Simon Katich

[Uppercut]

The ball may have swung plenty yesterday when it was new. Katich just faced very little of the new ball as Hughes dominated the strike, and the ball didn't swing to Hughes because England banged every ball in halfway (which also roughed up the ball sooner than usual, I presume).

Since Australia dominated, the myth was perpetuated by Botham and Bumble that the ball did nothing for England at all for unknown reasons.

 

[Top_Cat]

The ball may have swung plenty yesterday when it was new. Katich just faced very little of the new ball as Hughes dominated the strike, and the ball didn't swing to Hughes because England banged every ball in halfway (which also roughed up the ball sooner than usual, I presume).

Since Australia dominated, the myth was perpetuated by Botham and Bumble that the ball did nothing for England at all for unknown reasons.

Yeah exactly. It's utter bull**** that the swing suddenly evaporated for England's bowling effort. Cop out. And, as you said, you can't swing the ball from the bowler's half of the pitch.

 

[Richard]

Well I didn't watch the whole day's play but I did watch most of it from about 40 overs of the Australia innings onwards, and there was sod-all swing there, whereas there was still plenty for Hilfenhaus in the 60th of England's innings.

I'll say that it has indeed been a perpetuated myth that the ball hasn't turned for Swann and MSP, because it most certainly has, but I saw precious little evidence of swing with the first new-ball for England. Was that because they were mostly wasting it by whacking it in halfway down? Perfectly possible. However they were not able to swing Katich out.

What I also failed to notice was that Flintoff's c&b miss came off Katich - I'd thought it came off Hughes. Obviously, catching the chances someone offers is always the first thing one needs to do to get a player out so thus that let-off was the biggest reason England failed to get Katich out.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Only saw highlights of Day 2, but Anderson looked like he got a bit of swing early doors; or at least in the first over.

 

[Uppercut]

Well I didn't watch the whole day's play but I did watch most of it from about 40 overs of the Australia innings onwards, and there was sod-all swing there, whereas there was still plenty for Hilfenhaus in the 60th of England's innings.

I'll say that it has indeed been a perpetuated myth that the ball hasn't turned for Swann and MSP, because it most certainly has, but I saw precious little evidence of swing with the first new-ball for England. Was that because they were mostly wasting it by whacking it in halfway down? Perfectly possible. However they were not able to swing Katich out.

What I also failed to notice was that Flintoff's c&b miss came off Katich - I'd thought it came off Hughes. Obviously, catching the chances someone offers is always the first thing one needs to do to get a player out so thus that let-off was the biggest reason England failed to get Katich out.

They showed a graphic of the ball England had been using on Sky after it had been changed. It was horrendously poorly-conditioned, even for an old ball. You have to question whether banging the ball into the pitch (often cross-seamed) for the first 20 overs cost them a chance of swinging the ball late into their innings.

 

[Richard]

Probable, I'd say. Plain terrible strategism.

Anderson with a ball that swings into the 60th over could, potentially, be devastating. So, believe it or not, could Flintoff.

Not especially surprised, but it's disappointing every new time it happens.

 

[Top_Cat]

I'll say that it has indeed been a perpetuated myth that the ball hasn't turned for Swann and MSP, because it most certainly has, but I saw precious little evidence of swing with the first new-ball for England. Was that because they were mostly wasting it by whacking it in halfway down? Perfectly possible. However they were not able to swing Katich out.

They bowled rubbish. That's why there was no swing for them, a lack of skill in addition to the poor length.

What I also failed to notice was that Flintoff's c&b miss came off Katich - I'd thought it came off Hughes. Obviously, catching the chances someone offers is always the first thing one needs to do to get a player out so thus that let-off was the biggest reason England failed to get Katich out.

Barely a catch, in my view. I've only seen a couple of bowlers take catches like that off their bowling and they weren't hit that low and hard. The last I saw was Mark Harrity at Adelaide and for anyone else, it was a miracle catch. For Hags, even God ripped the sky open, paused the world then hit rewind to have another look, muttering to himself "Hmmmmm......... don't recall giving him the ability to catch."

 

[Richard]

Jeez, biggest deja vue there. Could've absolutely sworn for 5-6 seconds that I'd read that exact post before. Time has passed now.

They bowled rubbish. That's why there was no swing for them, a lack of skill in addition to the poor length.

Exactly - they bowled dreadfully. Not, I don't think, a mistake of priority but simply an inability to bring the A Game when it most mattered.

Barely a catch, in my view. I've only seen a couple of bowlers take catches like that off their bowling and they weren't hit that low and hard. The last I saw was Mark Harrity at Adelaide and for anyone else, it was a miracle catch. For Hags, even God ripped the sky open, paused the world then hit rewind to have another look, muttering to himself "Hmmmmm......... don't recall giving him the ability to catch."

Flintoff is a much better catcher than most (including most seam bowlers). For Stephen Harmison or Jacob Oram, I'd not have expected that to be taken. For Flintoff I would and did. You can tell he did as well. Harmison would've reacted to that with a shrug and a screwed-up face; Flintoff held his head for a few seconds and looked skywards.