***Official*** West Indies in Australia

[Mister Wright]

In test matches economy rate is irrelevent when you keep taking wickets. But you dont do that against stronger teams and you let the pressure off - also putting pressure on the other bowlers as runs are coming easily from one end.

Also I thought that was two spells combining into 9 overs. If that is not the case, the first portion of the spell when I made my initial comment when Lee had conceded more than 4 an over.

I've been one of Lee's harshest critics, but even I'll admit after the first innings in Brisbane he has been a much smarter bowler. I'm still not convinced that he can keep bowling like he is for an extended period of time, and if he had someone at the other end not keeping it tight his 'explosiveness' could be exposed. I'm reserving my judgement on his 'turn-around' until after the South African series.

 

[Beleg]

In test matches economy rate is irrelevent when you keep taking wickets.

Exactly.

But you dont do that against stronger teams and you let the pressure off - also putting pressure on the other bowlers as runs are coming easily from one end.

I am confused. Can you perhaps explain this sentence? As I understand, what you are saying is completely unrelated to the matter at hand. Obviously a bowler who is BOTH failing to take wickets, and conceding runs at a brisk pace is doing a major disfavour to his team/fellow bowlers.

 

[Pratters]

I am confused. Can you perhaps explain this sentence? As I understand, what you are saying is completely unrelated to the matter at hand. Obviously a bowler who is BOTH failing to take wickets, and conceding runs at a brisk pace is doing a major disfavour to his team/fellow bowlers.

When you are giving runs it may work versus weaker teams as your figures can look better because of wickets you may get easily.

Against stronger teams a higher economy rate while wickets are not coming means it puts added pressure on the other bowlers with runs coming easily from one end.

 

[Beleg]

Ah.

The thing with bowlers like Waqar Younis, Bret Lee and Shoaib Akthar is that, ultimately, they are strike bowlers. Their main aim is to get wickets, not stop the flow of runs. Each of them has had a foil of sorts (Wasim, McGrath) which keeps the other end tight, allowing them to focus exclusively on wickets.

It often happens that a batsmen's greatest strength is also their biggest weakness. A batsman who likes cutting might hit three short balls to the boundary but get hold out on the fourth attempt.

Similarly, the pace at which these bowlers ball ensures that the faintest of tickle (the fainter the better, really) would result in a boundary if it manages to allude the inner ring. I didn't watch Lee's bowling but let me give you the example of Shoaib in the second inning of the faisalabad test.

Flintoff and others hit him for fours continuously. Fours through the cover-point region, tickles down the leg-side, edges/steer down the gully region and so forth. Looking at his economy rate, you'd be pretty horrified, and yet he managed to pick up three wickets and put a real halter on England's progress.

The reason so many fours were hit was because the captain had given Akthar an attacking field. No sweeper, no third-man, no fine-leg (long-leg for the miscued pull shot) and no one in the covers meant that everytime a batsmen got some bat on the ball, It would go for runs. This could have been avoided had Inzamam given Shoaib more cover, but the intent was to take wickets, not care about the runs since wickets inevitably are far more important in test cricket. For the bowling team, 12 runs and 1 wicket of an over in more acceptable than 4 runs from 2 overs and no wicket.

I presume the same thing happened with Lee. An attacking field and keeping the ball up (excepting all six balls of an over to swing, seam and not turn into half-volleys is asking too much) meant that he would have gone for plenty of edges and runs which could have been avoided if the intent of the bowler and captain had been different.

Having McGrath allows Australia to let Lee play his natural game - now whether he is good enough at his natural strength is another matter altogether.


Ultimately, you have to weigh in the importance of potential wickets versus potential runs squandered and decide accordingly. It is possible that your attacking bowler can go for runs without taking any wickets, but that's a risk that comes with all the perks afforded by such a weapon.

 

[garage flower]

It didn't 'pitch outside leg', it pitched marginally on leg stump, meaning it was a close call. I have no problem with Dar's decision because there was obviously doubt about where it pitched, but on the replay it pitched marginally in line with leg and therefore is a lineball decision.

No, pitched marginally outside leg in my opinion and may have gone over the top. It was a good decision deserving of praise, not criticism, and certainly not the near-hysterical overreaction of the one-eyed halfwits in the commentary box.

Anyway, I'm (just about) over the rant now. A gripping double hundred by the Prince and the prospect of him ripping away another Australian batting record has had an extremely soothing effect.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

certainly not the near-hysterical overreaction of the one-eyed halfwits in the commentary box.

Especially given Lara's past umpire interaction in this series.

 

[Hodgo7]

Ah.

The thing with bowlers like Waqar Younis, Bret Lee and Shoaib Akthar is that, ultimately, they are strike bowlers. Their main aim is to get wickets, not stop the flow of runs. Each of them has had a foil of sorts (Wasim, McGrath) which keeps the other end tight, allowing them to focus exclusively on wickets.

It often happens that a batsmen's greatest strength is also their biggest weakness. A batsman who likes cutting might hit three short balls to the boundary but get hold out on the fourth attempt.

Similarly, the pace at which these bowlers ball ensures that the faintest of tickle (the fainter the better, really) would result in a boundary if it manages to allude the inner ring. I didn't watch Lee's bowling but let me give you the example of Shoaib in the second inning of the faisalabad test.

Flintoff and others hit him for fours continuously. Fours through the cover-point region, tickles down the leg-side, edges/steer down the gully region and so forth. Looking at his economy rate, you'd be pretty horrified, and yet he managed to pick up three wickets and put a real halter on England's progress.

The reason so many fours were hit was because the captain had given Akthar an attacking field. No sweeper, no third-man, no fine-leg (long-leg for the miscued pull shot) and no one in the covers meant that everytime a batsmen got some bat on the ball, It would go for runs. This could have been avoided had Inzamam given Shoaib more cover, but the intent was to take wickets, not care about the runs since wickets inevitably are far more important in test cricket. For the bowling team, 12 runs and 1 wicket of an over in more acceptable than 4 runs from 2 overs and no wicket.

I presume the same thing happened with Lee. An attacking field and keeping the ball up (excepting all six balls of an over to swing, seam and not turn into half-volleys is asking too much) meant that he would have gone for plenty of edges and runs which could have been avoided if the intent of the bowler and captain had been different.

Having McGrath allows Australia to let Lee play his natural game - now whether he is good enough at his natural strength is another matter altogether.


Ultimately, you have to weigh in the importance of potential wickets versus potential runs squandered and decide accordingly. It is possible that your attacking bowler can go for runs without taking any wickets, but that's a risk that comes with all the perks afforded by such a weapon.

Absolutely spot on. Lee is there to get wickets. If he gets 3 or 4 wickets and goes for over 4 an over big deal. With Warne and McGrath bowling as well, he can afford to go for a few.

 

[marc71178]

Symonds plays a different role to Hodge in ODIs though. Often earlier in his career he was sent in as a lower middle order batsman to score quickly or sent in at 3 in a 'pinch-hitter' role. He is also an allrounder so a few runs less in average is ok, because he makes up for it with his all-round ability.

Which is alright unless the discussion is about relative batting ability.

 

[marc71178]

What purpose does what the umpires were doing before the game solve?

For the aid of people not watching they had put a ball on the ground and aiming with other balls to hit that ball bowls style.

I reckon it was just something to do whilst having a wander round the pitch having a chat?

 

[marc71178]

If a bowler takes five wickets while going at six runs per over, It should be perfectly acceptable. Specially in a test match.

Hmm, if it's 5-60 off 10 maybe, but 5-120 off 20?

 

[marc71178]

With Warne and McGrath bowling as well, he can afford to go for a few.

Whoch gives him about 12-18 months to work out how to keep runs down...

 

[garage flower]

Whoch gives him about 12-18 months to work out how to keep runs down...

Problem (partially) solved - Symonds is the new McGrath!

 

[Prince EWS]

Problem (partially) solved - Symonds is the new McGrath!

His test batting record at this stage certainly backs up that point...

 

[aussie]

No contest - Vaughan

word, since in full flow & in top form he is the most elegant batsman in the world..

 

[cameeel]

I presume the same thing happened with Lee. An attacking field and keeping the ball up (excepting all six balls of an over to swing, seam and not turn into half-volleys is asking too much) meant that he would have gone for plenty of edges and runs which could have been avoided if the intent of the bowler and captain had been different. .

Exactly, a lot of Lee's runs were conceded by edges through the vacant 3rd slip area and by edges/glances down fine leg.

 

[roseboy64]

Bravo reminded me of a right handed Brian Lara especially with those defensive shots against the spinners. For the next test i would bring in Dwayne Smith who was excellent in the field and is a handy bat as well.

Slow Love, i have nothing but contempt for the Aussies, throughout their era of domination they have displayed terrible sportsmanship with vicious sledging and in your face tactics that resembled more a football match than the game of cricket. They'll go to any lows to win a game of cricket even if that means pressuring umpires with overzealous appealing and just downright poor sportsmanship which is what we witnessed yesterday.

They both come from the same town. He's also said it himself that Lara's his idol.

 

[Phil Taylor]

word, since in full flow & in top form he is the most elegant batsman in the world..

word, for shizzle nizzle, what the dilly yo?

 

[JASON]

Highest Scorers All Time in All International Cricket (Test + ODIs)

Sachin Tendulkar (INDIA) - 10,134 + 13,879 = 24,013
BC Lara (West Indies) - 11,162 + 9,359 = 20,521
Inzamam Ul Haq(Pakistan) 7,955 + 10,971 = 18,926
SR Waugh (Australia) - 10,927 + 7,569 = 18,496
AR Border (Australia) 11,174+ 6,524= 17,698
ST Jayasuriya (Sri Lanka) 6,580 + 10,207= 16,787
R Dravid (India) 7,894+8,765= 16,659
ME Waugh (Australia) 8,029 + 8,500 = 16,529
Javed Miandad (Pakistan) 8832+ 7381= 16,213
RT Ponting (Australia) 7,679+8,447 = 16,126

 

[marc71178]

What a legend - dare I suggest that it'll be Ponting who takes Lara's record.

 

[Neil Pickup]

94.6 McGrath to Lara, one run, Lara becomes the leading run scorer in Test cricket!! short delivery, Lara moves across and glances to fine leg.

That's the moment. 214*. 11,175. Congratulations on crossing the Border.