Going to have to join the chorus here and say that I think it probably was as well.Nnanden said:I`ve heard some weird things... but that takes the cake.
Warne`s three-an-over effort was BETTER than McGrath`s five-for?
Me being one of them. Set off with enough time to get there at 8.30am and because of sheer volume of traffic took us another hour so we were in the queue at 9.30am-ish when the news filtered through that it was completely sound out.luckyeddie said:
It's a bowling machine that simulates spin...Demolition Man said:
Do they use the same yellow dimple balls as in a conventional pace bowling machine?FaaipDeOiad said:
Saw a bit of a clip of Strauss using it, and it looked like a regulation cricket ball to me.King_Ponting said:
Ironically except for the 1st innings at Edgbaston (where everone got happed in 1st inning) Warnie has always bowled economically (that is 3 and under) and picked up wickets. So to say that Warnie wasn't bowling to take wickets but to restrict run rates is absolutely ridiculous.Nnanden said:I`ve heard some weird things... but that takes the cake.
Warne`s three-an-over effort was BETTER than McGrath`s five-for?
It was developed by Henry Pryor (Matty's dad) - it's a programmable machine that can propel a ball in a given direction at a given velocity with other given attributes (direction of rotation and number of revolutions, seam position) - in other words it 'mimics' the delivery of any bowler in the world.Demolition Man said:
Obviously Gilliespie has too go i dont think anoyone would argue against that. I think Katich is an excellent player and i do like him but flintoff does seem to have his number but i dont think hodge is as good a batsmen but he would add more of a bowling option but i agree hussey could be the best option of australia.Demolition Man said:
Well thats very very interesting and is maybe why england played warne better during this test than any other, so far. Im guessing they are focusing on watching the ball in the air...FaaipDeOiad said:
Yeah I think Ive seen it, where they have to win to save their village or something along those lines.Adamc said:
I'm sure they'll steal it.King_Ponting said:
But that's exactly what he was doing. It's why he bowled outside leg stump all day to defensive fields, and kept it reasonably tight despite the fact that England were searching for quick runs. You can't just compare the economy rate of one innings with another and go "well they are the same so he bowled equally defensively". The match situation is entirely relevant to how many runs he's going to go for.Sanz said:
Well we're only following the example.....luckyeddie said:
Spitting image of Ashley Giles - a bit slimmer than Ian Blackwell, mind.Demolition Man said:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,23069-1720436,00.html
actually jones said in an interview on sky recently that he prefers bowling with the old ball because 'he isnt quite sure where the new ball is going'. i've not been surprised by jones being accurate in the last 2 games, because the fact is that almost all his accurate spells in his career thus far have come with the older ball. obviously with his inexperience with regard to conventional swing, he hasnt quite been able to control it as he has with reverse, and therefore his bowling 3 balls down leg side every over with the new ball, comes down to him not being able to swing the ball away consistently, not his bowling action.FaaipDeOiad said:
really?FaaipDeOiad said:
