• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official*** England in West Indies 2015

Stapel

Stapel

International Regular
Had this is been pre-DRS, it might very well have been in some sort of top-****-umpire-decisions.......
 
M

mintykip

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
I can't help but think that situations like this highlights England's need for a 90mph+ bowler. I know pace is all too often over emphasized and you can argue that this pitch is pretty much dead so no pace bowler will really get much out of it. Yet the very dead nature of the pitch would surely still be more conducive to the extra pace, as 95mph on a dead pitch is going to rush the batsman a lot quicker than 85mph. In fact am I right in believing that the margin between quicker and slower bowling increases on slower pitches? I.e a 90mph ball will lose less pace off a dead pitch than an 80mph ball.

Imagine if the ball was tossed to a Starc or a Johnson with the license to scream in for a couple of overs to try and cause damage, there's a chance that they would, or at least rough up and rush the batsman and have them hopping around; even on a pitch like this. As this 80 - 85 mph bowling atm seems all a bit too pedestrian and easily played. Also against the tail the effectiveness of extra pace becomes more apparent.

Saying that England will still probably clean up and win and my point left invalid
 
Last edited:
Stapel

Stapel

International Regular
mintykip said:
I can't help but think that situations like this highlights England's need for a 90mph+ bowler. I know pace is all too often over emphasized and you can argue that this pitch is pretty much dead so no pace bowler will really get much out of it. Yet the very dead nature of the pitch would surely still be more conducive to the extra pace, as 95mph on a dead pitch is going to rush the batsman a lot quicker than 85mph. In fact am I right in believing that the margin between quicker and slower bowling increases on slower pitches? I.e a 90mph ball will lose less pace off a dead pitch than an 80mph ball.

Imagine if the ball was tossed to a Starc or a Johnson with the license to scream in for a couple of overs to try and cause damage, there's a chance that they would, or at least rough up and rush the batsman and have them hopping around; even on a pitch like this. As this 80 - 85 mph bowling atm seems all a bit too pedestrian and easily played.

Saying that England will still probably clean up and win and my point left invalid
Click to expand...
I'm a physician. I cannot find a way to confirm this. Just not!
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I hope Holder bats sensibly here to steer the WI to safety, then off the last ball dances down the pitch and bops Md Sami over long on for six.
 
Scaly piscine

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
England have bowlers touching 90mph. They get to have a go in the 20odd over, against set bats and the ball doing **** all and get took off after 2 overs.

Cook's endless faith in Broad is nice at the expense of other bowlers getting decent conditions to bowl in (and maybe not completely waste them as he does), but the guy should be under pressure for his place. Anderson is different because he averages nearer 25 over the past few years. Broad is just another bowler (30 average given his treatment is ordinary) now that his batting is a joke and he needs to be more than plodding about at 80mph and being saved by his one performance per series.
 
G

greg

International Debutant
Scaly piscine said:
England have bowlers touching 90mph. They get to have a go in the 20odd over, against set bats and the ball doing **** all and get took off after 2 overs.

Cook's endless faith in Broad is nice at the expense of other bowlers getting decent conditions to bowl in (and maybe not completely waste them as he does), but the guy should be under pressure for his place. Anderson is different because he averages nearer 25 over the past few years. Broad is just another bowler (30 average given his treatment is ordinary) now that his batting is a joke and he needs to be more than plodding about at 80mph and being saved by his one performance per series.
Click to expand...
Actually barely anything between Broad and Anderson in averages since they've led the England attack together.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...=results;type=bowling;view=reverse_cumulative

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...=results;type=bowling;view=reverse_cumulative
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top