Who would you have picked instead of Darren Pattinson ?

[tooextracool]

Apart from spin, bowlers can be a combination of all of that. Richard Hadlee and Andrew Caddick being two of the best examples, of variable quality.

You can be quick, get bounce, swing the ball, and if you can swing it it goes without saying that you'll be able to move it off the seam too. The best bowlers mostly do.

I would actually separate split swing into conventional and reverse swing.

 

[tooextracool]

And who has the better inswinging Yorker out of the two?

(It's actually an interesting question)

If the question is who has the best yorker I might be tempted to go with Flintoff, but who has the best inswinging yorker would surely have to be Anderson. Whether its coincidence or not, Flintoff has never consistently managed to reverse swing the ball since the Ashes in 2005.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If the question is who has the best yorker I might be tempted to go with Flintoff, but who has the best inswinging yorker would surely have to be Anderson. Whether its coincidence or not, Flintoff has never consistently managed to reverse swing the ball since the Ashes in 2005.

There's plenty of things Flintoff hasn't managed to do consistantly since 2005, not least of which is play cricket.

 

[tooextracool]

There's plenty of things Flintoff hasn't managed to do consistantly since 2005, not least of which is play cricket.

From memory, between the Ashes in 2005 till the Ashes in 06/07 he only missed the tests against Pakistan. He certainly played a fair bit of cricket in between.

 

[Richard]

Neither of them bowl as many yorkers as they should.

If you're looking for what Mark Nicholas would call a "crackerjack" delivery, which in this situation I suppose you are, Anderson is the likelier, particularly with a newer ball.

Funnily enough Harmison has bowled 2 of the best yorkers of recent times: the slower ball to dismiss Clarke at OT in 2005, and the brutal 94mph inswinging yorker to dismiss Ponting for a golden duck in the first (?) one-dayer in 2005.

The slower-ball that Clarke fell to at Edgbaston wasn't actually a Yorker - and I won't start on why it wasn't really a particularly good ball (will just say Harmison slower-balls are painfully obvious and that one was no exception - Clarke clearly picked it, he didn't play early) as I'm sure most people are sick of it.

I'm not sure the Ponting lbw in the first ODI of 2005 was quite a Yorker either, IIRR it was just short of.

 

[Top_Cat]

The slower-ball that Clarke fell to at Edgbaston wasn't actually a Yorker - and I won't start on why it wasn't really a particularly good ball (will just say Harmison slower-balls are painfully obvious and that one was no exception - Clarke clearly picked it, he didn't play early) as I'm sure most people are sick of it.

So....

You say "I won't start..." then you say it anyway. Say it or don't.

Sure the slower-ball wasn't perfectly disguised but it was good enough. Why? Because of the knuckle-shattering 145km/h short couple of deliveries before them. They totally had Clarke on the defensive on the back-foot and even if he did see the sucker-punch, he couldn't do anything about it. Harmison had been ordinary until then but that last over would have been damn nasty to face.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

So....

You say "I won't start..." then you say it anyway. Say it or don't.

Sure the slower-ball wasn't perfectly disguised but it was good enough. Why? Because of the knuckle-shattering 145km/h short couple of deliveries before them. They totally had Clarke on the defensive on the back-foot and even if he did see the sucker-punch, he couldn't do anything about it. Harmison had been ordinary until then but that last over would have been damn nasty to face.

You're a brave man leaving yourself open to Richard's "theory" that every ball is a separate entity and what happened with previous deliveries can have no influence on the next.

 

[GIMH]

The strange thing about this is that (apart from ignoring Flintoff) there is already 1 guy in England that has done what you are asking and it isnt Anderson.

Of course, good point

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Of course, good point

It's also a point that a lot of balls have floated under the bridge in the three years since, including one straight to second slip.

 

[GIMH]

 

[zaremba]

The slower-ball that Clarke fell to at Edgbaston wasn't actually a Yorker - and I won't start on why it wasn't really a particularly good ball (will just say Harmison slower-balls are painfully obvious and that one was no exception - Clarke clearly picked it, he didn't play early) as I'm sure most people are sick of it.

I'm not sure the Ponting lbw in the first ODI of 2005 was quite a Yorker either, IIRR it was just short of.

The Clarke one was a yorker or as near as makes no difference. As for whether you think it was a particularly good ball or not, well I won't start on why you're wrong (will just say that you are).

The Ponting one was indeed a yorker. I can't currently find it on youtube and I can't be arsed going through my 2005 DVDs to find it. If you want to try to persuade anyone that saw it that that wasn't a great delivery, the very best of luck to you. You might want to start with Ricky Ponting.

 

[Richard]

So....

You say "I won't start..." then you say it anyway. Say it or don't.

Sure the slower-ball wasn't perfectly disguised but it was good enough. Why? Because of the knuckle-shattering 145km/h short couple of deliveries before them. They totally had Clarke on the defensive on the back-foot and even if he did see the sucker-punch, he couldn't do anything about it. Harmison had been ordinary until then but that last over would have been damn nasty to face.

So the sucker-punch was a ball that he missed? In other words. The slowerness was irrelevant.

 

[Richard]

You're a brave man leaving yourself open to Richard's "theory" that every ball is a separate entity and what happened with previous deliveries can have no influence on the next.

Which has never even been suggested - at least not by me.

 

[zaremba]

The slowerness was irrelevant.

You reckon?

 

[Richard]

If Clarke fell to it because of the deliveries which preceded it (which is possible, though I don't think terribly likely - I think he just missed a straight ball, most good batsmen don't get overtly bothered by a couple of shortish deliveries) then yes.

As I said - Clarke very clearly picked the slower-ball. Hence the slowness had nothing to do with his dismissal. You can possibly argue that his dismissal was a result of good bowling, but not that the slower-ball was a good one.

What's interesting is that Clarke, in the "Super Test", also fell to a ball of near-identical length from Harmison in the exact same way - just missed it. This time it was a ball of "normal" pace. Possibly Clarke just finds (or found, possibly) deliveries of that length from Harmison difficult.

 

[tooextracool]

The Ponting one was indeed a yorker. I can't currently find it on youtube and I can't be arsed going through my 2005 DVDs to find it. If you want to try to persuade anyone that saw it that that wasn't a great delivery, the very best of luck to you. You might want to start with Ricky Ponting.

Actually, I agree with Richard on this one. The ball that got Ponting bounced just before it hit the bat. Swung a bit in the air too IIRC. Wasnt a bad ball, but if we're talking about a good yorker then the ball that got Hussey later in the game was indeed a good yorker.