• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official*** India in New Zealand 2013/14

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
He's the one bowler in this attack who should be bowling at least eight over spells, if not ten to twelve. If McCullum leaves him at the crease for a longer spell, you watch his threat rise.
Yeah, I think you're right here, and it's a thoroughly under-discussed thing in regards to bowlers. Wagner wouldn't last a series in the Australian side, where you're swapped in-and-out of the attack for 3 or 4 over spells regularly, rather than bowling 8-10 over spells. Given he takes some time to get going, you have to make his spells as long as possible to outweigh the 2-3 overs of crap he starts with.

Would be interesting to look at the average length of spell from various bowlers, tbh.
 

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
Challenge is, though, not going back to bowling dross after a purported piece of genius.
past tense: purported; past participle: purported
pəˈpɔːt/
1.
appear to be or do something, especially falsely.

It was more than purported the ball would have gotten most batsman out.
 

Blocky

Banned
Yeah, I think you're right here, and it's a thoroughly under-discussed thing in regards to bowlers. Wagner wouldn't last a series in the Australian side, where you're swapped in-and-out of the attack for 3 or 4 over spells regularly, rather than bowling 8-10 over spells. Given he takes some time to get going, you have to make his spells as long as possible to outweigh the 2-3 overs of crap he starts with.

Would be interesting to look at the average length of spell from various bowlers, tbh.
Yeah, I notice that with Aussie but to be fair, you've got so many walking wounded bowlers that I don't blame Pup for rotation. As a bowler that generally needed a couple of overs to work out the length I should be bowling on a wicket and get the muscle fibres firing, I generally asked my captain to bowl me in eight to twelve over bursts and more often than not I'd bowl my full eight on the trot in forty over cricket.
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Wonder how long it'll take him to come around the wicket and try to leverage that one coming in with one holding its line, possibly more dangerous than coming over.
No point having two bowlers doing that, IMO. Boult swinging it back in to around off stump and looking for an lbw, with the odd one holding it's line across the batsman is fine.

Wagner simply has to pitch the ball up, unless it's at helmet height over middle and off stump.
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Boult swinging it back in to around off stump and looking for an lbw, with the odd one holding it's line across the batsman is fine.
And as I say that, Boult gets Rahane lbw. Can't really blame Davis for turning it down, there would have been doubt in two areas in his mind.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
He's the one bowler in this attack who should be bowling at least eight over spells, if not ten to twelve. If McCullum leaves him at the crease for a longer spell, you watch his threat rise.
Even with 500 on the board we can't afford the dross that he bowls in between.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
And as I say that, Boult gets Rahane lbw. Can't really blame Davis for turning it down, there would have been doubt in two areas in his mind.
didn't stop him from giving Corey Anderson out hit high from a bowler bowling wide around the stumps.
 

Top