whats peitersons favourite drug?

[Golaxi]

is peiterson off his head or is he just playing mind games?

to quote from bbc

Australia are the strong favourites, but Pietersen believes they will have problems dealing with England's reverse-swing bowling.

Pietersen insisted: "We're going to be really tough to play against.

"If batters do conquer our reverse-swing, I look forward to watching them.

"It will take some serious batting against those bowlers, all at 90mph reverse-swinging it both ways.

okay we had that in abundance in 05. how many of our bowlers do that now?

"all at 90mph reverse-swinging it both ways", what team has he been playing in? none of our current lot do that. the only one capable is flintoff and he's not even fit. he's ****oo crazy!

or is he just playing mind games?

surely it only takes one ball for the australians to realise the ball is not reverse-swinging both ways at 90mph.

 

[zaremba]

"all at 90mph reverse-swinging it both ways", what team has he been playing in? none of our current lot do that. the only one capable is flintoff and he's not even fit. he's ****oo crazy!

Jimmy

 

[Richard]

Although it's not all reverse-swing, it's pretty immaterial as swing is swing and as long as it goes late it's similarly unplayable-ish. But England's bowlers number several merchants who are capable of disguising both-ways swing. James Anderson is indeed the most notable exponent, but Ryan Sidebottom can also do it (from the opposite angle). Flintoff of course can, and well, we wait to see what's the case with Graham Onions.

 

[Top_Cat]

Although it's not all reverse-swing, it's pretty immaterial as swing is swing and as long as it goes late it's similarly unplayable-ish. But England's bowlers number several merchants who are capable of disguising both-ways swing. James Anderson is indeed the most notable exponent, but Ryan Sidebottom can also do it (from the opposite angle). Flintoff of course can, and well, we wait to see what's the case with Graham Onions.

As an aside, the latest science says swing doesn't go 'late'. That's what the optical illusion I posted about in CC ages ago was all about. Reverse swing is a greater danger because the spin direction/speed is different to conventional swing so it fools the brain into thinking it's going late when, in reality, it's swinging the same way as it did conventionally. The eyes (peripheral vision, specifically) perceive it differently to conventional swing.

 

[Richard]

I don't dispute any of that, but some conventional swing goes immediately from the hand, some goes straight for most of its journey down the pitch then swerves at the last few metres. Ditto some reverse-swing.

Obviously, the later a ball either swings - or rather, appears to swing (it's what the batsman perceives that matters, of course) - the more effective it is.

 

[Top_Cat]

I don't dispute any of that, but some conventional swing goes immediately from the hand, some goes straight for most of its journey down the pitch then swerves at the last few metres. Ditto some reverse-swing.

Nah, that's exactly the point. It's all still relatively new but the latest info suggests it's a smooth curve from hand to batsman. Before you talk about the TV shots, remember what you're watching them with. Depends on release point too; if a bowler lets go of an in-swinger, for example, and aims it slightly to the left, for it to appear to swing back, it needs to first stop being pushed to the left, straighten, then start to move back into the batsman. What the batsman/viewer perceives, though, is late movement where the initial track appeared to be straight (peripheral vision causes this) when it was actually curving right from the hand.

 

[Golaxi]

flintoff may show a bit of it (a bit). anderson is fairly slow and not very dynamic, he may notch it up a couple of mph for the ashes. he is not going to be bowling 90mph both-way reverse swingers.

graham onions does a little bit with the ball. not loads. and he is not express pace either.

broad doesn't do much with the ball either.

sidebottom is slow, very slow.

so i dont really see who is going to be doing this?

PS: (when i say doesn't do much with the ball i mean movement.)

 

[zaremba]

flintoff may show a bit of it (a bit). anderson is fairly slow and not very dynamic, he may notch it up a couple of mph for the ashes. he is not going to be bowling 90mph both-way reverse swingers.

graham onions does a little bit with the ball. not loads. and he is not express pace either.

broad doesn't do much with the ball either.

sidebottom is slow, very slow.

so i dont really see who is going to be doing this?

PS: (when i say doesn't do much with the ball i mean movement.)

Jimmy. He does bowl at 90mph, and he swings it both ways with both the new ball and, with reverse swing, the old ball.

 

[S Chanderpaul]

It's quite possible he'll be on methamphetamine when he gets his double ton of half as many balls in the second test.

 

[tooextracool]

Not one bowler in this England side has shown the ability to reverse swing a cricket ball both ways, with the exception of Flintoff who last showed this some 4 years ago. Anderson can get the ball to reverse into the right hander, Sidebottom has never done it on a regular basis, Broad ditto and we dont know enough about Onions to know that.

What we do know is that Anderson can get the ball to swing conventionally both ways, Sidebottom can only bowl inswingers, Broad very occasionally gets the ball to go away, Flintoff hasnt demonstrated the ability to swing the new ball in ages, and Onions has been reported as being capable of getting away swing from the right hander.

 

[zaremba]

Not one bowler in this England side has shown the ability to reverse swing a cricket ball both ways, with the exception of Flintoff who last showed this some 4 years ago. Anderson can get the ball to reverse into the right hander, Sidebottom has never done it on a regular basis, Broad ditto and we dont know enough about Onions to know that.

What we do know is that Anderson can get the ball to swing conventionally both ways, Sidebottom can only bowl inswingers, Broad very occasionally gets the ball to go away, Flintoff hasnt demonstrated the ability to swing the new ball in ages, and Onions has been reported as being capable of getting away swing from the right hander.

Hmm - I still think Jimmy can reverse it away, but I may be wrong

 

[tooextracool]

Hmm - I still think Jimmy can reverse it away, but I may be wrong

Don't remember ever seeing him do that tbh. Simon Jones, of course, could get the ball to swing both conventionally and reverse both ways at will, but he was part of a very very rare breed.

 

[King Pietersen]

Anderson was reversing it both ways in the West Indies.

 

[Richard]

Nah, that's exactly the point. It's all still relatively new but the latest info suggests it's a smooth curve from hand to batsman. Before you talk about the TV shots, remember what you're watching them with. Depends on release point too; if a bowler lets go of an in-swinger, for example, and aims it slightly to the left, for it to appear to swing back, it needs to first stop being pushed to the left, straighten, then start to move back into the batsman. What the batsman/viewer perceives, though, is late movement where the initial track appeared to be straight (peripheral vision causes this) when it was actually curving right from the hand.

There is a reason we bowlers look to use angles on the crease (the more it's swinging, the wider you need to bowl; the less, the closer). And obviously you usually want to try to angle the ball in the opposite direction you're aiming to get it to swing, to accentuate the "apparent lateness" of the movement.

I'd need to see some of the actual studies rather than merely a description of them to say much more TBH.

 

[Richard]

sidebottom is slow, very slow.

Aside from the un-truth-ness of this (Sidebottom certainly doesn't bowl at 40mph, which would be "very slow")... what does it have to do with how and in which direction he swings the ball?

 

[PhoenixFire]

sidebottom is slow, very slow.

Riight. I wouldn't call 87mph very slow, but each to their own.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm guessing 50/50 split of cortisone & egotism myself.

 

[Top_Cat]

There is a reason we bowlers look to use angles on the crease (the more it's swinging, the wider you need to bowl; the less, the closer). And obviously you usually want to try to angle the ball in the opposite direction you're aiming to get it to swing, to accentuate the "apparent lateness" of the movement.

I'd need to see some of the actual studies rather than merely a description of them to say much more TBH.

Here's a short summation of Shapiro's recent work;

http://www.shapirolab.net/IC2009/Shapiro_IC2009_Feature_Blur_and_the_break_of_the_Curveball.pdf

 

[Burgey]

I'm guessing 50/50 split of cortisone & egotism myself.

A lethal chemical ****tail in anyone's book...

 

[Golaxi]

how often does he even reach 85mph? when ive seen him on tv he was struggling to stay above 80. which is very slow for international test cricket.

higher speeds get more reverse swing right? and peiterson says we have 90mph reverse swing both way merchants all over?

i swear it was at home (england) when i saw him play and i didnt see anything like the 2005 class (movement wise).