Cricket: Art or Science?

[sledger]

Landing the ball consistently on the spot doesn't take you wickets.
Bad strokes, whether or not they are caused by that, do.

yes it does u fool

what is it that glen mcgrath does eh???

get ur facts sorted m8

 

[Swervy]

yes it does u fool

what is it that glen mcgrath does eh???

get ur facts sorted m8

woah!!!!!

This is a similar thing to what is being said elsewhere..can we please keep one thread free of repeated debates about the use of accurate bowling to get wickets.

 

[tooextracool]

ROFLMAO,gotta love these late provoked reactions......

 

[sledger]

ok but the fact remains that science is key

any1 who thinks it is an art shud be shot

 

[Swervy]

ROFLMAO,gotta love these late provoked reactions......

hehehe..he is like a little puppy that hasnt been house trained..keeps leaving crap in places it shouldnt be in

 

[sledger]

whereas batting is definitely an art with elements of science

 

[Richard]

well catches are dropped...and catches are caught..Australia are still a stunning fielding team...I dont think I have really noticed a huge jump in dropped catches, certainly no more than any other team.

Its not really that big a deal to me to be honest..I am more 'bothered' about the other thing you said,which is a joke

Well whether or not it's a big deal to you, it's a big deal to me, and I'm far more bothered about that, and the fact that no-one seems to have noticed.
No, Australia are not any worse than anyone but they are no longer a class above like they were in the 1999-2000-2001 sort of time. They are certainly not "stunning". They're not poor, either, but they are no more than average.
What irritates me is that no-one seems to have noticed, you still get Nasser Hussain saying "set your videos, an Australian misfield" after about the 6th fumble of the innings, two of which have been dropped catches.

 

[Swervy]

ok but the fact remains that science is key

any1 who thinks it is an art shud be shot

ooooh a bit harsh.

Of course it all boils down to science in the end...but if one appreciates the bowling of Murali,Warne or Lille or Holding or whoever it is easy (and enjoyable0 to see the art form that is involved in thatstyle of bowling

 

[Richard]

yes it does u fool

what is it that glen mcgrath does eh???

get ur facts sorted m8

As Swervy says, this is debated in many threads - no point adding this one.
Look around if you really want to get yourself involved. You don't have to dig too deep.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, flatter pitches - which do not change "accurate" into "inaccurate".

But does make it more innocuous and easier to hit.

Pinch-hitters, if anything, improve bowlers figures because sending a tail-ender in at the top of the order is simply an invitation to get a nice early wicket under your belt, and turn what would have been 10 for 2 into 10 for 3.

What codswallop - it gives the team a quick start and immediately has the fielding team on the back foot. Besides, the pinch-hitter is almost never a tail-ender, it's a fast-scoring batsman.

I suppose yet again it's a coincidence that we see far more 300+ scores then...

 

[Richard]

But does make it more innocuous and easier to hit.

Less likely to take wickets, maybe.
Easier to hit? No.
A ball at the top of off or good-length just outside is no easier to hit whatever the pitch.
It does change from batsman to batsman, of course it does.
And slower pitches make less-good balls also more difficult to hit - but we still get nice slow pitches sometimes, giving the medium-fast and slow-medium (Dharmasena, Kumble, Harris) the chance to do their stuff and get maximum credit for it.

What codswallop - it gives the team a quick start and immediately has the fielding team on the back foot. Besides, the pinch-hitter is almost never a tail-ender, it's a fast-scoring batsman.

And if he's good enough, he'll score runs - if he's not, he won't.
Pinch-hitting batsmen have been around for ages - most people trace it back to Mark Greatbach and someone for New Zealand in WC92, certainly the first time it was really pulicised was in WC96 with Jayasuriya and Kaluwitharana - but the fact is, the scoring-rates have only started to increase alarmingly in the last 3 or 4 years - at most.
The fact that these two things don't coincide means they can't really be linked.

I suppose yet again it's a coincidence that we see far more 300+ scores then...

No, it's not coincidence at all - it's just the fact that some of the newer bowlers to ODI-cricket aren't as good as some of the ones who've recently been lost to the game.

 

[marc71178]

Pinch-hitting batsmen have been around for ages - most people trace it back to Mark Greatbach and someone for New Zealand in WC92, certainly the first time it was really pulicised was in WC96 with Jayasuriya and Kaluwitharana - but the fact is, the scoring-rates have only started to increase alarmingly in the last 3 or 4 years - at most.

Whatever you say Richard

 

[Langeveldt]

Landing the ball consistently on the spot doesn't take you wickets.
Bad strokes, whether or not they are caused by that, do.

So the typical McGrath wicket.. Slight movement, back of a length ball, defensive prod, nick to the keeper is all the batsmans fault is it?

 

[Richard]

Oh, no, not at all, that's good bowling, McGrath is about as good at that as you can be.
Thing is, he's good at it only on seaming pitches - he hardly ever bowls that sort of ball when the pitch isn't offering movement off the seam.

 

[Richard]

Whatever you say Richard

So you're admitting you were wrong that pinch-hitting has actually had much of an influence on this sudden increase in ODI scoring-rates?

 

[luckyeddie]

Oh, no, not at all, that's good bowling, McGrath is about as good at that as you can be.
Thing is, he's good at it only on seaming pitches - he hardly ever bowls that sort of ball when the pitch isn't offering movement off the seam.

Perhaps he ought to try one into the ribs

 

[Richard]

I reckon he might have lost the fear-factor, now, though - he's just as likely to have such a crap ball pulled for four as Agarkar or someone is...
Whereas previously it was just ducked harmlessly.

 

[marc71178]

So you're admitting you were wrong that pinch-hitting has actually had much of an influence on this sudden increase in ODI scoring-rates?

No, becuase it has made a tremendous difference to the way that a side approaches the first 15 overs, and with it, the overall total is also higher.

 

[tooextracool]

Oh, no, not at all, that's good bowling, McGrath is about as good at that as you can be.
Thing is, he's good at it only on seaming pitches - he hardly ever bowls that sort of ball when the pitch isn't offering movement off the seam.

except that almost every wicket offers some amount of seam movement, and all mcgrath needs with the line and length that he bowls with is a hint of it.

 

[tooextracool]

but the fact is, the scoring-rates have only started to increase alarmingly in the last 3 or 4 years - at most.
The fact that these two things don't coincide means they can't really be linked.

interesting comment that, do you have figures that show that conclusively? ive always been under the impression that scoring rates increased from 96-00 before they increased dramatically after that.