**Official** 2004 Natwest Series (Eng, NZL, WI)

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

For those Marlon Samuels supporters out there...

Samuels cracks 300 not out from 357 balls

 

[badgerhair]

not having seen any coverage I'm a bit confused as to what the debate is about..........left arm spin over the wicket...............or is it that his line was outside leg to find the rough & then turn into the batsmen?????????

my understanding is that unless you bowl over the wicket it is difficult to get an LBW...........however if your line is outside Leg then the batsman can not be given out LBW...........

I think you mean "if" rather than "unless". LBW is very difficult for the left-arm over bowler because if he pitches it on leg stump or further over, the spin takes it further away from the stumps rather than coming back in, so it virtually has to pitch outside leg if it's going to hit the wicket.

IMO I see nothing 'defensive' or 'negative' about bowling over the wicket, but it would depend upon how far outside Leg his line was & how much turn he was getting both with & without hitting the rough..............eg if he missed the rough as much as he got it and there was little turn to be had unless he got it, then you could say it was boring, defensive & 'negative'.....

by the same token it is then up to the batting side to counter those tactics if they are intent on scoring...........

I don't remember too many people complaining when Warne goes around the wicket (which happend fairly regularly).........and he pitches quite a bit outside Leg depending on how much turn & bounce he is getting..........

What this is all about is that when England went to India, they took the view that they had to stop Tendulkar scoring at 70/100 balls and reduce him to a manageable 40/100. If it had the further effect of tempting him into rash shots to break the tension, so much the better, but the basic aim was to reduce Tendulkar's scoring rate. As long as he could be kept under control, they reasoned, they had enough firepower to get rid of the others with the score still within sight of being gettable.

So Giles went over the wicket and bowled relentlessly two feet outside leg stump, turning it fractionally in but clearly only expecting a wicket by fluke. At the other end, it was Hoggard or Flintoff bowling way outside off at SRT but attacking the stumps rather more when the others were there.

Since then, every time Giles goes over the wicket, the peanut gallery assumes that he's doing the stop-SRT bit and starts being rude about him.

As you say, it is perfectly possible for a bowler to pitch the ball on or outside leg stump and still be attacking; even if lbw is basically off the menu, bowled is on (as Cairns quickly found out, as did Gatting in 1993), and so are catches in the offside trap.

It's not pretty to watch, because the batsmen is inherently cramped up unless he's prepared to take his life in his hands and charge the bowler, but nobody seems to complain when the various Indian left arm seamers bowl the same sort of line, presumably because Sachin isn't facing.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Smudge]

completely off topic - regarding the great Bonecrusher - who / what was the name of the other NZL horse that he used to run against in his AUS campaigns?????????

I remember the pair of them were streets ahead of the rest of the fields going hammer & tongs at the line, & Bonecrusher would usually end up winning by a long neck or something..............but I can't remember the name of the other horse........

The other horse was Waverley Star - that famous race where they took each other on was the 1986 WS Cox Plate.

 

[anzac]

The other horse was Waverley Star - that famous race where they took each other on was the 1986 WS Cox Plate.

ahhh yes - memory fades but it was a helluva race...........

many thanx...........

 

[anzac]

I think you mean "if" rather than "unless". LBW is very difficult for the left-arm over bowler because if he pitches it on leg stump or further over, the spin takes it further away from the stumps rather than coming back in, so it virtually has to pitch outside leg if it's going to hit the wicket.

Cheers,

Mike

I was referring to bowler's line & umpire view - isn't it generally regarded that you have a better chance at getting an LBW decision by bowling 'over' rather than 'around'..........

I know this is the basic 'rule' regarding seam bowling, but does the opposite hold true for slow / spin bowling????

I understand your point regarding the spin taking it away, but what about the 'arm' ball????? On a turning wicket I see nothing wrong with left arm spin over the wicket bowling a line on middle & off (with the right field settings), as it brings the arm ball into play re LBWs........

 

[badgerhair]

I was referring to bowler's line & umpire view - isn't it generally regarded that you have a better chance at getting an LBW decision by bowling 'over' rather than 'around'..........

I know this is the basic 'rule' regarding seam bowling, but does the opposite hold true for slow / spin bowling????

I understand your point regarding the spin taking it away, but what about the 'arm' ball????? On a turning wicket I see nothing wrong with left arm spin over the wicket bowling a line on middle & off (with the right field settings), as it brings the arm ball into play re LBWs........

Most finger spinners don't use the arm ball as their stock delivery. Their normal delivery breaks to their left if a left-arm bowler, right if right-arm. So the left-arm spinner gets lbw by going round the wicket, pitching leg or leg and middle and breaking to middle and off. So the arm ball variation takes lbw out of the equation.

Over the wicket, it's reversed.

Since seam bowlers are basically always bowling arm balls, except when they slip in a cutter, the advice for their lbws would be similarly reversed.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[anzac]

Most finger spinners don't use the arm ball as their stock delivery. Their normal delivery breaks to their left if a left-arm bowler, right if right-arm. So the left-arm spinner gets lbw by going round the wicket, pitching leg or leg and middle and breaking to middle and off. So the arm ball variation takes lbw out of the equation.

Over the wicket, it's reversed.

Since seam bowlers are basically always bowling arm balls, except when they slip in a cutter, the advice for their lbws would be similarly reversed.

Cheers,

Mike

yep so I was right - as a 'rule' it applies to seam bowling.........

I understand what you are saying re their actions etc, but what I was trying to hypothesize was why the fixation that an over the wicket delivery has to be pitched with the intent to attack from outside leg????

if the bowler has a good enough arm ball & uses it often enough then depending on the turn in the pitch they could still pitch in line with the stumps as a leg spinner does to bring their top spinner etc into play for an LBW.........as both line of attack are turning the ball away from the bat..........

granted it's not the conventional wisdom..........

 

[Neil Pickup]

I understand what you are saying re their actions etc, but what I was trying to hypothesize was why the fixation that an over the wicket delivery has to be pitched with the intent to attack from outside leg????

It's the same fixation that prevents people from admitting Giles actually bowled well/Harmison is actually good etc, etc.

 

[badgerhair]

yep so I was right - as a 'rule' it applies to seam bowling.........

I understand what you are saying re their actions etc, but what I was trying to hypothesize was why the fixation that an over the wicket delivery has to be pitched with the intent to attack from outside leg????

if the bowler has a good enough arm ball & uses it often enough then depending on the turn in the pitch they could still pitch in line with the stumps as a leg spinner does to bring their top spinner etc into play for an LBW.........as both line of attack are turning the ball away from the bat..........

granted it's not the conventional wisdom..........

Well, we're not exactly talking theory here. We're talking about Giles and what he actually bowls.

He doesn't use the armball as a stock delivery. He mostly pitches outside leg stump. The argument is whether or not he's just being negative when he pitches it near leg stump and floats it across the batsman - which he isn't. It's when he pitches it further out and isn't attempting to get the batsman out at all that he's being negative. The negative line is the one Atherton used to get Tufnell to bowl at people like Steve Waugh in a vain attempt to get them to fall asleep and knock over their stumps.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[marc71178]

The thing that made me angry was how many wrong decisions the umpires made. Like the one with Styris saying that it was caught behind, he was at least two inches away from the ball!

Which is countered by the one Thorpe missed by 6 inches!

 

[badgerhair]

Originally Posted by Piper
The thing that made me angry was how many wrong decisions the umpires made. Like the one with Styris saying that it was caught behind, he was at least two inches away from the ball!

Which is countered by the one Thorpe missed by 6 inches!

It wasn't "umpires" but "umpire". Taufel had a bad match, especially days three and four. Perhaps it's not a good idea for umpires to stand in back-to-back Tests.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[anzac]

Well, we're not exactly talking theory here. We're talking about Giles and what he actually bowls.

He doesn't use the armball as a stock delivery. He mostly pitches outside leg stump. The argument is whether or not he's just being negative when he pitches it near leg stump and floats it across the batsman - which he isn't. It's when he pitches it further out and isn't attempting to get the batsman out at all that he's being negative. The negative line is the one Atherton used to get Tufnell to bowl at people like Steve Waugh in a vain attempt to get them to fall asleep and knock over their stumps.

Cheers,

Mike

sorry - I realised that Giles was the subject that had raised the issue but I hadn't made the distinction that we were talking about his bowling specifically or if it was slow left arm in general..............my bad..........

 

[Darrin]

**official Natwest Series (Eng,NZL,WI)

Let me disagree with both Tim and Anzac. I have just finshed the book 'Bradmans Best'. The first 2 chapters are compulsory reading for anyone interested in cricket. In those first two chpaters Bradman says "It is not enough to keep the ball away from your stumps and not give a catch, there is a neend to entertain, to rest the initaitve away from the bowlers and give your bowlers enough time to ball the opposition out twice.

In saying that there are 2 important things about batting that one need if you are to play aggressive cricket. The players Shot-selction and Concentration are vital. Incidentally, Bradman was the master of concentration and rearely played a poor shot to the ball bowled.

I realize that i am setting myself up here, but that is just my thouhgts and opinion.

 

[Tim]

Yeah thats all well & good, as long as you have a good enough technique to do that. A number of the NZ batsmen have a few flaws in their technique..McMillan especially which is why he'll only ever take an attack apart once in every 7 or 8 innings if he's lucky.

Shot selection & Concentration? really only Richardson showed that in the test series for NZ and he was the least aggressive!

 

[tooextracool]

For those Marlon Samuels supporters out there...

Samuels cracks 300 not out from 357 balls

good to see him doing well...too bad he isnt on the test side for the tour to england....

Squad: Brian Lara (captain), Ramnaresh Sarwan, Chris Gayle, Devon Smith, Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Dwayne Smith, Ridley Jacobs, Ravi Rampaul, Tino Best, Fidel Edwards, Jermaine Lawson, Pedro Collins, Omari Banks, Carlton Baugh, Dwayne Bravo, Sylvester Joseph.

the only real surprise for me was the inclusion of sylvester joseph who should be behind ryan hinds after failure against b'desh.

 

[Tim]

NZ have been sent into bat by Derbyshire.

Vettori, Cairns & Papps missing from the lineup. As I suspected, Harris will probably play the backup slow/spinner role in this series.

McMillan & probably Tuffey will need to impress early on in these warm-up matches if they want to get a decent go in the NatWest Series.

 

[Tim]

I just realised that NZ have no other fast bowling cover...Cairns is the only player sitting out who can bowl at a lively pace..but he is not really a specialist quick bowler these days.

I believe Michael Mason is playing club cricket in England, so I presume he'll be called up if the injury problems continue.

 

[tooextracool]

What this is all about is that when England went to India, they took the view that they had to stop Tendulkar scoring at 70/100 balls and reduce him to a manageable 40/100. If it had the further effect of tempting him into rash shots to break the tension, so much the better, but the basic aim was to reduce Tendulkar's scoring rate. As long as he could be kept under control, they reasoned, they had enough firepower to get rid of the others with the score still within sight of being gettable.

So Giles went over the wicket and bowled relentlessly two feet outside leg stump, turning it fractionally in but clearly only expecting a wicket by fluke. At the other end, it was Hoggard or Flintoff bowling way outside off at SRT but attacking the stumps rather more when the others were there.

Since then, every time Giles goes over the wicket, the peanut gallery assumes that he's doing the stop-SRT bit and starts being rude about him.

it depends completely on what line giles is bowling....what giles bowled at lords was completely negative, as was the captaincy for that test match. yes giles is a negative bowler when the conditions dont favour spin bowling, but when it does favour spin as it did at trent bridge he can be attacking by pitching the ball into the rough and getting the ball to turn from leg to off instead of the usual bowling into the pads rubbish.

 

[Tim]

I recall listening to the BBC team at Headingley during a Giles over. I think it was Aggers who quoted something along the lines of: "And Giles bowls again..he's continuing this boring leg-stump line"

Now those weren't the exact words, but I know he said something similar to that.

 

[Loony BoB]

I just realised that NZ have no other fast bowling cover...Cairns is the only player sitting out who can bowl at a lively pace..but he is not really a specialist quick bowler these days.

I believe Michael Mason is playing club cricket in England, so I presume he'll be called up if the injury problems continue.

Butler is playing right now... should be interesting.