• 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.

No Balls!

age_master

age_master

Hall of Fame Member
i really dont understand how bowlers can bowl so many of them, Flintoff, Lee and Kaspa are 3 notable exponents of them.

i dont understand why bowlers have to bowl with their front foot so close to a no ball at all really, why not bowl with your whole foot behind the line, 20cm cant make that much difference once you get used to it?

what do others think?
 
andyc

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
when i saw this heading i thought it was talking about the zimbabwean batting line-up
 
King_Ponting

King_Ponting

International Regular
Clarence said:
IThey strive for extra pace, increasing their stride length slightly. BOOM, noball!
Click to expand...
That as well as bad training habits, trying to ruffle a few team mates in practice, consistent overstepping = same habit brought into the match
 
age_master

age_master

Hall of Fame Member
lol

2nd ashes test
1st innings: Lee 3, Gillespie 3, Kaspa 8
2nd: Harmison 2, Hoggard 4, Jones 1, Flintoff 3
3rd: Lee 5, Gillespie 1, Kaspa 3
4th: Harmison 1, Flintoff 13 :-O
 
Jamee999

Jamee999

Hall of Fame Member
Freddy's shoulder may have made a slight change to his stride length and speed which may make him overstep.
 
FaaipDeOiad

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
For such a quick bowler, Harmison is very good with no balls. Flintoff has no excuse though really, at least Lee sprints in at full pace in his run up, so you can excuse the odd slip up. Flintoff, and Kasprowicz too, have short, easy paced runups, they should get it right.
 
age_master

age_master

Hall of Fame Member
but why not extend the run up a touch in training to make sure that sort of thing hardly ever happens, why do bowlers feel the need to go so close all the time - i mean they train to land their foot on the line with just a touch of your heel behind it
 
Burpey

Burpey

Cricketer Of The Year
Does a few inches at the increase really affect a bowler's performance ? Safety first i reckon, cos wickets off no balls are captain killers
 
G

greg

International Debutant
I think it's all to do with the delivery stride. Most bowlers measure their runs ups to the point of their back foot landing (so the whole thing was much easier under the old rules). Striving for extra pace has severe consequences for some bowlers on the length of their final stride (especially those, like Flintoff, who really put their whole body into trying to extract that pace) which creates the problem. It's really not a case of just adjusting their initial marker a few centimetres, and in addition a bowler in the midst of a spell will probably acquire an instinctive feel for where their feet should be landing as they run in. If this instinct is just slightly off then things will go wrong (and it is a problem which can affect spinners just as much as pace bowlers, albeit is usually easier to rectify in that case).
 
Nate

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
I know it`s not the same, but I hate it when I bowl no-balls. Not much of an excuse really.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
greg said:
I think it's all to do with the delivery stride. Most bowlers measure their runs ups to the point of their back foot landing (so the whole thing was much easier under the old rules). Striving for extra pace has severe consequences for some bowlers on the length of their final stride (especially those, like Flintoff, who really put their whole body into trying to extract that pace) which creates the problem. It's really not a case of just adjusting their initial marker a few centimetres, and in addition a bowler in the midst of a spell will probably acquire an instinctive feel for where their feet should be landing as they run in. If this instinct is just slightly off then things will go wrong (and it is a problem which can affect spinners just as much as pace bowlers, albeit is usually easier to rectify in that case).
Click to expand...
But why plan it so close then??

It would make more sence to "plan" to be a fair distance behind the crease. This would allow for a bigger margain of error.
 
andyc

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Nnanden said:
I know it`s not the same, but I hate it when I bowl no-balls. Not much of an excuse really.
Click to expand...
i dislike wides more, cause you look like such an idiot
 
Mister Wright

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It all has to do with lengths. If you are bowling from the same spot - the popping crease (I think that's the right crease) then you can judge your lengths and lines appropriately. The thing that upsets the bowlers is that the put more effort in to some balls than others, but fail to adjust their run up, putting it one step further back. If you are bowling behind the crease than it can put you off your lines and lengths and that is why the bowlers use the line as a guide.
 
Josh

Josh

International Regular
age_master said:
but why not extend the run up a touch in training to make sure that sort of thing hardly ever happens, why do bowlers feel the need to go so close all the time - i mean they train to land their foot on the line with just a touch of your heel behind it
Click to expand...
Because then you **** your whole rhythm up and carry that into a match and will probably get carted.
 
Josh

Josh

International Regular
andyc said:
i dislike wides more, cause you look like such an idiot
Click to expand...
Yeh, I had a game last year where the ball for some reason was swinging like a seagull on a windy day (only real time it swung for me all year... not sure why that is), so yeh my first 3 balls of that game were wides.

Fought back tho.

The umpire might have had something to do with it. When he calls "wide" everyone thinks he might be describing himself.
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
age_master said:
lol

2nd ashes test
1st innings: Lee 3, Gillespie 3, Kaspa 8
2nd: Harmison 2, Hoggard 4, Jones 1, Flintoff 3
3rd: Lee 5, Gillespie 1, Kaspa 3
4th: Harmison 1, Flintoff 13 :-O
Click to expand...
Jeez, that's pretty shocking actually. In such a tight match it coulda been terminal. Fred doesn't exactly steam in, does he? He seems to generate his pace from sheer brute force, 'cos his arm action isn't that fast either.

That said, I think he compensated in other areas.... :D
 
Clarence

Clarence

U19 Cricketer
All these people saying that why can't they move their run up 20 cm back have obviously never been fast bowlers or had much experience playing with them.

They would feel like they are pullin gup to early, lose rythm...and bowl porridge.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Clarence said:
All these people saying that why can't they move their run up 20 cm back have obviously never been fast bowlers or had much experience playing with them.

They would feel like they are pullin gup to early, lose rythm...and bowl porridge.
Click to expand...
No...

Im asking why they didnt move it back 20cm to start with. Why do bowlers measure their runups so close to the mark? If you plan your runup to land 20cm short of the crease, you will never bowl a no ball, as the margain for error would be much greater.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top