***Official*** England in Sri Lanka

[Top_Cat]

On the other hand, I've yet to see batsmen not troubled by bowlers who can make the ball swing. I might be a bowler of far lesser calibre than yourself, and you may have far more experience of batsmen being troubled by certain things when you are involved than I have, but I do believe my watching experience sufficient to spot required patterns.

Deception, making the batsman play where he doesn't want to, etc. are what make a good bowler. Swing, cut, seam, length, etc., all just tools to achieve this aim. Sure swing might make a good length a better ball but swing can also make it a worse ball depending on the circumstances. For example, if I notice a batsman is having trouble when I bowl a ball that doesn't swing that he's able to actually hit but he's letting hooping out-swingers sail away to the 'keeper untouched, why on Earth would I keep bowling the out-swinger at him? Similarly, if a batsman is comfortably keeping out my hooping in-swinger but is getting beaten by my cross-seam straight ball, again, why would I bother with the in-swinger against them?

Seriously, when was the last time we saw someone a genuine swing bowler at the top of the ICC rankings? Have a look at them;

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/rankings/content/page/211270.html

Only, perhaps, two bowlers with swing as their main weapon in the top 10. Most of them have the capability to swing the ball, sure. But there are a bunch of bowlers in world cricket who swing the ball. Any bowler who relies on sideways movement alone doesn't succeed and quite a few swing bowlers get belted because they don't know how to use it or when to use it at Test level. The top 10 have gotten wickets because they've been smart about bowling with variation but most importantly, they've been consistent in the lines and lengths, with or without movement.

Just because Harmi bowled without a lot of movement doesn't mean that he also didn't bowl well or that the batsmen just played poor shots to get out and no credit should be given to him because there's so very much more to good quality pace bowling than sideways movement. I mean, haven't you heard of a bowler bowling a tight line to any given batsman and then throwing one wide to tempt the batsman into a rash shot? Because it was a crap shot, does it then follow that the bowler deserves no credit for the wicket? No.

 

[Burgey]

Guys in the booth talking about Panesar bowling poorly and getting cut far too often. No ****! He does it every game. Its something Ive brought up on numerous occasions on here and it will not change until he adjusts his head position.

Its a bad habit he has had since debut

Goughy,
Can you tell me what it is about his head position that menas he drops it short and gets cut.

I'm interested coz once every couple of seasons I get to bowl my left arm slow tripe.

 

[JBH001]

Reputedly, I believe. I've heard both Bumble & Gower mention it during commentaries over the years, so he certainly had a rep for it, whether justified or not I don't know.

& I'm sure it has efficacy as a tactic, but wouldn't condone it as it's a form of gamesmanship for me. It's easy to tuck your bat under your arm for a meaty slash that carries to third slip, but if a batsman is going to stand for the more marginals their halos are tarnished somewhat.

But does any batsman have a halo? I certainly dont think Sanga has one.

I mean do we base Sanga's reputation on just the one incident where he walked and the fact that, all in all, he seems a good sportsman? If umpires are fooled by it (assuming that is what he is upto) then more fool they, and as top level umpires they should not be sucked into that sort of game (as after all, putting pressure on the umpire in all sorts of ways is one of the tactics used by all good batsmen and bowlers - something umpires should be and usually are well aware of)

 

[Burgey]

But does any batsman have a halo? I certainly dont think Sanga has one.

I mean do we base Sanga's reputation on just the one incident where he walked and the fact that, all in all, he seems a good sportsman? If umpires are fooled by it (assuming that is what he is upto) then more fool they, and as top level umpires they should not be sucked into that sort of game (as after all, putting pressure on the umpire in all sorts of ways is one of the tactics used by all good batsmen and bowlers - something umpires should be and usually are well aware of)

Billy Bowden was fooled last year - he gave Gilly out caught behind when he didn't walk. As we know, Gilly normally walks.

Of course, the replay showed he missed it by about 3 centimetres!

For this reason, I don't see why people walk tbh. But it's their call.

 

[Goughy]

Goughy,
Can you tell me what it is about his head position that menas he drops it short and gets cut.

I'm interested coz once every couple of seasons I get to bowl my left arm slow tripe.

His head is leaning back and tilting at delivery and the eyes are nowhere near horizontal.

Now, sit back and touch the this word on the screen.

Now tilt your head to the side so the eyes are not level and touch this word on screen.

The vast majority of people come up a little short when reaching with their head tilted.

Its the same with Panesar. There is a different illusion of length and his head is not in the best position to judge distances. This leads to him repeatedly (for an International calibre bowler) dragging the ball down.

If he made the small move to straightening his head and getting the eyes more horizontal then the issue of getting cut would begin to go away.

 

[Burgey]

Thanks for that.

 

[JASON]

Already I feel I can predict the outcome of this Test ....Draw....with the rain interruptions and the Team selections (SL not picking second specialist spinner) suggests both Teams would be happy with another draw....

 

[chaminda_00]

Anyway, have now seen the three contentious decisions. Vandort's was a smeller, but the other two were marginal shouts. Didn't like Sangakarra's headshake tho, there's no way he could've known with that much certainty given snicko seemed to confirm a faint tickle. I've no problem with the benefit of the doubt going to the batsman, but I don't like selective walkers. I think they assert an almost sub-conscious pressure on the ump. Bloke's known as a walker and doesn't trudge off; the umpire has to be slightly influenced by that.

The replays looked inconclusive for mine and I'm sure if he thought he nicked it he would have gone. Reckon its harsh to claim his a selective walker on that decision.

 

[wpdavid]

2nd new ball, & last throw of the dice for England. Of course, it should never have got this far had they come close to capitalising on conditions. Judging by the amount of movement that SB found in his first over, they need to make it count pretty quick, but I think SL are already out of sight on this wicket.

EDIT
And as we speak, another drop from Prior, his second of the day. Will '****er slip through the filter?

 

[Dasa]

Hmm, wouldn't have given the Dilshan run-out. Too tight imo.

 

[Richard]

Like McGrath and Pollock get all their wickets from luck, then. Seeing as that's as close as you'll ever come to praise, I'll take that.

McGrath and Pollock didn't\don't get all their wickets from "luck", though, that's just a misreprisentation of what I've said, for reasons of it being the easiest thing to rebut.

 

[Richard]

Wasnt Cowdrey another famous selective walker?

Dont have a problem with it, and always thought it a somewhat clever tactic.

Good on Sanga if he is a selective walker (bearing in mind that replays were inconclusive).

It's a good tactic, as is applying vaseline to the ball, as is taking steroids, as is scuffing the pitch if it's playing too flat, as are any number of other things.

Doesn't make any of them right in the "sporting ethics" code. Refusing to walk is bad enough; selective walking is, as I say, shocking form.

Doing the best thing for your team and doing the right thing for the game are often different things. There's no doubting (for most people) that as a sportsman you have a duty to place the latter above the former.

 

[Richard]

What's there to be unsure about there?

 

[Richard]

Deception, making the batsman play where he doesn't want to, etc. are what make a good bowler. Swing, cut, seam, length, etc., all just tools to achieve this aim. Sure swing might make a good length a better ball but swing can also make it a worse ball depending on the circumstances. For example, if I notice a batsman is having trouble when I bowl a ball that doesn't swing that he's able to actually hit but he's letting hooping out-swingers sail away to the 'keeper untouched, why on Earth would I keep bowling the out-swinger at him? Similarly, if a batsman is comfortably keeping out my hooping in-swinger but is getting beaten by my cross-seam straight ball, again, why would I bother with the in-swinger against them?

Seriously, when was the last time we saw someone a genuine swing bowler at the top of the ICC rankings? Have a look at them;

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/rankings/content/page/211270.html

Only, perhaps, two bowlers with swing as their main weapon in the top 10. Most of them have the capability to swing the ball, sure. But there are a bunch of bowlers in world cricket who swing the ball. Any bowler who relies on sideways movement alone doesn't succeed and quite a few swing bowlers get belted because they don't know how to use it or when to use it at Test level. The top 10 have gotten wickets because they've been smart about bowling with variation but most importantly, they've been consistent in the lines and lengths, with or without movement.

Just because Harmi bowled without a lot of movement doesn't mean that he also didn't bowl well or that the batsmen just played poor shots to get out and no credit should be given to him because there's so very much more to good quality pace bowling than sideways movement. I mean, haven't you heard of a bowler bowling a tight line to any given batsman and then throwing one wide to tempt the batsman into a rash shot? Because it was a crap shot, does it then follow that the bowler deserves no credit for the wicket? No.

Plenty I could say to that, but don't really want to overtly cloud an *Official* tour thread TBH.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Hmm, wouldn't have given the Dilshan run-out. Too tight imo.

I think he was out, but the technology certainly didn't prove it. I think the umpire surmised that if a previous frame had been available it would have shown the wickets broken with the bat short of the crease. He must have been guessing if he only saw what was shown on the TV.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I mean, haven't you heard of a bowler bowling a tight line to any given batsman and then throwing one wide to tempt the batsman into a rash shot? Because it was a crap shot, does it then follow that the bowler deserves no credit for the wicket? No.

Sadly that doesn't apply to Harmison, he appears incapable of bowling two deliveries in the same spot never mind a spell accurate enough to be designed to tempt a batsman with a wide one.

 

[Richard]

Hmm, wouldn't have given the Dilshan run-out. Too tight imo.

I think he was out, but the technology certainly didn't prove it. I think the umpire surmised that if a previous frame had been available it would have shown the wickets broken with the bat short of the crease. He must have been guessing if he only saw what was shown on the TV.

In any case, given that he should have been out 4 times already he can hardly moan too much.

 

[wpdavid]

This really is uninspiring stuff. tbh I think SL have enough on the board to set up a comfortable win - possibly by an innings, but the game's just meandering on.

Thinking beyond this game, it strike me that there's similarities between England now & when they last toured here four years ago. On that occasion, they played poorly and lost 1-0 but it could easily have been 2 or 3. Immediately beforehand, they'd played equally poorly more much of their home series (against SA). OK, they drew because things went for them, whereas we lost to India because one or two things didn't, but the standard of performance was similar.

 

[Athlai]

SL should definitely post 400 before thinking of declaring IMO.

 

[Richard]

Hasn't anyone heard the forecasts? Unless there's some very serious mistakes made there'll be no play the next 2 days, so this game will be a draw.