Want to be the online Don Bradman or Ian Salisbury?
Then join CW Cricket today. It's what all the cool kids desire.
RIP Craig Walsh (Craig) 1985-2012
RIP Hughesy 1988-2014
Bevan's short-ball issue is a myth.
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
Rejecting 'selection deontology' since Mar '15
'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
Flintoff, and it was really he alone, bowled at his body and cramped him up before he got out to a couple of pretty average deliveries
Reckon it's a bit of a myth tbh and he just needed to make small adjustments to his leg stump game which, in all likelihood, he's done to a degree as he pummelled fc attacks in Oz shortly thereafter
IMO, the selectors missed a big opportunity to play him against India as the lower bounce would've suited him down to the ground
I don't know, maybe people are extrapolating a weakness to the short ball from the one working over that he received from Flintoff (and TBF, Flintoff is ideally suited for a body barrage). Maybe it's more a case of drying up his scoring areas (behind square on the offside) and eventually getting him out? I don't know, I'm just asking. Just curious because pretty much every Australian batsmen is good on the cut and the pull.
Context is important too.
Instead of naming names which would only fuel a feud, I'll use myself as an example. If you got me alone in a corner, I'd tell you that I think, as of right now, Vusi Sibanda is a better opening batsman than Virender Sehwag. It's an "interesting" opinion to say the least which nearly everyone would disagree with, and if I tried to argue it, I'd lose emphatically. Does it mean it's wrong? Well, to be fair, probably. Not certainly though, and such an opinion, void of a true statistical case behind it is something missing from CW completely now. The different criteria people use to analyse how well someone will perform in the future is what makes discussing cricket more interesting than other sport, and I feel we're losing that on CC by dumbing it down into a standard accepted criteria.
Last edited by Prince EWS; 16-10-2010 at 05:10 AM.
I'm not even sure if it was Flintoff that exploited it that much. Yes, he did exploit it in tests, but Harmison recognised it first imo. If Harmison had ****ed off earlier, Hughes might well have done much better.
Michael Bevan failed at Test level for a variety of reasons, the fact he was dismissed by short pitching bowling on a couple of occasions is not the reason. Most of it appeared to be a mental thing. Bevan had his initial failings (so did Hayden, Langer and Martyn), but he was never allowed to settle into the Test side as a proper batsman. By all interviews and autobiographies of the time, it seems the Australian experiment with playing Bevan as a spin-bowler really messed up his attitude.
I'm a lot better at separating what I like watching from what's actually effective these days. It wasn't really as much of a bad prediction as an example of how my cricket theories and ideas have evolved.
Last edited by Prince EWS; 16-10-2010 at 05:16 AM.
Still reckon Hughes will be fine if picked for the Ashes. With Freddie gone and Harmison not on tour I can't see Hughes being affected as much with the short ball.
Hughes looked like he'd been totally sorted out and he doesn't have the basics to fall back on when out of nick, what with having a technique that's on the ******** side of quirky.
Cricket Web's current Premier League Tipping Champion
- As featured in The Independent.
"I don't think that they'll come close to us to be honest."
- Steve Smith before the Ashes
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)