***Official*** NatWest Series/Challenge

[tooextracool]

The ball was right in the corridor i.e. not very wide at all. I can't vouch for what you see with your own eyes but in my opinion, it wasn't wide at all.

well then we can only agree to disagree. for me while the ball wasnt wide enough that you could say it was a poor ball, it was still wide enough for most players to realise that you shouldnt be playing at it when you first come in on any wicket, let alone on a seam friendly one. there was certainly no way that ball looked like it was coming back to hit the stumps, unlike the ball pietersen got.
and even then, not knowing where your off stump is, isnt a technical weakness, its more judgemental.

 

[tooextracool]

With skill and the aid of the Lords slope, he had been moving the ball into the batsmen consistently. The batsmen therefore feels compelled to play at balls outside the off-stump.

Finally McGrath causes a ball to hold its own, or run up the slope, and the committed batsman edges it. Simply great bowling and something that is likely to be repeated this summer.

the thing though is that it was the only ball mcgrath bowled to flintoff during the over, and i think he bowled 1 other ball to flintoff in the entire game, which gilchrist midfielded and went for a bye.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The fact is, the ball Flintoff got out to moved away from him a significant amount, up the slope. It was perfectly reasonable for him to play at it, since McGrath is quite capable of bringing the ball back in to the batsman, which is why they need to play when he puts it in the corridor. Batsmen often try to leave balls to McGrath only to have them come back and bowl them or trap them in front. Flintoff played away from his body a touch, but really it wasn't a particularly poor shot, he just got a good ball.

 

[tooextracool]

Im basing my statements re Flintoff on this series, the SA series, and a number of other times Ive seen him before..

but for a fairly long period hes barely even got caught behind, even in SA he spent plenty of time finding ways of getting himself out, by playing the rash pull shot.

Unfortunately, it's too easy to say that his problems rest in shot selection. In fact, his two previous rash strokes against Aus came because he was bogged down because, you guessed it, he wasnt moving his feet.

doubt it. he most certainly wasnt bogged down at bristol when he scored at a run a ball.
in the 2nd game he was bogged down, but that was not because of poor footwork, but because solanki had gotten out, and with the new batsman in he sensed that he needed to take the pressure off him by playing a big shot.

KP's flawed technique is obvious. Time will tell whether he is a genius that can counter-balance this failing with natural talent..

oh it is, theres no doubt about it, but the question is whether it will get him out. if you ask me he looked quite capable in the last game against lee and even when he got out it was an excellent delivery rather than poor technique.

BTW, Lee has bowled to KP on more than one occasion this summer.

how much? obviously he didnt bowl to him at bristol & at chester le street pietersen looked better than most players on both sides in his short inning, until he got out caught at the boundary.

 

[tooextracool]

The fact is, the ball Flintoff got out to moved away from him a significant amount, up the slope. It was perfectly reasonable for him to play at it, since McGrath is quite capable of bringing the ball back in to the batsman, which is why they need to play when he puts it in the corridor. Batsmen often try to leave balls to McGrath only to have them come back and bowl them or trap them in front. Flintoff played away from his body a touch, but really it wasn't a particularly poor shot, he just got a good ball.

well i think it was too far past off stump for it to come back and hit the stumps. infact it was flintoff did more than just try to defend it, he actually played a shot trying to score runs off it, which would suggest that it was a bit too far outside the off stump.
and still, playing at a ball thinking that it might come in, is not exactly a 'technical weakness'.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

and still, playing at a ball thinking that it might come in, is not exactly a 'technical weakness'.

On the contrary, I think being so tentative as to refuse to play at a ball which could come back and bowl you is a failing, although it's not exactly one of technique. McGrath gets plenty of batsmen with superb techniques out by making them play at a ball which could come in, and moving it away from them and catching the edge. Aside from perhaps playing a shot at a time when he should have been looking to survive, I don't think Flintoff did much wrong.

 

[tooextracool]

On the contrary, I think being so tentative as to refuse to play at a ball which could come back and bowl you is a failing, although it's not exactly one of technique. McGrath gets plenty of batsmen with superb techniques out by making them play at a ball which could come in, and moving it away from them and catching the edge. Aside from perhaps playing a shot at a time when he should have been looking to survive, I don't think Flintoff did much wrong.

thats exactly my point though, it maybe a failing but it was said that he has a 'dodgy technique',which is most certainly not the case.

 

[aussie]

what more does chris read need to do to be selected, i'm totally againts Prior's selection over him.

 

[luckyeddie]

what more does chris read need to do to be selected, i'm totally againts Prior's selection over him.

I don't think there is anything else Chris Read CAN do, other than not be Chris Read. I like Prior, feel that he really is a prospect, and what's more increases the South African contingent in the England squad still further, just to wind everyone's hysteria up in level past 9 and right up to 'Buchanan'

 

[marc71178]

what more does chris read need to do to be selected, i'm totally againts Prior's selection over him.

For a start I don't think Prior's being put in here as a wicket-keeper.

 

[Gloucefan]

For a start I don't think Prior's being put in here as a wicket-keeper.

I hear he's going to be the sub, meaning I guess he's here for his batting?

I don't know much about him, what kind of batsman is he?

 

[greg]

I'm pretty certain that the reason Prior is in the squad is because of the ridiculous new fielding regulations (and pray that England win the toss). Any captain with any sense will want to get the "power play" overs out of the way as quickly as possible (this will be especially true of Ponting who is likely to be at least one bowler light). You don't want to have the power play overs at the end of the innings, when one of the part-timers is on or, probably, when any batsman is set. Frankly that doesn't leave much room for flexibility. The most obvious opportunity will be when a new batsman comes to the crease (if you are lucky enough to take a wicket at the right moment) and ideally when someone like Vaughan is walking to the wicket. Prior on the other hand is used to looking to score big runs the moment he comes to the crease - expect him to be used as substitute if a wicket falls in a situation where Ponting is likely to try and use his overs.

 

[luckyeddie]

I'm pretty certain that the reason Prior is in the squad is because of the ridiculous new fielding regulations (and pray that England win the toss). Any captain with any sense will want to get the "power play" overs out of the way as quickly as possible (this will be especially true of Ponting who is likely to be at least one bowler light). You don't want to have the power play overs at the end of the innings, when one of the part-timers is on or, probably, when any batsman is set. Frankly that doesn't leave much room for flexibility. The most obvious opportunity will be when a new batsman comes to the crease (if you are lucky enough to take a wicket at the right moment) and ideally when someone like Vaughan is walking to the wicket. Prior on the other hand is used to looking to score big runs the moment he comes to the crease - expect him to be used as substitute if a wicket falls in a situation where Ponting is likely to try and use his overs.

Are you suggesting it's back to the 'pinch-hitter' in the original Jayasuriya mould, only not necessarily at the start of the innings? I took it to be another "oh, look, we've found our own Gilchrist, er....." type of scenario myself too.

 

[Pratters]

Any captain with any sense will want to get the "power play" overs out of the way as quickly as possible .

Not necessarily. If I can get wickets early on the power play overs being left for the tail enders to face, the proper batsmen dont get to face the power play overs.

So a strategy could be to use the power play overs as late as possible as teams any way go for the slog in the last few overs.

 

[Gloucefan]

Not necessarily. If I can get wickets early on the power play overs being left for the tail enders to face, the proper batsmen dont get to face the power play overs.

So a strategy could be to use the power play overs as late as possible as teams any way go for the slog in the last few overs.

A dangerous tactic though, many tail enders tend to slog it anyway...

 

[Entrael]

A dangerous tactic though, many tail enders tend to slog it anyway...

id rather have a tail ender trying to slog it, rather then a higher order batsmen

 

[vic_orthdox]

So a strategy could be to use the power play overs as late as possible as teams any way go for the slog in the last few overs

I think that at 2/100, for example, at 20 odd overs, your almost best off using it as early as possible, because it would just be a massacre if you left yourself having to use your 10 extra overs of restrictions in the last 15.

 

[greg]

There won't be many tailenders when every team has an extra batsman!

The silly thing is that the authorities have got attached to "fielding restrictions" as meaning 2 outside the ring (which is very unfair on the bowlers except on the most seamer friendly tracks). In fact fielding restrictions are always in place (the rest of the time it's 4 in the ring). They could have easily have found a medium between the two extremes (eg. 5 fielders in the ring) and in so doing slightly tweaked the balance in favour of boundaries being scored. As it is they could well drive spinners out of the one-day game and captains will be severely hampered in the flexibility with which they use their bowlers (the opposite effect of what was intended!)

 

[Pratters]

Yes I see the point of using the restricions in the middle overs but in a low scoring match where the last 5 overs are likely not to be bowled or bowled to tail enders on a swinging pitch, it may be left to the last. A bit like if the match is going to go t to only 43-44 overs either way, captains under use the 5th bowler.

 

[greg]

On any pitch that is so bad that sides are likely to get bowled out in 43 overs the fielding restrictions will be irrelevant anyway because captains will have most of their players in the ring or in catching postions anyway.