*Official* Australia in decline thread

[Richard]

Adam Dale was a good bowler one of my favorites.

He would never bowl at the death though 90% of the time he would have one 10 over spell and take somthing like 1-25 off ten overs.

Thats very good but he was not that good if he was asked to bowl when the batsman were looking to slog because his line and length rarely changed to accomidate batsman who were sloging.

If you ask me he would get taken for alot more runs if he were bowling today because batsman are more likley to attack the opening bowlers these days.

I remember Ryan Campbell took him apart mercifuly in the OD Domestic final about 4-5 years ago because he decided to go for him right from ball one knowing he usualy picthed the ball in the same area.

Campbell might have got away with it in one game, but he wouldn't have done if he'd tried it all the time. You try to score off accurate bowling and you'll pay for it most of the time. Clearly, like anything, not all the time.
If you ask me were he to play today he wouldn't get taken apart because people might try to attack him more, but this would likely mean they'd just get out. And as we all know, you can't score runs from the pavilion.
If he was best suited to bowling at the start, meanwhile, it's full credit to Waugh for bowling him where best suited. Something plenty of bowlers haven't had the benefit of.

 

[Richard]

Can you prove that Dale is better than Lee 10 TIMES before you say that to other people?

No, there is no way to "prove" things like that.

 

[Richard]

if he was 10 times the bowler why didn't he take that many wickets - him being good still doen;t make up for the rest of the players though.

Because in one-day cricket you don't need to take wickets if you can bowl economically. Therefore the fact that he took wickets less regularly than Lee is totally irrelevant when considering who was the better bowler.
Him being better than Lee doesn't need to make-up for anything, meanwhile: Moody, Reiffel and the Waughs are far better than Harvey, Hogg, Clarke and Hayden.

 

[Swervy]

Because in one-day cricket you don't need to take wickets if you can bowl economically. Therefore the fact that he took wickets less regularly than Lee is totally irrelevant when considering who was the better bowler.
Him being better than Lee doesn't need to make-up for anything, meanwhile: Moody, Reiffel and the Waughs are far better than Harvey, Hogg, Clarke and Hayden.

best way to slow the run rate down is to take wickets

 

[Craig]

Campbell might have got away with it in one game, but he wouldn't have done if he'd tried it all the time. You try to score off accurate bowling and you'll pay for it most of the time. Clearly, like anything, not all the time.
If you ask me were he to play today he wouldn't get taken apart because people might try to attack him more, but this would likely mean they'd just get out. And as we all know, you can't score runs from the pavilion.
If he was best suited to bowling at the start, meanwhile, it's full credit to Waugh for bowling him where best suited. Something plenty of bowlers haven't had the benefit of.

Like Mark Ealham?

 

[Richard]

best way to slow the run rate down is to take wickets

Not unless you bowl accurately at the new batsman.
If you take a wicket every 5 overs but bowl complete trash in the meantime, the scoring-rate is still likely to be about 6-an-over.
Just you'll only end-up with 240 for 8 after 40 overs instead of 240 for 2 or 3.
The best way (in fact, pretty much the only way) to keep the run-rate down is by bowling accurately. By taking wickets you'll likely keep the total down, though.

 

[Richard]

Like Mark Ealham?

Mark Ealham in the later half of his career didn't have to bowl at the end of ODI innings as much as he did in the first half, but if he hadn't ever had to bowl at the end (and he's totally dissuited to it, he should never be asked to, by anyone) his economy-rates in both international and domestic cricket would be about 3.7-3.8-an-over, I'm very confident.

 

[marc71178]

If he was best suited to bowling at the start, meanwhile, it's full credit to Waugh for bowling him where best suited. Something plenty of bowlers haven't had the benefit of.

Yes, but that has a disproportionate affect on his economy rate compared with someone asked to bowl at the end.

 

[marc71178]

Just you'll only end-up with 240 for 8 after 40 overs instead of 240 for 2 or 3.

And then the last 10 overs will only go for 30 or 40 instead of 100 or more...

Yes, I can see the not taking wickets really helps there.

 

[marc71178]

Because in one-day cricket you don't need to take wickets if you can bowl economically.

10-2-29-0 or 10-0-45-3?

I know which I'd rather see.

 

[Richard]

Yes, but that has a disproportionate affect on his economy rate compared with someone asked to bowl at the end.

Sorry, don't understand.

 

[Richard]

And then the last 10 overs will only go for 30 or 40 instead of 100 or more...

Yes, I can see the not taking wickets really helps there.

That was my point exactly - it does help keep the score down, but it doesn't in itself slow the run-rate.
Well, that is, unless you bowl well in the last 10 and restrict them to 60 or so. Because no matter how many wickets you have in hand, it doesn't make accurate blockhole bowling any easier to score off.

 

[Richard]

10-2-29-0 or 10-0-45-3?

I know which I'd rather see.

So do I.
And I know which I'd prefer a bowler I like to have next to his name.
In the unlikely event anyone has any doubt, the former. But I don't care about maidens; I'd prefer 10-0-28-0 any day to 10-2-29-0.

 

[marc71178]

That was my point exactly - it does help keep the score down, but it doesn't in itself slow the run-rate.

Well it doesn't increase it :rolleyes:

Well, that is, unless you bowl well in the last 10 and restrict them to 60 or so. Because no matter how many wickets you have in hand, it doesn't make accurate blockhole bowling any easier to score off.

And if a team has bowled badly enough to only take 2 wickets in 40 overs, are they really likely to suddenly become great bowlers?

And accurate blockhole bowling can be made into a full toss by batsmen - the numbers 3, 4 and 5 have more chance of doing that than the 9, 10, 11...

 

[Richard]

It can increase it - you dismiss Gary Kirsten and bring in Robin Peterson who has been sent in as a pinch-hitter. Peterson plays aggressive strokes to balls that Kirsten would not have looked to. Peterson's strokes come off. The scoring-rate is hence faster than it would be already.
Whatever the number of wickets, whoever the batsman, if you don't bowl accurately, you go for runs. Simple as.

I am perfectly well aware of the fact that four, five and six are more likely to score runs than nine, ten and eleven. I am also aware that some teams who have conceded 240 in 40 overs aren't likely to be good enough to bowl in the blockhole.
However, I was simply covering all angles - if you've restricted a team to 140-160 in 40 overs then blockhole bowling will stop anyone, however many wickets in hand, from scoring haywire. I am aware, believe it or not, that 240 for 8 after 40 is a better position than 240 for 2. :rolleyes:

 

[Swervy]

So do I.
And I know which I'd prefer a bowler I like to have next to his name.
In the unlikely event anyone has any doubt, the former. But I don't care about maidens; I'd prefer 10-0-28-0 any day to 10-2-29-0.

again,its an interesting one...dont underestimate the way maiden overs increase pressure on a batting team...it has been shown thata team who bowls more maidens will probably win the game.

Again you need to take into account the context of those figures..if those 2 maidens contributed to other bowlers taking wickets etc, then give me the second set of figures.

 

[shankar]

It could be said that an accurate bowler picks up wickets indirectly at the other end by buliding up pressure.

But nowadays ODI's are being played on totally flat tracks where just accurate bowling is not enough to contain a good batting line-up. Just bowling good length is not going to contain a good batsman for long on a flat track. You need to keep picking up wickets.A good case in point is India's bowling in yesterday's match.They didnt spray the ball too much.The reqd.RR was 9, but since nobody could pick up wickets they were always under pressure.

 

[Richard]

again,its an interesting one...dont underestimate the way maiden overs increase pressure on a batting team...it has been shown thata team who bowls more maidens will probably win the game.

3 overs for 3 with a single off every over and 3 overs for 8 with 2 maidens and 2 boundaries.
For me the most pressure is built by the less runs, regardless of the number of runless overs.

 

[Richard]

It could be said that an accurate bowler picks up wickets indirectly at the other end by buliding up pressure.

But nowadays ODI's are being played on totally flat tracks where just accurate bowling is not enough to contain a good batting line-up. Just bowling good length is not going to contain a good batsman for long on a flat track. You need to keep picking up wickets.A good case in point is India's bowling in yesterday's match.They didnt spray the ball too much.The reqd.RR was 9, but since nobody could pick up wickets they were always under pressure.

The seamers and Tendulkar sprayed the ball enough. As per usual. And the spinners were far too slow and didn't turn the ball. Hence Inzamam-Ul-Haq and Youhana did what any batsman worth his salt would do - walk down the track and belt it.
Accurate seam bowling and the batsmen wouldn't have managed the runs they did.

 

[Swervy]

3 overs for 3 with a single off every over and 3 overs for 8 with 2 maidens and 2 boundaries.
For me the most pressure is built by the less runs, regardless of the number of runless overs.

well maybe in that situation yeah..but that isnt what you originally said.

We have all heard captains stressing the importance of dot balls, and by extension of that, maidens. Scoring off more balls, puts the fielding team at a disadvantage,with having to change the field etc...the bowlers have to cahnge their line and length every ball,the batsman confidence increases.

So for me maidens in one dayers are very important and there is a direct corelation beween maidens (and dot balls) and victory