Bolwer rotation for tests

[Son Of Coco]

With regards should have been out, it's simple - anything that happens after is no credit to the batsman.
With regards should not have been out, I've already explained what I think, why it isn't perfect, and why not being perfect is not a crime.

you have, but not being as perfect as possible leaves it open to debate - like this.

 

[Richard]

Debate is good - marc's out-of-hand dismissal is not.

 

[Richard]

It was a two day game actually, but second innings so we didn't get to bowl for that long. The problem with trying to hit the stumps is that the batsmen aren't that bad that they'll automatically miss it when you bowl at middle (it's 1st grade so.......they're not hopeless) so you're going to go for a lot more runs.

I was kinda talking if it's moving as much as you said.
If it's moving, and they've been missing it loads, when it's straight and they miss it, it'll hit the stumps.

Just a question with regards to wickets coming off bad balls in tests/one-dayers - how do you make the decision as to whether it was a bad ball or not when you don't know exactly what the fielding team was trying to do at that given point? I know some balls (rank long-hops etc) are obviously unintended but when a bowler bowls a couple short and at the batsman and then pitches one up a foot or more outside off and gets the edge or puts in two gullies and a point and bowls a short one outside off (to a player like Damien Martyn for instance) how would you know whether it was a bad ball or it worked out as planned unless you knew what they were attempting to do?

With regards one-day games - given that wickets aren't the foremost consideration I don't have any gripe with a good, 4-an-over-or-less, spell getting any wickets with non-wicket-taking balls. What annoys me is when a bowler gets away with going for 5-an-over because he's got 3 wickets with poor balls.
In Test-matches it takes quite some bowling to get people out like you sugested - and it's no coincidence that Fleming's tack worked in the VB Series and wasn't very effective in the Test-series of 2001\02.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I was kinda talking if it's moving as much as you said.
If it's moving, and they've been missing it loads, when it's straight and they miss it, it'll hit the stumps.

With regards one-day games - given that wickets aren't the foremost consideration I don't have any gripe with a good, 4-an-over-or-less, spell getting any wickets with non-wicket-taking balls. What annoys me is when a bowler gets away with going for 5-an-over because he's got 3 wickets with poor balls.
In Test-matches it takes quite some bowling to get people out like you sugested - and it's no coincidence that Fleming's tack worked in the VB Series and wasn't very effective in the Test-series of 2001\02.

Personally I think that working batsmen out in that manner happens pretty frequently in both forms of the game, but anyway. Watch how Gillespie bowls to left-handers (or even any batsmen) and you'll see him attempt to push the batsman onto the backfoot before bowling one up and wide of off-stump looking for the edge......I presume any bowler playing at International level is also attempting to work to a plan when bowling to any batsman, and I just feel that it's easy to say a ball was bad when you don't know their intentions.

I see what you're saying with regards to our game, the problem was a ball short of a length bounced a little too high to hit the stumps, but pushing it up further invited the drive (something that's not a bad thing I guess if it's moving so much). The pitch was basically a bowler's paradise haha, the short of a length ball was pretty much unplayable (except on the rare occasions it didn't move around), but I possibly should have pitched it up slightly more to get the edge. As someone who doesn't swing it though (except if a miracle occurs - usually resulting in a wide) I guess I'm a bit reluctant to throw one right up there on too many occasions out of habit. The most frustrating thing was that one that moved in from outside off usually ended up hitting glove, ribs, arm etc and trickling past the stumps haha Like I said though, if a couple of them were ptiched up a bit more then there would have been no problems, I think I've talked myself around to thinking it's entirely my fault.......thanks for this Richard! I'm shot for the weekend now!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

What annoys me is when a bowler gets away with going for 5-an-over because he's got 3 wickets with poor balls..

What about 5 or 6 an over and taking wickets with good ball?

 

[marc71178]

Because I've studied writing styles and whether comparisons are accurate.

Oh really - so something is written in the same style - doesn't mean it was written under the same guidelines.

Back in that time was there so much scandals written about then oh wise one?

No there wasn't because that was not the way the press worked back then, reporting was not negative.

 

[marc71178]

Debate is good - marc's out-of-hand dismissal is not.

I have not dismissed it out of hand, I have pointed out the major flaws in it that mean it cannot be used as an accurate tool.

 

[marc71178]

What annoys me is when a bowler gets away with going for 5-an-over because he's got 3 wickets with poor balls.

Except of course unless the bowler's name is Gough.

 

[Richard]

What about 5 or 6 an over and taking wickets with good ball?

That's perfectly fair enough - but I can't think of many bowlers like that. Agarkar used to be one, but his wicket-taking has dropped off recently.
Most are like Sami and Lee and get away with bowling poorly because some of the poor balls get wickets against their name.

 

[Richard]

Oh really - so something is written in the same style - doesn't mean it was written under the same guidelines.

Back in that time was there so much scandals written about then oh wise one?

No there wasn't because that was not the way the press worked back then, reporting was not negative.

And of course you've studied the thing like I have, haven't you?
No, you're just making assumptions, based presumably on a small amount of stuff you've learnt, and used generalisation for the rest.

 

[Richard]

Except of course unless the bowler's name is Gough.

So when did I say that about Gough, then?
That's right - I didn't. It would, though, have been convenient for you if I had.

 

[marc71178]

No, you're just making assumptions, based presumably on a small amount of stuff you've learnt, and used generalisation for the rest.

Actually I've discussed it with a then-Jounalism student who now writes for 2 National Newspapers.

But then again, what would he know?

 

[Richard]

Quite a lot, presumably.
So when did you make this discussion, then? Before or after you had decided that my research couldn't have any meaning, because it would mean my theory on dropped catches had more base than you wanted?

 

[marc71178]

I seem to remember it was last Xmas or so - but of course, you'll no doubt still claim to be right.

 

[Richard]

Coincidentally, before you'd even decided I couldn't know what I was on about.
Even though you had no way of asking about exact stuff I had mentioned, this conversation miraculously covered it all.
Yes, if you say so.

 

[marc71178]

I think I can remember when I see my own brother, seeing as it's only 2 or 3 times a year.

 

[Richard]

Where did I say "I think you didn't see him when you said you did"?
I said that, given that when you saw him was before I even mentioned that I'd researched the matter, you had no chance to ask him exact questions that would be neccessary.