsistency. Adding Philander to the mix changes that for me completely. I don't really believe Morkel is any different as a bowler to what he was a year ago; he's just going through a "down" cycle, which is what he does. He's inconsistent and has ups and downs; he doesn't keep improving and declining all the time; I think people need to look at him more long-term.

 

[Furball]

Take it to the 'Why South Africa are ****' thread.

 

[Black_Warrior]

this is why I always maintain this slow and steady approach by Pakistan will hurt them vs big teams.The likes of Anderson and Swann can tilt a game at any time you need to be more proactive(not reckless) when you have a partnership going.

Exactly..Terrible batting from Misbah.. He cost Pakistan a World Cup and now possibly this series...

All England need to do now is score 300 runs in the second innings..and that is not impossible..England will not make the same mistakes they made in the first innings and anything over 170 in the fourth innings and its 1-0 to England.

 

[Furball]

I don't even...

 

[L Trumper]

England to score 400+ in second dig. Pak will try to draw the game.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Exactly..Terrible batting from Misbah.. He cost Pakistan a World Cup and now possibly this series...

All England need to do now is score 300 runs in the second innings..and that is not impossible..England will not make the same mistakes they made in the first innings and anything over 170 in the fourth innings and its 1-0 to England.

We'll need a bigger target than that but if we set Pakistan 250+ I fancy us to win. Pakistan had a great chance a few times today to ram home the advantage and haven't done so. They are still on top in the match but England are in a far better position now than they were this time yesterday. Another good day from England tomorrow and the game is in the balance.

 

[Black_Warrior]

BW please retire from CW.

Its just that I have seen Pakistan play a bit more than you and have some painful memories of Pakistan failing to chase totals of 130 plus in the fourth innings (e.g http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63768.html).. so I know what I am talking about. When you have the best team in the world bundled out for 190 on the first day, you don't settle for a 90 run lead...you aim for at least a 200 run lead because they are not going to get bundled out for 190 every day.

 

[NasserFan207]

Cricket web's Pakistan crew sure are pessimistic. Or maybe just superstitious, still not sure which. Definitely entertaining however.

 

[sledger]

Cricket web's Pakistan crew sure are pessimistic..

I say this honestly, without a hint of irony or any attempt to provoke (chance would be a fine thing ), but can you blame them?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Agree with Sledge on why we are being cautious but also because we have first hand experience of what happened to the CW Indian fans who were boasting about their team. I don't want to go down that road and look like a real numpty.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

However I would take Pakistan's current lead considering that before this match I was worried about us facing the no.1 team in the world.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Since I am no expert, could someone explain how someone like Jimmy Anderson/Steyn can get the ball to swing so much (conventional swing) instead of someone like Gul.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

However I would take Pakistan's current lead considering that before this match I was worried about us facing the no.1 team in the world.

True, but I am sure most England fans would have taken this position at 43-5 in the opening session yesterday.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Cricket web's Pakistan crew sure are pessimistic. Or maybe just superstitious, still not sure which. Definitely entertaining however.

Its not about pessimism but more about being burned many times in situations like this. I can list 5 matches from the top of my head where Pakistan bowled out the opposition for a paltry total, and then didn't take advantage with a huge lead, were left to chase about 140 in the fourth innings and collapsed. Fans of other teams will never understand that because it doesn't happen to them as much. England don't fail chasing 140. Australia don't fail chasing 150. Pakistan does. That's the difference. If this was England or Australia or South Africa instead of Pakistan, I would be celebrating a win here.

 

[benchmark00]

Since I am no expert, could someone explain how someone like Jimmy Anderson/Steyn can get the ball to swing so much (conventional swing) instead of someone like Gul.

Really are approaching new thread territory but it's all to do with wrist position, which causes good or bad seam position.

If you impart a good amount of 'backward revs' on the ball by running your fingers down the seam then the ball will swing.

Ofcourse it also has alot to do with what length you are bowling. If you pitch the ball further up you will obviously give the ball as much chance to swing as possible. So it's about bowling the ball up opposed to banging it in. Does that make sense?

 

[Spikey]

If you pitch the ball further up you will obviously give the ball as much chance to swing as possible. So it's about bowling the ball up opposed to banging it in. Do you understand Peter? Look at me young man

efa

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Really are approaching new thread territory but it's all to do with wrist position, which causes good or bad seam position.

If you impart a good amount of 'backward revs' on the ball by running your fingers down the seam then the ball will swing.

Ofcourse it also has alot to do with what length you are bowling. If you pitch the ball further up you will obviously give the ball as much chance to swing as possible. So it's about bowling the ball up opposed to banging it in. Does that make sense?

Yeah thanks.

But then if it's all to do with the wrist position then why is it that we keep on producing guys who are mainly good at reverse and not conventional swing. Since you have said earlier that if you can swing, you can reverse. Shouldn't the opposite be true as well. Why does someone like Gul find it so difficult to swing the new ball but can reverse the moment there is any hint.