Why fewer slips for an inswing bowler than an outswing bowler?

[hendrix]

It's one of my pet peeves.

Surely if there were to be an edge, it would be thicker and thus travel wider. Hooping outswing tends to take finer edges, by both my observation and simple logic.

Particularly for left arm swing bowlers to right handers. There are frequent edges as the batsman struggles to judge to what degree the ball will come in. But they tend to go through 3rd and 4th slip, which is often left open in comparison with the right arm outswinger.

 

[AldoRaine18]

Cricketers are thick.

 

[Shady Slim]

i guess in the case of say starc he prefers to attack the stumps for lbw or bowled... maybe if the extra fielder is put on the leg side they're there in case the bowler gets too straight or something

 

[hendrix]

i guess in the case of say starc he prefers to attack the stumps for lbw or bowled... maybe if the extra fielder is put on the leg side they're there in case the bowler gets too straight or something

Ok...so spread the slips wider or just get rid of first slip

 

[Daemon]

@hendrix shouldn't the question be why the slips don't stand wider than they already do or why the need for a first slip? You often see left armers getting an edge with the angle with the keeper running across and taking it comfortably in front of first.

Why they have fewer slips is simply because they get fewer edges I would've thought.

edit: multi tab owned

 

[hendrix]

@hendrix shouldn't the question be why the slips don't stand wider than they already do or why the need for a first slip? You often see left armers getting an edge with the angle with the keeper running across and taking it comfortably in front of first.

very true. Or true of good keepers anyway.

 

[TheJediBrah]

@hendrix shouldn't the question be why the slips don't stand wider than they already do or why the need for a first slip? You often see left armers getting an edge with the angle with the keeper running across and taking it comfortably in front of first.

Why they have fewer slips is simply because they get fewer edges I would've thought.

edit: multi tab owned

I've seen a lot of people think this and get caught out by having slip too wide as a result. It's generally the wider balls outside off that then get thinner edges where the keeper can seemingly take simple catches right in front of slip, and you think "huh why do we even have slip that fine if the keeper can take that easily". But then you can get the edges of straighter balls that can go flying between slip and keeper if slip goes too wide. Sometimes that's the gamble you take though.

Obviously slips are wider in general for a left-arm over the wicket than a right arm over the wicket (assuming Right-handed batsman). As to whether you'd be better off just throwing in wider slips in general in that situation, or fine gullies instead of a 1st or 2nd slip, that's an interesting theory IMO.

 

[Top_Cat]

Would also argue that yer right-arm in-swinger bowlers won't need wide slips because they either bring the ball back in which leads to an edge 0.00001286% of the time or their variation ball holding its line, the intention is to get a thin edge to 'keeper or 1st. A skipper who places a 3rd and 4th for a guy bringing it back in probably isn't playing high % cricket.

 

[Daemon]

Yeah, I think if you were to look at caught behinds for someone like Bond* and Steyn when he's reversing vs an Anderson, you just don't see that many edges.

*I've only looked at highlights

 

[Furball]

It's one of my pet peeves.

Surely if there were to be an edge, it would be thicker and thus travel wider. Hooping outswing tends to take finer edges, by both my observation and simple logic.

Particularly for left arm swing bowlers to right handers. There are frequent edges as the batsman struggles to judge to what degree the ball will come in. But they tend to go through 3rd and 4th slip, which is often left open in comparison with the right arm outswinger.

Because if I'm swinging it back into a batsman then I'm targetting his pads/stumps and if he edges it then it'll be the inside edge I'm threatening.

A batsman would have to play a weird as **** shot to edge it through 3rd/4th slip to an inswinger. Would rather have a bat pad or a leg slip.

 

[Daemon]

Because if I'm swinging it back into a batsman then I'm targetting his pads/stumps and if he edges it then it'll be the inside edge I'm threatening.

A batsman would have to play a weird as **** shot to edge it through 3rd/4th slip to an inswinger. Would rather have a bat pad or a leg slip.

It's not the inswinger they're edging against a bowler who gets the ball to move in, it's the one that holds it's line

 

[hendrix]

It's not the inswinger they're edging against a bowler who gets the ball to move in, it's the one that holds it's line

Or just one that swings slightly less than the batsman judges.

@Furball - I understand that inside edge is the goal. So then why have first and second slips? It seems to me, that wider slips on the off side would be more prudent, with fine slips on the leg side. But captains usually put a narrow radius of slips for inswing bowlers, which doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Furball]

It's not the inswinger they're edging against a bowler who gets the ball to move in, it's the one that holds it's line

That's what first and second slip are for.

 

[hendrix]

That's what first and second slip are for.

fine edges go to first and second slip. Thick edges go wider.

The point is that thicker outside edges happen to inswing bowlers than they do outswing bowlers.

 

[TheJediBrah]

fine edges go to first and second slip. Thick edges go wider.

The point is that thicker outside edges happen to inswing bowlers than they do outswing bowlers.

I hardly think that's definitively true at all tbh

 

[Shady Slim]

i imagine that many outswing bowlers probably bowl to the edge plan too

it's basically the opposite of what i said before but still

 

[Top_Cat]

Would also argue that yer right-arm in-swinger bowlers won't need wide slips because they either bring the ball back in which leads to an edge 0.00001286% of the time or their variation ball holding its line, the intention is to get a thin edge to 'keeper or 1st. A skipper who places a 3rd and 4th for a guy bringing it back in probably isn't playing high % cricket.

In addition to this, in normal circumstances, you place doubt in the batsman's mind as to whether to play at the ball if there's a deliberate gap in the wide slips. Stack the slips when there's no good reason to and the decision whether to play at the balls that don't move in becomes easier so you suck the tension out of the contest. Doubt in this decision basically gave McGrath a career; you were generally looking for the ball decking back in and to leave the rest, bloke got a ton of nicks to 'keeper and 1st slip from this doubt. McGrath rarely had more than two slips because the rest would be bored pantsless at all the nicks either going to Taylor/Waugh. Plus there's the obvious benefit of having a spare bloke or two to put somewhere else. Here was the standard McGrath field:

Note the lack of 3rd and 4th and the missing mid-off to encourage the drive.

Now, the ball doing lots or the batsman/team in trouble, stack the slips. But under normal conditions, McGrath wanted that doubt. It's why NZ so successfully nullified him in '01 by noticing that most of his deliveries at the time did not, in fact, threaten the stumps, so they just left everything they could. Blokes like Marshall played on the same doubt.

 

[TheJediBrah]

In addition to this, in normal circumstances, you place doubt in the batsman's mind as to whether to play at the ball if there's a deliberate gap in the wide slips. Stack the slips when there's no good reason to and the decision whether to play at the balls that don't move in becomes easier so you suck the tension out of the contest. Doubt in this decision basically gave McGrath a career; you were generally looking for the ball decking back in and to leave the rest, bloke got a ton of nicks to 'keeper and 1st slip from this doubt. McGrath rarely had more than two slips because the rest would be bored pantsless at all the nicks either going to Taylor/Waugh. Plus there's the obvious benefit of having a spare bloke or two to put somewhere else. Here was the standard McGrath field

Completely false. McGrath absolutely always had at least 3-4 slips and a gully with the new ball, and generally only had less than 3 slips if some guy was well in on 80-90+, or for special circumstances (eg. slow pitch, catchers in front of the wicket, specific plan for certain players like having 2 short-midwickets or cover catchers for Pietersen etc).

edit: otherwise still a well thought-out and interesting post though

 

[vic_orthdox]

Keeper often gets caught moving towards leg side, with the ball straightening or moving just less than the other previous balls, which open up a bigger gap between first and keeper.

 

[Daemon]

Keeper often gets caught moving towards leg side, with the ball straightening or moving just less than the other previous balls, which open up a bigger gap between first and keeper.

Yeah good point.