**Official** West Indies in England 2012

[benchmark00]

That was a straight ball from what I could see. Chanders played the wrong line. Would pat that back 99 times out of a hundred.

 

[Spark]

That was a straight ball from what I could see. Chanders played the wrong line. Would pat that back 99 times out of a hundred.

Beaten by drift IMO.

 

[Jacknife]

Beaten by drift IMO.

Yes I thought it drifted in and just turned enough, only seen it the once mind.

4.9 degrees of turn, so it was just enough to do for Shiv.

 

[Eds]

Full five degrees of turn.

Dead straight.

 

[benchmark00]

Yeah 5 degrees of turn by the time it got to the stumps. A whole .05cm's of movement when the ball actually got to the batsman though.

 

[TT Boy]

Clown. Cleaned up.

 

[Spark]

Yo Dinesh, you know that you're suppose to move your foot towards full pitched balls yeah

 

[Jacknife]

Bres deserved that, seemed to come in off the seam that ball, got stuck on the crease though.

 

[MW1304]

Nipped in. Bres deserved that, been dead accurate all day.

 

[Eds]

There was plenty of movement from the original line, considering Swann's bowling around the wicket. It doesn't spin, Chanderpaul parries it back.

 

[Spark]

Christ above, that just gets worse and worse on replay.

 

[MW1304]

Yeah 5 degrees of turn by the time it got to the stumps. A whole .05cm's of movement when the ball actually got to the batsman though.

Yeah that's not how angles work.

 

[benchmark00]

There was plenty of movement from the original line, considering Swann's bowling around the wicket. It doesn't spin, Chanderpaul parries it back.

Ah no, look at it again. Chanderpaul played it inside out then tried to chase it when he realised he misjudged the line.

 

[Spark]

Ah no, look at it again. Chanderpaul played it inside out then tried to chase it when he realised he misjudged the line.

He misjudged it because of the drift IMO though. It definitely turned a bit, though not a great deal.

 

[Eds]

Ah no, look at it again. Chanderpaul played it inside out then tried to chase it when he realised he misjudged the line.

He's misjudged the amount of spin on the ball, not the original flight line.

 

[benchmark00]

Yeah that's not how angles work.

Yes it is. That angle thing they showed you is the degrees of movement by the time it gets to the stumps. Chanders played the ball a metre or so away from the stumps, so the movement is less. Between the time the ball pitched and it went past his bat it shouldn't have been enough to bead the edge had Chanderpaul played the right line. It was a bad shot to a ball which was pretty innocuous.

 

[MW1304]

Yes it is. That angle thing they showed you is the degrees of movement by the time it gets to the stumps. Chanders played the ball a metre or so away from the stumps, so the movement is less. Between the time the ball pitched and it went past his bat it shouldn't have been enough to bead the edge had Chanderpaul played the right line. It was a bad shot to a ball which was pretty innocuous.

I know what you mean about there being less movement, but an angle is an angle, doesn't matter about the distance afterwards, will still be 5 degrees even before it gets to the stumps.

 

[Jager]

Surprising things about today: Sun in England
Unsurprising things about today: West Indies batting collapsing

 

[benchmark00]

I know what you mean about there being less movement, but an angle is an angle, doesn't matter about the distance afterwards, will still be 5 degrees even before it gets to the stumps.

Pure angles are not important though, they're totally irrelevant in a practical cricketing sense.

 

[MW1304]

Pure angles are not important though, they're totally irrelevant in a practical cricketing sense.

Its useful in determining how much turn the bowler has gained off the pitch, from their point of view. It might not show how close the batsman has got to the pitch of the ball, or how good the length of the bowler is, but its interesting purely for that.