Aceptable econmy rates in ODIS

[Top_Cat]

I've bowled to a few guys who can bat, too (I don't know who the best you've bowled at are, but Matt Maynard and Chris Rogers are probably the best for me, and only in the nets).

Handy players both, there. Would have been quite a test to bowl to guys as good as those!

As for me, the ones you'd most likely know would be guys like the Waughs, Mike Bevan, Greg Blewett, Boof Lehmann, Dizzy Gillespie and that's in match conditions. I trained with the SA senior side as part of being with the U/19's side so have bowled to Boof and Blewwy quite a bit.

And believe me, you've got to be pretty good (sort of Tendulkar-in-good-form standard), even on the most batsman-friendly pace-and-bounce of pitch (ie not too slow and not too fast), to consistently hit a bowler consistently bowling at the top of off for more than 4-an-over if you don't use your feet.

Maybe. I respectfully disagree. On a good deck, most bowlers become fodder for guys who can play.

If you ask me, every Indian bowler should be devestated with the World Cup final. Just because 57 is better than 87 is no excuse. If everyone had gone for 57, India would still have been chasing nearly 300 (assuming there were a normal number of leg-byes) and would have been decidedly second-favourites.

Yeah but you have to look at his bowling in context. I'm not saying he bowled well purely because others did bad and somehow, relatively speaking, he bowled well. I'm saying he was bowling to a guy who was on the rampage belting all and sundry to and over the fence on a perfectly flat pitch. Considering that from what I actually saw in his bowling, he bowled quite well.

The other side of it is that 300 would probably have been only just not gettable on that pitch. 260-280 probably wouldn't have been enough to win unless the team defending bowled well.

Maybe I'm unrealistic about settling for mediocrity, naturally I have never experienced the ride up the cricket feudalism (the best I've done is Exeter Seconds), but if someone keeps telling you that under 5-an-over's OK, you'll start to believe it.

No-one is saying that it's completely okay to concede that much. What I'm saying is that in certain conditions, it can be acceptable.

The only other explanation for the sudden increase in scoring-rates in the last 2 years or so in one-day-cricket is the batsmen have suddenly got better, and I don't really think that's likely. So unless bowlers have lowered their standards, there is only one explanation: medium-fast bowlers (who can stop batsmen using their feet by having the 'keeper stand-up) have been alienated, and bowlers of fast-medium who can be attacked by the use of feet have been preferred, so accuracy has been degraded in use, and your only chance is if you get a pitch which enables you to move the ball.

There are so many disputable premisses in that argument that the conclusion is a tad shaky.

Batsmen may not have gotten 'better' per se but there is certainly a changing attitude towards batting. Batsmen are looking to score more quickly, take more risks etc. and it's paying off. This, I think, is borne by the fact that even though were seeing many more high scores, we're also seeing more of the sub-160 scores. If your explanation were true and it was only the bowlers who have changed, we'd more of the much higher scores m'thinks.

There has also been a trend to having more in the way of specialists in the ODI sides. The 'bits-and-pieces' allrounders are being phased out in favour of specialist bowlers who, naturally, have more pace. So there are less of the medium-fast bowlers out there. Plus, with the ne quick bowlers like Brett Lee and Shoaib on the scene, everyone wants to have a really quick bowler in their team. So the specialist swing bowlers are pushed further away from international teams. I wrote an article on the death of swing bowling a few months back and how this has resulted in batsmen ill-equipped to deal with good swing bowling so I know where you're coming from on this one, mate.

 

[Eclipse]

Conceding 57 runs was a good effort by Ashish Nehra considering how well Ponting and Martyn were playing.

If he had bowled more deliverys on the top off offstump he probably would have gone for more runs to be honest because Ponting could have got under the ball easyer.

Infact more or less every good lengh ball bowled in the last 10 overs went for six and In that situation you just have to realise that the batsman was too good.

High quality batman like Ponting can put you away no matter were you bowl if they are in the mood and playing well somtimes bowling good a good line and length is the worst thing you can do because it's peridictable to the batsman and if they are good enough they will get under it and hit it for four or six.

 

[Richard]

High quality batman like Ponting can put you away no matter were you bowl if they are in the mood and playing well somtimes bowling good a good line and length is the worst thing you can do because it's peridictable to the batsman and if they are good enough they will get under it and hit it for four or six.

The thing, I think, is that occasionally you get batsmen who just click. No-one can possibly explain why, but on the day it's just not possible to bowl at them. Ponting in WC03 final was one such occasion, and it just about sums him up that it happened at that time, in about the biggest game in cricket's history. The only ones I've ever seen ball-by-ball was when Astle hit a chanceless 222 off 158 balls and when Razzaq smashed England all around The National Stadium for 75* off 40 balls. I guess Viv Richards scoring a century in 56 balls at St.John's was another. When it happened to Bradman, naturally, he scored 254 without playing a false shot - he was several steps ahead of everyone, and so when it clicked for him the inevitable result was an innings which will surely remain without parallel.
These sorts of innings are the ones where you feel dismissal is all but impossible.
However, the occasion where you bowl consistently well and get smashed is very rare.

 

[Richard]

That means nothing to me . I've just started at Exeter Uni and am getting involved with coaching the juniors (I'm qualified and CRB-checked, before any even thinks about it!) at Exeter CC over the coming year(s).

Well, believe me, if you take any activity in Exeter CC, you'll soon get to know Jeff! A legend of more than 40 years of the club, 67 last year and still going strong, captaining three sides.

 

[Richard]

Handy players both, there. Would have been quite a test to bowl to guys as good as those!

As for me, the ones you'd most likely know would be guys like the Waughs, Mike Bevan, Greg Blewett, Boof Lehmann, Dizzy Gillespie and that's in match conditions. I trained with the SA senior side as part of being with the U/19's side so have bowled to Boof and Blewwy quite a bit.

I actually got old Bucko (that's what we called Chris Rogers at Exeter) out more than a few times, but nets are incomparable with match-situations. I only bowled at Maynard in one net-session because I was there and he wanted a bit more practice and Watkin and all the other lazy buggers had gone home. Don't think I ever got him out.

There are so many disputable premisses in that argument that the conclusion is a tad shaky.

Batsmen may not have gotten 'better' per se but there is certainly a changing attitude towards batting. Batsmen are looking to score more quickly, take more risks etc. and it's paying off. This, I think, is borne by the fact that even though were seeing many more high scores, we're also seeing more of the sub-160 scores. If your explanation were true and it was only the bowlers who have changed, we'd more of the much higher scores m'thinks.

There has also been a trend to having more in the way of specialists in the ODI sides. The 'bits-and-pieces' allrounders are being phased out in favour of specialist bowlers who, naturally, have more pace. So there are less of the medium-fast bowlers out there. Plus, with the ne quick bowlers like Brett Lee and Shoaib on the scene, everyone wants to have a really quick bowler in their team. So the specialist swing bowlers are pushed further away from international teams. I wrote an article on the death of swing bowling a few months back and how this has resulted in batsmen ill-equipped to deal with good swing bowling so I know where you're coming from on this one, mate. [/QUOTE]
I would be interested to read your article - it has often occurred to me that the stereotype "fast bowling is different from swing-bowling" is bandied about far too much. Bowlers of exceptional pace (Thomson, Lillee, Marshall, Hadlee) are perfectly capable of bowling swing - the problem has been when bowlers get the idea that they don't need to move the ball because they can bowl at 95 mph. Lee has been in this boat at times.

 

[Eclipse]

the problem has been when bowlers get the idea that they don't need to move the ball because they can bowl at 95 mph. Lee has been in this boat at times..

Do you ever watch Lee bowl?? Lee rarely has any problem swinging the ball he swing's it far more than Gillespie, McGrath, Bichel etc..

You would think he would be more succsesfull considering how good a swing bowler he is.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, sadly most public do not understand the cricketing beauty in watching batsmen being kept quiet by accurate bowling.
A run-fest is no fun if you ask me. I'd prefer see 200 plays 200 any day. With the occasional 260 plays 260 mixed-in.

Definitely something I agree on!

 

[Richard]

Do you ever watch Lee bowl?? Lee rarely has any problem swinging the ball he swing's it far more than Gillespie, McGrath, Bichel etc..

You would think he would be more succsesfull considering how good a swing bowler he is.

I have watched Lee in the recent Zimbabwe First Test for the first time live in 2 years. He never swung a ball two years ago and swung it all over the place in that Zimbabwe Test. But still, he hasn't achieved much success in the interim.

 

[Craig]

When was the last Test before that, the Ashes or New Zealand's or South Africa's tour of Australia?

 

[Mr. P]

Bangladesh was the most recent series. Is that what you meant?

 

[Craig]

I mean the last series Richard saw Lee bowl?

 

[Richard]

Craig - the last time I saw Lee bowl for an extended period of watching (ie not just the odd wicket and the odd four, which you occasionally see on sports programs, even here in The UK) was the South Africa Test-series in South Africa.
A month later ITV Digital went bust and coverage of Sky Sports was lost to us for the foreseeable future.