*Official* Fourth Test at Chester-le-Street

[91Jmay]

No Harris SAID that the ball that got Cook was supposed to be an inswinger that came out wrong. He wasn't throwing a wide one out there.

I agree that by being a very good bowler, you put lots of deliveries in the right area though, that clearly plays a role.

 

[hendrix]

No Harris SAID that the ball that got Cook was supposed to be an inswinger that came out wrong. He wasn't throwing a wide one out there.

This is called natural variation and is the reward you get for bowling in the right areas all the time.

It's not lucky. It's good bowling.

 

[91Jmay]

This is called natural variation and is the reward you get for bowling in the right areas all the time.

It's not lucky. It's good bowling.

Who said it was lucky? Just undermines somewhat the idea that the Aussies have all these amazing plans for each batsmen.

 

[Riggins]

what is your point?

 

[Burgey]

Why is this still going on?

And I ask that in my capacity as the person who probably first started the argument with the dimwits who subscribe to the third gear/ 70% theory.

 

[Daemon]

Maybe 91mvajayjay drives a tractor with a 3 gear transmission

 

[Maximas]

people talking down to others probably doesn't help settle the debate tbh

 

[Son Of Coco]

Who said it was lucky? Just undermines somewhat the idea that the Aussies have all these amazing plans for each batsmen.

I'm not sure why I'm replying to this, but I can't just like stuff in here and not say anything. As others have said, a plan isn't one ball it's the build up plus the wicket ball. If I'm bowling to a left-hander and I bowl 5 deliveries that come back into him that he defends and then push one across him that he nicks, which ball is the good ball?

Correct answer - all of them.

Incorrect answer - none of them because he got out nicking a wide one.

And people have mentioned how it's condescending/not fair to point out a lack of understanding of how the whole process works due to lack of cricketing experience etc etc, or that it's a 'difference of opinion', but when that difference of opinion is based on not understanding the reasoning behind why something is done on the field, and then a whole dialogue is formed around that lack of understanding, it's a very frustrating conversation that follows.

 

[Adders]

it's a very frustrating conversation that follows.

Amen to that brother!!

Now speaking for myself here and not for others that are voicing similar opinions.......It seems to me the difference of opinion is clear. I say the England batting unit has underperformed others are saying this is not so and that they are playing to a level that the bowlers and their plans are allowing.......am I right so far??

Well that sounds like a reasonable basis for a decent debate.......so why the **** isn't that happening?? Clearly two camps at logger heads on this yet I only see one side tossing out terms like "warmongering" "gash" "Should be on Pak Passion" "dimwits"......and funnily enough it's those that seek to climb up on their pedestals looking down on the rest of us that are taking this approach.

I highlighted the "batting Unit" above as I've heard all the details on how well plans have been executed to Alastair Cook a dozen times......If I bow before you would one of you superior beings with +15k posts and infinite cricketing knowledge please be so kind as to bestow some of that vast wisdom on me.........and explain the plans for Jonathan Trott, Kevin Pieterson and Matthew Prior?? I know I'm a dumbass but I think I'd be right in saying Cook doesn't = a batting unit, yet we have 4 of our top 7 struggling (not in the runs/out of form/bamboozled by the reincarnation of Malcolm Marshall......whatever you want to call it)

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Why is this still going on?

And I ask that in my capacity as the person who probably first started the argument with the dimwits who subscribe to the third gear/ 70% theory.

No idea. Just wish you crims would stop stalling in the middle of games though.

 

[Maximas]

it should also be noted that even when the bowling is good, a batsman is not completely at the mercy of the bowler, if he restrains himself or imposes himself well enough on the bowling he can avoid some of the problems someone like Cook is facing. It's a combination of excellent bowling to plans and to a lesser extent perhaps somewhat poor batting at times which is creating the situation IMO.

 

[Son Of Coco]

it should also be noted that even when the bowling is good, a batsman is not completely at the mercy of the bowler, if he restrains himself or imposes himself well enough on the bowling he can avoid some of the problems someone like Cook is facing. It's a combination of excellent bowling to plans and to a lesser extent perhaps somewhat poor batting at times which is creating the situation IMO.

Cook has a fairly limited repertoire of shots, if you don't feed his strengths - i.e stay away from his legs and keep it in the corridor just outside off, then he will bog himself down for a while/get out. Someone mentioned Bell earlier, and how if the bowlers are bowling so well why has he scored so many runs. It's pretty simple really, as Benchmark said, he scores all around the ground. Much harder to tie a bloke down and put pressure on him when he has so many scoring options.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Amen to that brother!!

Now speaking for myself here and not for others that are voicing similar opinions.......It seems to me the difference of opinion is clear. I say the England batting unit has underperformed others are saying this is not so and that they are playing to a level that the bowlers and their plans are allowing.......am I right so far??

Well that sounds like a reasonable basis for a decent debate.......so why the **** isn't that happening?? Clearly two camps at logger heads on this yet I only see one side tossing out terms like "warmongering" "gash" "Should be on Pak Passion" "dimwits"......and funnily enough it's those that seek to climb up on their pedestals looking down on the rest of us that are taking this approach.

I highlighted the "batting Unit" above as I've heard all the details on how well plans have been executed to Alastair Cook a dozen times......If I bow before you would one of you superior beings with +15k posts and infinite cricketing knowledge please be so kind as to bestow some of that vast wisdom on me.........and explain the plans for Jonathan Trott, Kevin Pieterson and Matthew Prior?? I know I'm a dumbass but I think I'd be right in saying Cook doesn't = a batting unit, yet we have 4 of our top 7 struggling (not in the runs/out of form/bamboozled by the reincarnation of Malcolm Marshall......whatever you want to call it)

The plans to Trott should be reasonably clear from what Clarke's done with the field. They've regularly put men on the leg-side when he's come in and bowled a few short ones to him haven't they? Prior doesn't like the ball coming back in to him, so targeting the stumps early is a good idea, and I think the Aussies have also done this. I haven't watched a lot of Pieterson batting, so I'm not sure what the plans are to him, but from what I've seen they seem to be trying to keep it in the corridor early. Has Watto also been on to him early due to the fact he keeps it pretty tight? Pietersen is another batsman that is harder to pin down because he has so many shots and plays many of them very well.

They've also given Root little width.

I'd say the reason why there's not any decent debate is one side doesn't understand what the Australian bowlers have been trying to do, and thus assume they have no plans and it's all down to the English batsmen being 'out of form', and the other side can't understand how you can't see what the plans actually are.

There's really no debate to be had. If you don't understand the plans behind some of the dismissals and how these contribute to the batsman's downfall then that's that.

The main difference between this Ashes and the last is that Australia hasn't bowled a pile of **** on regular occasions. Their bowling has been very disciplined.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

it should also be noted that even when the bowling is good, a batsman is not completely at the mercy of the bowler, if he restrains himself or imposes himself well enough on the bowling he can avoid some of the problems someone like Cook is facing. It's a combination of excellent bowling to plans and to a lesser extent perhaps somewhat poor batting at times which is creating the situation IMO.

Lets face it it isn't like Cook hasn't had dodgy form in an English summer before, probably had more stodgy summers than good ones in his career. The worry for Australia is that the last 2 awful summers he has had he has been a monster that following winter in Australia and India. Not saying it will happen again but it wouldn't be a surprise.

 

[Son Of Coco]

If Australia keep bowling as they are then I'd be happy to bet it won't happen.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

If Australia keep bowling as they are then I'd be happy to bet it won't happen.

Not disagreeing, better than spouting all the 3rd gear ****e though.

Could say the same about Clarke from your point of view, he hasn't got as many runs as many expected but that is because England have bowled well at him. Then again he may be in 3rd gear waiting for the home series.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yeah fair point. England have bowled well at Clarke though, he's received a couple of crackers this series. That's due to England putting it in the right areas, and when you get it in the right spot and it does a bit then away you go.

I wouldn't be willing to bet Australia's bowling will maintain this form long-term anyway as it's dependent on Harris not getting injured.

 

[Adders]

I'd say the reason why there's not any decent debate is one side doesn't understand what the Australian bowlers have been trying to do, and thus assume they have no plans and it's all down to the English batsmen being 'out of form', and the other side can't understand how you can't see what the plans actually are.

Interesting. So we don't understand?? We're wrong because we don't understand and can't see what has been playing out in front of us these last few weeks?? At least you're polite when you're being condescending

I'll have to go back and actually count how many times I have paid credit to the discipline of the Aussie bowlers and their plans........pretty sure sure I haven't ever "assumed they have no plans" and this has all been a hit and miss contest.

What I am trying to say is that there is more than just good plans being executed here. If the ****ing know it alls here can see what the Aussies are doing don't you think Cook and Flower may have a fair idea too??? Seeing the plan and having the form and confidence to deal with it are two very different things.

Looks like the only way this argument will be settled is after the return series in Oz. If Cook, Trott, KP and Prior all collectively play below what their careers suggest is their level then I will take my hat off to your bowlers and admit our failures are all down to them. If 1 or more of them turn it around and have bonza series then it looks like acceptance will have to be given to the fact that in this series, a COMBINATION of good bowling and poor batting were the reason England found themselves 30/3 too often to be acceptable.

 

[Maximas]

Nah, you don't know **** Adders

 

[benchmark00]

Just ****ing stop it.