Australians watching a different game

[Richard]

Get off the drugs mate, England didnt hammer anyone, they didnt even pass 180.

England lost 20 wickets for 334 runs and lost by 239 runs, I think you need to see a doctor.

You need to realise that you can hammer a bowler while losing wickets to them
Something England did with Lee after his opening spell.
You also need to learn that not all Englishmen are blindly patriotic, unlike some people around here.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

So accurate that he went for 95 off 20.1 overs after his 1st spell...
I mean, you can have a slightly poor economy-rate despite bowling accurately in Tests, but if you're going for all but 5-an-over you're doing something wrong - no doubts.

It doesn't matter how many runs you go at if you keep taking wickets. Lee is obviously never going to be the sort of bowler who goes at 2.5 an over in the long term. If nothing else, he has good balls go for runs far more than other bowlers, because of the pace he puts on the ball. Beating a batsman for pace can result in a wicket, but it can also result in them flailing the bat at it and edging it for a boundary.

No, he was dismissed by a shortish ball that bounced more than expected and caught him in 2 minds.

It caught him in two minds because it was an excellent delivery, and excellent bowling to the field placings. Ponting and Lee know that Jones is a compulsive player of the hook shot, so they put men on the boundary and Lee bowled a magnificent short ball that followed him down the slope. It is excellent bowling, simple as that.

And that simply shows that Giles is a poor player, not that Lee is particularly good.

That may be the case, but he still exploited his weakness perfectly.

Lee exploited this, as would most half-decent bowlers (as shown by the amount of rubbish bowling that got wickets in this Test).

Except the only person who thinks the bowlers who took wickets in this match (being Lee, McGrath, Warne and Harmison) bowled poorly is you, because none of them did.

Rubbish, that ball could have been delivered at 50mph and Vaughan would probably still have gone. If you can't tell by watching Vaughan that he's currently in horrible touch (has barely scored a First-Class run all season - except against Bangladesh) then you can't tell anything.
It was an average delivery that got the wicket of a fantastic batsman who's not seeing it well ATM. Good batsmen in good form DO NOT GET BEATEN FOR PACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

50 mph? So you're saying, if say Ricky Ponting had bowled that delivery which simply went straight at off-stump and Vaughan had tried to defend it, he would have missed it outright and been bowled? You're completely off the bloody planet. Watch the ball again. Vaughan is rushed by the pace on the ball and played down the wrong line, that's all there is to it. If the ball had been slower, he wouldn't have been rushed by it, and therefore he wouldn't have played down the wrong line.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Well I don't know about 50mph, but players do get out to medium pacers playing down the wrong line occasionally. Vaughans' bat was slightly angled to the on-side when playing the shot, which to me says more about him than Lee.
Good batsmaen can be done for pace though Richard, even when in form. See G.Thorpe, who even after making 100's, seemed to revel in getting his off stump knocked out not too infrequently.

 

[luckyeddie]

And if a bowler goes for 5 an over they are doing something wrong no doubt doesent sound good when Harmisons career economy rate is 4.77.

That's nothing. Glenn McGrath's career economy rate is 9.87.

Believe it or not, that statement is just as accurate as yours.

The 4.77 you refer to is Harmison's ODI economy rate - pretty good really, and only just behind Brett Lee's (who I think is a fabulous ODI bowler).

Glenn's pathetic career economy rate is, of course, his Twenty20 one - I just thought I'd throw that in to demonstrate to you that you can 'prove' anything by quoting statistics out of context.

Be more careful next time, Scallywag, or you might get a reputation for being unable to distinguish your coccyx from your humerus.

 

[Richard]

Well I don't know about 50mph, but players do get out to medium pacers playing down the wrong line occasionally. Vaughans' bat was slightly angled to the on-side when playing the shot, which to me says more about him than Lee.
Good batsmaen can be done for pace though Richard, even when in form. See G.Thorpe, who even after making 100's, seemed to revel in getting his off stump knocked out not too infrequently.

Can't say I can recall many occasions of Thorpe being beaten for pace.
Of course he's had his stumps hit, usually through means other than being late on the ball.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Of course he's had his stumps hit, usually through means other than being late on the ball.

I don't think that you necessarily have to be "late on the ball" to have been beaten by pace. People don't get their foot in the spot they want to because of the reduced time-span available to play a stroke, they're more wary of being hit so lean on the back foot.

But I guess it's the easiest way to tell that you've been beaten for pace...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The most common problem from being beaten for pace that leads to dismissal is simply being rushed in your shot. If the ball comes in quicker than you expected when you try and play it, you can often be forced to hurry things along, or attempt to pull out of the shot, and in doing so get yourself out. You saw this quite regularly in the test with Lee, but most notably with the Vaughan dismissal. Vaughan was rushed in his shot and played down the wrong line. 9 times out of 10 of course he could have got some bat on it and it just would been a somewhat awkward looking defensive shot, but it was quite clear he was being hurried on by Lee, and in the end played across the line of the ball and missed it.

 

[social]

Fairly economical? Nearly 3.5-an-over?
No-one played ANYONE with ease on this pitch, but Lee was handled far better than McGrath - FAR better, not just a bit.
Lee bowled accurately on just 1 occasion in this match - the opening spell in the first-innings. Otherwise he sprayed it all over everywhere. And he bowled just 1 wicket-taking ball, which had more to do with the pitch than his skill.
Otherwise it was just a poor leg-glance, an expectedly poor aerial drive from a tailender, an unneccessary change of mind and a play down the wrong line from someone who should be doing better.

Poor leg glance as a result of a 90 mph spell that had him so far on the back foot that he trod on his stumps.

Agree to an extent with Harmison but the reason he did not have his weight going forward was because he's facing a 90 mph bowler.

Strauss was late on the shot and did not have time to pull out of the shot.

Vaughan did not have time to adjust.

In other words, pace beat them all.

 

[social]

Good batsmen in good form DO NOT GET BEATEN FOR PACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Crap.

 

[Top_Cat]

Well I'm an Aussie and I MUST have been watching a different game because what I saw in Vaughan's dismissal was nothing like a batsman playing across the line. I saw a perfectly straight bat being beaten by a ball which pitched in line with middle and off and moved away to take off, very similar to his dismissal in the 2003 WC but that time he got an edge. To my mind, he did nothing wrong and just missed a great ball.

That said, even if he had no chance in the first dig, this does not look pretty;

http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/image/213981.html

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Well I'm an Aussie and I MUST have been watching a different game because what I saw in Vaughan's dismissal was nothing like a batsman playing across the line. I saw a perfectly straight bat being beaten by a ball which pitched in line with middle and off and moved away to take off, very similar to his dismissal in the 2003 WC but that time he got an edge. To my mind, he did nothing wrong and just missed a great ball.

That said, even if he had no chance in the first dig, this does not look pretty;

http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/image/213981.html

The ball did straighten slightly, but it probably wouldn't have been enough to beat the bat completely and not even get the edge if he hadn't played down the wrong line. His bat was angled when the ball passed him, which is why it seemed to me that he was rushing to get behind the ball because of the pace on it, and moved his bat across too far and missed it entirely.

 

[Richard]

It doesn't matter how many runs you go at if you keep taking wickets. Lee is obviously never going to be the sort of bowler who goes at 2.5 an over in the long term. If nothing else, he has good balls go for runs far more than other bowlers, because of the pace he puts on the ball. Beating a batsman for pace can result in a wicket, but it can also result in them flailing the bat at it and edging it for a boundary.

Once again - there's a difference between not going at 2.5-an-over and going for nearly 5-an-over.
And believe it or not this isn't completely forgivable if you take wickets - not least because the more runs you go for the more likely you're not bowling sufficient deliveries in the right areas.

It caught him in two minds because it was an excellent delivery, and excellent bowling to the field placings. Ponting and Lee know that Jones is a compulsive player of the hook shot, so they put men on the boundary and Lee bowled a magnificent short ball that followed him down the slope. It is excellent bowling, simple as that.

A magnificent short-ball, now I've heard it all.
It was a poor stroke, simple as, no amount of good field-placings will disguise that, and it wasn't a good delivery.

That may be the case, but he still exploited his weakness perfectly.

Indeed - give him a medal for exploiting such a glaring weakness.

Except the only person who thinks the bowlers who took wickets in this match (being Lee, McGrath, Warne and Harmison) bowled poorly is you, because none of them did.

McGrath certainly didn't bowl poorly on the first afternoon, quite the opposite.
And I don't care if I'm the only one who thinks Lee and Harmison bowled poorly - I'm hardly one to bow to the commoners.

50 mph? So you're saying, if say Ricky Ponting had bowled that delivery which simply went straight at off-stump and Vaughan had tried to defend it, he would have missed it outright and been bowled? You're completely off the bloody planet. Watch the ball again. Vaughan is rushed by the pace on the ball and played down the wrong line, that's all there is to it. If the ball had been slower, he wouldn't have been rushed by it, and therefore he wouldn't have played down the wrong line.

He might well, because his form currently is extremely poor and in case you didn't notice he did similar things to other delveries, from other bowlers, in the match.

 

[Richard]

I don't think that you necessarily have to be "late on the ball" to have been beaten by pace. People don't get their foot in the spot they want to because of the reduced time-span available to play a stroke, they're more wary of being hit so lean on the back foot.

But I guess it's the easiest way to tell that you've been beaten for pace...

That's not being late on the ball, it's being reluctant to do what everyone knows you should be.
And it does happen, quite a bit, and it's exceptionally rare for it to result in a wicket. Only people remember the exceptionally rare occasions it happens and none of those where it doesn't.

 

[Richard]

Poor leg glance as a result of a 90 mph spell that had him so far on the back foot that he trod on his stumps.

Agree to an extent with Harmison but the reason he did not have his weight going forward was because he's facing a 90 mph bowler.

Strauss was late on the shot and did not have time to pull out of the shot.

Vaughan did not have time to adjust.

In other words, pace beat them all.

Wow, beating Giles and Harmison for pace - give him a medal.
Straus was quite the opposite - he was early on it, tried to change, and got it wrong because the pitch was very difficult to pull on.
Vaughan wouldn't have had time to adjust with a ball of half the pace.

 

[Richard]

Well I'm an Aussie and I MUST have been watching a different game because what I saw in Vaughan's dismissal was nothing like a batsman playing across the line. I saw a perfectly straight bat being beaten by a ball which pitched in line with middle and off and moved away to take off, very similar to his dismissal in the 2003 WC but that time he got an edge. To my mind, he did nothing wrong and just missed a great ball.

That said, even if he had no chance in the first dig, this does not look pretty;

http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/image/213981.html

Just take a look at the little GM type on the thighpad.
That's about where it should have bounced.
Almost no dismissal ever looks pretty.
Try tracing the flightpath of that Lee ball - it barely moved at all.

 

[tooextracool]

The most common problem from being beaten for pace that leads to dismissal is simply being rushed in your shot. If the ball comes in quicker than you expected when you try and play it, you can often be forced to hurry things along, or attempt to pull out of the shot, and in doing so get yourself out. You saw this quite regularly in the test with Lee, but most notably with the Vaughan dismissal. Vaughan was rushed in his shot and played down the wrong line. 9 times out of 10 of course he could have got some bat on it and it just would been a somewhat awkward looking defensive shot, but it was quite clear he was being hurried on by Lee, and in the end played across the line of the ball and missed it.

as has already been stated, vaughan in form wouldnt have missed that ball.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

A magnificent short-ball, now I've heard it all.
It was a poor stroke, simple as, no amount of good field-placings will disguise that, and it wasn't a good delivery.

Obviously, your bias (whatever the basis of it is) against short-pitched bowling is never going to allow you admit a wicket taken with a bouncer was deserved. Nevertheless, accurate, fast short-pitched bowling which forces the batsman to play always has been and always will be a wicket taking tactic. It is one of the reasons the West Indies four prong was so successful, because such bowling is extremely difficult to play and easy to hit in the air. Inaccurate short-pitched bowling obviously isn't worth much as you can just avoid it, but there's a reason that most of the best seamers ever seen regularly employed short bowling to good effect.

 

[Top_Cat]

Try tracing the flightpath of that Lee ball - it barely moved at all.

Yeah but at that speed, no ball is going to move a great deal. The ball is just simply travelling too fast to get grip on the pitch to move a long way. It's why slower bowlers get more movement. It's not brain surgery but basic physics. And at that speed, it moved more than enough to beat the stroke and I still maintain that even in form, Vaughan would have probably missed it. It was just too quick and too good.

A magnificent short-ball, now I've heard it all.

It is possible to bowl good stort stuff and get wickets with them. You poking your fingers in your ears and screaming "LA LA LA!" won't change that. Put it this way; if we were in the nets and I bowled you a short one, you'd struggle more to cope with it than a length ball. They're not a weapon to be used consistently even against a batsman who's been out to them a few times; they're a shock weapon, like a slower-ball or a yorker because all three of those are 'low-percentage' deliveries. Intelligent usage of short balls takes wickets and has been proven time and again. Geez, even Ponting who's as good a player of the pull-hook as you'll see has struggled against the short ones this season and that's because the bowling has been high-standard stuff generally. Harmi in particular has made him rush the shot on a few occasions I've seen. And Lee, bowled them with great accuracy in the first Test and was probably part of the reason he took a few wickets.

The ball which got Strauss is a case in point; from over-the-wicket, a bouncer would have angled away from him and likely flown through to the 'keeper. From around-the-wicket, the bouncer angled in at the batsman an as he went to make that split-second decision to pull or get out of the way, it followed him and in the end, he made the decision too late, hence why he was half-way through pulling/letting-it-go. It was really well-executed set-piece against a well-set batsman who is usually really good on the pull shot. That was high-standard bowling from Lee and just to ram home the point, I doubt either Glenn McGrath or Jason Gillespie would have been able to emulate it because they don't have the raw speed to force the indecision.

 

[luckyeddie]

Obviously, your bias (whatever the basis of it is) against short-pitched bowling is never going to allow you admit a wicket taken with a bouncer was deserved. Nevertheless, accurate, fast short-pitched bowling which forces the batsman to play always has been and always will be a wicket taking tactic. It is one of the reasons the West Indies four prong was so successful, because such bowling is extremely difficult to play and easy to hit in the air. Inaccurate short-pitched bowling obviously isn't worth much as you can just avoid it, but there's a reason that most of the best seamers ever seen regularly employed short bowling to good effect.

lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala

Richard can't hear you

lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala

Edit: Reads previous post - God! Corey even beat me to the lalalalala bit. Going to cry now.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

A magnificent short-ball, now I've heard it all.
It was a poor stroke, simple as, no amount of good field-placings will disguise that, and it wasn't a good delivery.

Some batsmen play "poor strokes" to good short deliveries, that's why bowlers bowl them. For example the chances of KP getting out to that delivery are negligible, whereas there is a severe chance of Giles and Jones getting out to them. This is cricket and it's played by human beings, not androids. It'd be a pretty poor show if every batsmen played the correct shot at the correct time, all the time. It was a good delivery to Jones, doubtful it would've been a good one to KP.