Cricket: Art or Science?

[Richard]

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.

Where is the evidence it makes a difference?
The fact that pinch-hitting started about 10 years before the event?
Personally I'd say that's evidence it played no part whatsoever.

 

[Richard]

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.

Every pitch offers seam-movement - that's one I've not heard before!
Yes, almost every pitch may produce the odd ball that hits the seam and deviates dangerously, but that's maybe 1 ball in 100 or so.
For that ball to become wicket-taking it has to be pitched in the right spot to make the batsman have to play.
It also has, of course, to deviate the right amount to cause a nick not a play-and-miss.
And these factors make it rather obvious the reasons McGrath has hardly bowled any on non-regular-seaming pitches in the last 3 years.

 

[Richard]

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.

I'm sure there must be some stuff somewhere about it.
True, though, it's only a perception. Certainly it's the case in domestic-one-day-cricket here in England.
It'd be tough, I reckon, to get month-by-month (or even quarterly) scoring-rates of all ODIs (and of course you'd have to exclude the farce-matches). Having just the 96, 97, 98, 99 and 2000 figures, of course, would be far too open to generalisation.
But the Jan-Mar-96, Apr-Jun-96, Jul-Sep-96, Oct-Dec-96, etc. stuff would make interesting reading. Then we could find-out whether that perception was incorrect.

 

[marc71178]

Where is the evidence it makes a difference?
The fact that pinch-hitting started about 10 years before the event?
Personally I'd say that's evidence it played no part whatsoever.

So why are run rates all on the increase, and how come the first 15 overs go for a lot more than they did pre-96?

And no matter that NZ may have experimented with it in 92, it is from 96 that it came into being as an acknowledged tactic.

 

[Richard]

Yes, true, it only became widely used after 1996.
Why, then, did it take 4 or 5 years for this supposed influence to actually have an effect?

 

[marc71178]

Sides take time to adapt.

In 96 SL started it, but others had to look at it and work out how best to go about it (eg England initially tried Neil Smith in the role)

 

[Richard]

So of course it takes 4 or 5 years to adapt...

 

[tooextracool]

Every pitch offers seam-movement - that's one I've not heard before!

that might have to do with how much cricket you watch....you havent noticed that the new ball moves around to different extents.

Yes, almost every pitch may produce the odd ball that hits the seam and deviates dangerously, but that's maybe 1 ball in 100 or so.

the key word here is 'dangerously', never have i brought anything like that into the argument......

For that ball to become wicket-taking it has to be pitched in the right spot to make the batsman have to play.
It also has, of course, to deviate the right amount to cause a nick not a play-and-miss.
And these factors make it rather obvious the reasons McGrath has hardly bowled any on non-regular-seaming pitches in the last 3 years.

and because every wicket offers something with the new ball, and some even do with the old ball, it only takes a hint of movement to get the outside edge and with mcgrath's accuracy and delivery position so very close to the stumps its often extremely difficult for batsman to know which way the ball is going.

 

[tooextracool]

I'm sure there must be some stuff somewhere about it.
True, though, it's only a perception. Certainly it's the case in domestic-one-day-cricket here in England.
It'd be tough, I reckon, to get month-by-month (or even quarterly) scoring-rates of all ODIs (and of course you'd have to exclude the farce-matches). Having just the 96, 97, 98, 99 and 2000 figures, of course, would be far too open to generalisation.
But the Jan-Mar-96, Apr-Jun-96, Jul-Sep-96, Oct-Dec-96, etc. stuff would make interesting reading. Then we could find-out whether that perception was incorrect.

and yet you can make such a bold statement such as "but the fact is, the scoring-rates have only started to increase alarmingly in the last 3 or 4 years - at most."

 

[Richard]

Add "in my perception" - and that of others with whom I've discussed the matter.

 

[Richard]

that might have to do with how much cricket you watch....you havent noticed that the new ball moves around to different extents.

Err, yes, I have - sometimes it moves around sufficiently to bring outside-edges and play-and-misses into the equation - sometimes it moves around just enough to make the odd ball hit the outer or inner part of the bat, rather than bang on the face. Exaggerated in some cases, of course, by the batsman not getting the face dead straight.

the key word here is 'dangerously', never have i brought anything like that into the argument......

And if a ball doesn't deviate dangerously, fairly obviously it's not going to create problems with an uncontrollable outside-edge.

and because every wicket offers something with the new ball, and some even do with the old ball, it only takes a hint of movement to get the outside edge and with mcgrath's accuracy and delivery position so very close to the stumps its often extremely difficult for batsman to know which way the ball is going.

Depending on the length of the ball, the pace of the bowler and the point at which the movement occurs, you need different amounts of movement.
McGrath, a bowler of no great pace, who tends to bowl short, really needs to move the ball a bit more than, say, someone like Shoaib Akhtar.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Err, yes, I have - sometimes it moves around sufficiently to bring outside-edges and play-and-misses into the equation - sometimes it moves around just enough to make the odd ball hit the outer or inner part of the bat, rather than bang on the face. Exaggerated in some cases, of course, by the batsman not getting the face dead straight.

And if a ball doesn't deviate dangerously, fairly obviously it's not going to create problems with an uncontrollable outside-edge.

Depending on the length of the ball, the pace of the bowler and the point at which the movement occurs, you need different amounts of movement.
McGrath, a bowler of no great pace, who tends to bowl short, really needs to move the ball a bit more than, say, someone like Shoaib Akhtar.

That'd be short-of-a-length Richard, not short...thus making him a little harder to play.

 

[tooextracool]

Err, yes, I have - sometimes it moves around sufficiently to bring outside-edges and play-and-misses into the equation - sometimes it moves around just enough to make the odd ball hit the outer or inner part of the bat, rather than bang on the face. Exaggerated in some cases, of course, by the batsman not getting the face dead straight..

so now you agree that every wicket offers some amount of seam movement then?

And if a ball doesn't deviate dangerously, fairly obviously it's not going to create problems with an uncontrollable outside-edge...

nope a quality bowler doesnt need dangerous amounts of deviation to get wickets, the hint of movement of the seam and in the air is more than enough.

Depending on the length of the ball, the pace of the bowler and the point at which the movement occurs, you need different amounts of movement.
McGrath, a bowler of no great pace, who tends to bowl short, really needs to move the ball a bit more than, say, someone like Shoaib Akhtar.

and now mcgrath bowls short doesnt he? amazing how one of the most accurate bowlers ever is now considered to be bowling short. no mcgrath bowls short of good length and while he doesnt have much pace, he uses his height to get bounce of the wicket.

 

[Tony Blade]

Please dont ruin another thread...

 

[Richard]

so now you agree that every wicket offers some amount of seam movement then?

Every wicket anywhere in The World will seam a bit with a new-ball - not enough to cause problems, and just because it's in England doesn't mean it does suddenly move enough to cause problems.

nope a quality bowler doesnt need dangerous amounts of deviation to get wickets, the hint of movement of the seam and in the air is more than enough.

If something is only moving a hint it's not dangerous - if it's not dangerous, it's not going to result in wickets.

and now mcgrath bowls short doesnt he? amazing how one of the most accurate bowlers ever is now considered to be bowling short. no mcgrath bowls short of good length and while he doesnt have much pace, he uses his height to get bounce of the wicket.

McGrath bowls short mostly, Ambrose bowled short mostly - there is no particular harm in it. But it does mean you need to move the ball a bit more than someone like Gough, Hoggard or Anderson who tend to bowl much fuller.
"Short of good length" is short - it's just a term people use because "bowling short" is assumed automatically to be a bad thing, and people might get accused of accusing great bowlers of doing stuff wrong if they said that.

 

[Richard]

That'd be short-of-a-length Richard, not short...thus making him a little harder to play.

Making him harder to score off (unless, of course, you pull him off his length, which few batsmen have ever tried to do), yes, but not making his deliveries that move away a tiny little bit any harder to play - in fact, making them easier.

 

[Richard]

Please dont ruin another thread...

What a ridiculous comment - if anyone else wants to say something, they can say it, they don't need to bother with me or tooextracool's posts.
And I can't see anyone saying anything else, suggesting that without me and tooextracool, the thread would be dead - so we're not actually doing anyone any harm.

 

[marc71178]

There's none so blind as those that cannot see...

 

[tooextracool]

Every wicket anywhere in The World will seam a bit with a new-ball - not enough to cause problems, and just because it's in England doesn't mean it does suddenly move enough to cause problems.

actually no, there is enough for quality bowlers to cause problems, and i think that was evident from pollock in the first test in SL. because bowlers like mcgrath are so accurate and bowl from so close to the stumps it only takes that hint of movement to get the outside edge.

If something is only moving a hint it's not dangerous - if it's not dangerous, it's not going to result in wickets.

incidentally the distance from the middle of the bat to the edge isnt that great either.....

McGrath bowls short mostly, Ambrose bowled short mostly - there is no particular harm in it. But it does mean you need to move the ball a bit more than someone like Gough, Hoggard or Anderson who tend to bowl much fuller.
"Short of good length" is short - it's just a term people use because "bowling short" is assumed automatically to be a bad thing, and people might get accused of accusing great bowlers of doing stuff wrong if they said that.

rubbish short of good length is not short, its the perfect length, particularly on flat wickets.

 

[Tom Halsey]

incidentally the distance from the middle of the bat to the edge isnt that great either.....

Yes, but if the batsman knows it's only swinging a little, he'll play outside the line. If it swings a little, he middles it. If it doesn't, he gets an inside nick - generally not resulting in anything dangerous. Therefore swing but only a little swing is not too dangerous. That's not to say that it can't get anyone out, though.