Cricket: Art or Science?

[Tom Halsey]

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

Short of a good length, is just that - short. It does exactly what it says on the tin. Agreed, on a flat one it can be ideal, but generally short of a good length is short.

 

[tooextracool]

Short of a good length, is just that - short. It does exactly what it says on the tin. Agreed, on a flat one it can be ideal, but generally short of a good length is short.

short of a good length doesnt make it short, if i said that it was just short of being a yorker, it doesnt mean that its a short ball. the perfect length cannot be mistaken for something short, the first thing that my coach taught me was that there were 3 lengths:short,just short of good length and full.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

nope a hint of swing movement and seam movement has undone several batsmen....believe me if someone like mcgrath bowls ball after ball on the same spot there are bound to be times when one of them just does a little bit more or a little less. and thats all it takes to get someone out.

 

[Richard]

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

And blindness is not something to be taken lightly.

 

[Richard]

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.

No, it doesn't - it takes at least half a foot of movement, allowing for the small amount of correction available from a short-of-length ball, to make an outside-edge a likelihood.
Maybe it was evident from Pollock at Galle - shame I didn't see any of the match.

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

No, but the distance a ball has to move, allowing for a small amount of adjustment (relative to the length of the ball) means it's rather greater than might first be thought. ^^

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

Maybe it's the perfect length if you're not moving the ball (which is different, for good bowlers, to there being a flat pitch), but if you're moving the ball, the fuller the better - more chances of a nick, less chance of the batsman being able to get the nick down.

 

[Richard]

short of a good length doesnt make it short, if i said that it was just short of being a yorker, it doesnt mean that its a short ball. the perfect length cannot be mistaken for something short, the first thing that my coach taught me was that there were 3 lengths:short,just short of good length and full.

There are as many different lengths as you want there to be; if you want to cut it down to feet, there are a different number of lengths than if you cut it down to inches.
Personally I've always cut it down to:
Bouncer, Long-Hop, just-short-of-length, good-length, full, Half-Volley, Yorker, Full-Toss, Beamer.
Of course, these lengths change relative to the height of the batsman, the bounce in the pitch and the height of the bowler, because they all concern the height at which the ball will reach the batsman.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

hahaha, yes ok Richard, master of all that is good in the cricketing world. A short of a length ball can often put the batsman in two minds regarding whether to play forward or back. If a batsman plays back to this type of delivery (which incidentally is THE spot to bowl to pretty much every batsman, and is a very good starting point if you aren't aware of any weakness of either the front or the back foot to begin with) then a small amount of movement has the ability to generate a dismissal, in fact if he plays forward and doesn't get to the pitch then it only takes a small amount of movement combined with some bounce to again see a catch offered in the gully to slip region.

The reason few batsmen have tried to pull him off this length may be because (as i said above) the ball is just short of a good length (i.e - one that is drivable, or is able to be played off the front foot) but not so short that the batsman's first thought is to play back to it.

How do balls in this area with a small amount of movement rank as being easier to play? Your batting talent is obviously betrayed by your achievements to date if you find this the case.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No, it doesn't - it takes at least half a foot of movement, allowing for the small amount of correction available from a short-of-length ball, to make an outside-edge a likelihood.
Maybe it was evident from Pollock at Galle - shame I didn't see any of the match.

No, but the distance a ball has to move, allowing for a small amount of adjustment (relative to the length of the ball) means it's rather greater than might first be thought. ^^

Maybe it's the perfect length if you're not moving the ball (which is different, for good bowlers, to there being a flat pitch), but if you're moving the ball, the fuller the better - more chances of a nick, less chance of the batsman being able to get the nick down.

I actually having nothing extra to add apart from the comments above on this one at the moment, but comments such as 'it takes at least half a foot of movement to make an outside edge a likelihood' make you out to be the fool that I suspect you are in matters related to cricket.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Short of a good length, is just that - short. It does exactly what it says on the tin. Agreed, on a flat one it can be ideal, but generally short of a good length is short.

Sorry mate, but short of a length is not short. A short ball is one in which there's only one choice available, and that is to play it off the back foot. As I said above though the short of a length ball is perfect length in that it can put a batsman in two minds as to which way to go. Short of a length is ideal on most wickets, in fact on seaming or bouncy wickets it'll cause the batsman more trouble than on flat. Richard stated in one of his posts that pitching it up would be a better option, but I am assuming he presumed that a bowler who moves it around of the seam etc will do so every ball, which is not the case at all. If you pitch it up and it doesn't move then you're going to go for a lot more runs than if you keep it short of a length - McGrath generally bowls there (along with pretty much all of the top quicks who have been pretty successful, it's where you'll bowl with the greatest effectiveness in the long run) and I think 400 odd wickets is a good example to follow. The only difference you find is that varying heights amongst the bowlers etc actually alter the spot on the wicket where you'd pitch it to be short of a length, some players will extract more bounce than others etc but it's always a useful spot to bowl.

 

[Richard]

A short of a length ball can often put the batsman in two minds regarding whether to play forward or back. If a batsman plays back to this type of delivery (which incidentally is THE spot to bowl to pretty much every batsman, and is a very good starting point if you aren't aware of any weakness of either the front or the back foot to begin with) then a small amount of movement has the ability to generate a dismissal, in fact if he plays forward and doesn't get to the pitch then it only takes a small amount of movement combined with some bounce to again see a catch offered in the gully to slip region.

It takes about six inches of movement to get the edge (allowing for the ability of the batsmen - the less good, the less movement you need - a foot which is for a good batsman), if you think about it.
Fuller, a foot will beat the bat and be gone; you need to move it less the fuller you bowl.
Well, up to a point - if you bowl a Half-Volley you need to virtually move it round corners to have a hope of getting the edge. Just short of that, you need to move it only maybe three inches.
Of course short-of-length is the spot to bowl at any batsman - but if you bowl it there, you need to move it more than you do if you bowl typically fuller.

The reason few batsmen have tried to pull him off this length may be because (as i said above) the ball is just short of a good length (i.e - one that is drivable, or is able to be played off the front foot) but not so short that the batsman's first thought is to play back to it.

Clearly we have different definitions of "short-of-length". Personally I define it as getting to the batsman at waist height - a height the immidiate reaction is to play back, it'd be pretty poor to play forward to a ball coming to you there.

How do balls in this area with a small amount of movement rank as being easier to play? Your batting talent is obviously betrayed by your achievements to date if you find this the case.

Err, because the shorter a ball the more adjustment you can make. A short-of-length ball is easier to adjust to than a full ball - no two ways about that.

 

[Richard]

I actually having nothing extra to add apart from the comments above on this one at the moment, but comments such as 'it takes at least half a foot of movement to make an outside edge a likelihood' make you out to be the fool that I suspect you are in matters related to cricket.

Think about it.
Realise that it is the fool who thinks otherwise.

 

[Richard]

Sorry mate, but short of a length is not short. A short ball is one in which there's only one choice available, and that is to play it off the back foot. As I said above though the short of a length ball is perfect length in that it can put a batsman in two minds as to which way to go. Short of a length is ideal on most wickets, in fact on seaming or bouncy wickets it'll cause the batsman more trouble than on flat.

As I said above, our definitions clearly differ.
Of course it's the place to bowl on a seaming pitch (or an uneven one) - which is one of the reasons why McGrath is so deadly on a seaming pitch, probably about as deadly as any seamer can ever be.

Richard stated in one of his posts that pitching it up would be a better option, but I am assuming he presumed that a bowler who moves it around of the seam etc will do so every ball, which is not the case at all. If you pitch it up and it doesn't move then you're going to go for a lot more runs than if you keep it short of a length - McGrath generally bowls there (along with pretty much all of the top quicks who have been pretty successful, it's where you'll bowl with the greatest effectiveness in the long run) and I think 400 odd wickets is a good example to follow.

Of course you're going to go for more runs when you pitch it up and it doesn't seam\swing. That's incredibly obvious.
I never said pitching it up is a better option on a flat, non-seaming wicket. But it is the best option if you can move the ball and are looking to get the batsmen out.

The only difference you find is that varying heights amongst the bowlers etc actually alter the spot on the wicket where you'd pitch it to be short of a length, some players will extract more bounce than others etc but it's always a useful spot to bowl.

The height of the batsman and the amount of bounce in the pitch also affects it.

 

[marc71178]

It takes about six inches of movement to get the edge

I think it's much less than that.

Bear in mind the stumps are 9 inches.

That's the equivalent of pitching middle and leg and hitting off...

 

[SJS]

I think it's much less than that.

Bear in mind the stumps are 9 inches.

That's the equivalent of pitching middle and leg and hitting off...

Movement is best visualised in terms of angle of deviation. Sideways movement in inches is dependent on how far the ball travels beofre you compare from where it pitched..

A near half volley could take an edge with 2-3 inch movement .

 

[abe]

I think that artistry in cricket emerges when the player is in such control of his/her craft that they can express themselves through their actions.

 

[tooextracool]

No, it doesn't - it takes at least half a foot of movement, allowing for the small amount of correction available from a short-of-length ball, to make an outside-edge a likelihood.
Maybe it was evident from Pollock at Galle - shame I didn't see any of the match.

half a foot? are you out of your mind? it takes only a couple of inches to get the outside edge, and we've seen it time and time again.

No, but the distance a ball has to move, allowing for a small amount of adjustment (relative to the length of the ball) means it's rather greater than might first be thought. ^^

oh it is but it still isnt considerably greater......

Maybe it's the perfect length if you're not moving the ball (which is different, for good bowlers, to there being a flat pitch), but if you're moving the ball, the fuller the better - more chances of a nick, less chance of the batsman being able to get the nick down.

yes obviously when you are moving the ball you want to keep it fuller, which is why i said it is the best length to bowl on flat wickets, and which is why mcgrath has done well on flat wickets in the past.

 

[tooextracool]

There are as many different lengths as you want there to be; if you want to cut it down to feet, there are a different number of lengths than if you cut it down to inches.
Personally I've always cut it down to:
Bouncer, Long-Hop, just-short-of-length, good-length, full, Half-Volley, Yorker, Full-Toss, Beamer.
Of course, these lengths change relative to the height of the batsman, the bounce in the pitch and the height of the bowler, because they all concern the height at which the ball will reach the batsman.

err yes i know but it doesnt change the fact that short of a length is not short. its between being short and being full.

 

[Richard]

Movement is best visualised in terms of angle of deviation. Sideways movement in inches is dependent on how far the ball travels beofre you compare from where it pitched..

A near half volley could take an edge with 2-3 inch movement .

Exactly.
A fuller ball has to move less than a shorter one.

 

[Richard]

I think it's much less than that.

Bear in mind the stumps are 9 inches.

That's the equivalent of pitching middle and leg and hitting off...

If you're bowling at 80mph or so, I think 6 inches is about the amount a short-of-length ball has to move to take the edge of a good batsman.
Clearly, it is different for a tail-ender (it has to move less) and clearly it is different for a faster bowler (again, it has to move less).

 

[Richard]

half a foot? are you out of your mind? it takes only a couple of inches to get the outside edge, and we've seen it time and time again.

On full balls, yes - on short balls, at slowish fast-medium (80mph) or so it takes about three times that amount.

yes obviously when you are moving the ball you want to keep it fuller, which is why i said it is the best length to bowl on flat wickets, and which is why mcgrath has done well on flat wickets in the past.

Except that just because the wicket is flat it doesn't stop you from moving it in the air - moving it in the air is just not often McGrath's style, so he is better suited to bowling short-of-a-length.