• 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.

3rd Test at Headingley, Leeds

Spark

Global Moderator
It wasn't really his theory though. And y'know what, he's kind of right in the sense that long periods without rotating the strike will generally cause a batsman to do something silly or get a ball with your name on it.
Yeah it's a good example of how sometimes quantifying or attaching numbers to something can make it unnecessarily complicated or confusing. The basic theory is something no sensible cricket fan would disagree with.
 

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I have waited far too long for a Patto demolition job.
I mean I didn't expect him to be the one bowling dry with a 77 over old ball but he's doing a good job of it so I'll take it. Don't see how Siddle gets into this again.
 

Cabinet96

Hall of Fame Member
It's the only stat he likes
It's not actually a stat though right? I always assumed it was just something McGrath came up with to exaggerate a logical point, that building pressure increases the chance of a batsman making a mistake.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It wasn't really his theory though. And y'know what, he's kind of right in the sense that long periods without rotating the strike will generally cause a batsman to do something silly or get a ball with your name on it.
Theres several passages in Warne's books which mentioned how much he liked to simply bowl a "negative" or containing line but complement it with an attacking field with lots of fielders in catching positions. Basically just not giving singles away and simply banking on the batsman doing something really stupid.
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I mean I didn't expect him to be the one bowling dry with a 77 over old ball but he's doing a good job of it so I'll take it. Don't see how Siddle gets into this again.
Injuries might help, but then again I expect Starc to do better in Australia and Richardson will be back. His one saving grace might be the other back-to-back Test.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Theres several passages in Warne's books which mentioned how much he liked to simply bowl a "negative" or containing line but complement it with an attacking field with lots of fielders in catching positions. Basically just not giving singles away and simply banking on the batsman doing something really stupid.
That's a favourite theme of his commentary too. "Attacking field, defensive bowling"
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Sweepstakes - England score

68 - MW1304
127 - stephen
156 - Fuller Pilch
162 - Burgey
163 - trundler
171 - Uppercut
182 - flibbertyjibber
207 - morgieb
237 - Compton
238 - Marcuss
247 - duffer
255 - Spikey
266 - NUFAN
272 - ajdude
310 - GoodAreasShane
320 - Second Spitter
361-7 - GIMH

And that's a wrap.
100 more runs to go.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
It's not actually a stat though right? I always assumed it was just something McGrath came up with to exaggerate a logical point, that building pressure increases the chance of a batsman making a mistake.
Would be interesting to see the numbers tbh
 

Top