• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Beware of Rana!!!

C_C

International Captain
Richard said:
The point is, his success (in 2 series against the two lowest-achieving teams of the 8 ODI-standard teams, it might be added - India and West Indies) has come through poor strokes mostly rather than him bowling especially well.
Even then it's only been wicket-taking he's been good at, he's almost invariably very wayward.

Inducing poor strokes is part of the equation of being a credible/good/great bowler.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
No, it's not - being a good bowler is about how well you bowl, not how well the batsmen play you.
Poor strokes cannot be "induced". They can be encouraged - for instance, you can bowl a fullish away-swinger that gets chased and nicked - but you can't force a batsman to play a poor stroke.
 

C_C

International Captain
Richard said:
No, it's not - being a good bowler is about how well you bowl, not how well the batsmen play you.
Poor strokes cannot be "induced". They can be encouraged - for instance, you can bowl a fullish away-swinger that gets chased and nicked - but you can't force a batsman to play a poor stroke.
Yes a poor stroke can be induced.
If a bowler confuses you well enough or sets you up well enough, you will play a false stroke and get out. Simple as that. If your deliveries have subtle variations to them and you bowl an unexpected delivery, you can induce an error in the batsman. Bowling is about inducing errors in a batsman since it was an 'error' that he couldnt play a 95mph inswinging yorker. That is no different than the error you induced in him by bowling a half volley that came on heavier than expected or seamed less than expected.
How the batsman play you is also dependent on how you bowl and how you do in the menta aspect of the game.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Of course how you bowl influences how the batsmen play you.
There are some deliveries which a batsman has no realistic chance of playing - a 95mph inswinging Yorker is one; a ball that pitches on off from wide of the crease and hits off is another.
There are some deliveries which bowlers deserve no credit whatsoever for getting wickets off - and you certainly can't "force" an error from a batsman, just make one more likely.
And as far as I'm concerned spraying the ball all over everywhere and not moving the ball sideways doesn't make errors more likely, and you're just lucky if a batsman makes enough to give you good figures.
 

C_C

International Captain
Richard said:
Of course how you bowl influences how the batsmen play you.
There are some deliveries which a batsman has no realistic chance of playing - a 95mph inswinging Yorker is one; a ball that pitches on off from wide of the crease and hits off is another.
There are some deliveries which bowlers deserve no credit whatsoever for getting wickets off - and you certainly can't "force" an error from a batsman, just make one more likely.
And as far as I'm concerned spraying the ball all over everywhere and not moving the ball sideways doesn't make errors more likely, and you're just lucky if a batsman makes enough to give you good figures.
And as far as i am concerned ( which by the way, i am sure some professional players will tell you) you are wrong.

There is no such thing as 'realistic' and 'unrealistic'- it is ALL a mental game and if a batsman KNOWS or can PREDICT well that you are gonna bowl a 95 mph inswinging yorker, it will vanish into the stands. It is all a mental game of deception- keeping the batsmen guessing and foxing them with a delivery they did not expect to do as much ( or as less) as it did. Batting is all about watching the bowler closely and picking up the delivery and bowling is all about trying to confuse the batsman or mislead him as much as possible.
Lateral movement makes it no harder to play than sheer speed of the delivery - be it a fast one or a well disguised slower one.
Which is why someone with superb lateral movement like Sikander Bhakt wasnt very successful.
Bowling is a combination of speed, lateral movement, line, length, bounce and heaps and heaps of mental ability similar to playing chess.
You can be slightly off the mark in one but if you are overall more competent, you will do better.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
C_C said:
There is no such thing as 'realistic' and 'unrealistic'- it is ALL a mental game and if a batsman KNOWS or can PREDICT well that you are gonna bowl a 95 mph inswinging yorker, it will vanish into the stands.
And as we all know it is totally impossible to know or even predict with much accuracy what a bowler is going to bowl.
That's why you have to say a "realistically unplayable delivery" rather than just "an unplayable delivery".
Because realistically no batsman can know or accurately predict what is going to be bowled to him.
Even if he can accurately predict that he's going to get an away-swinger he can't accurately predict the exact line the ball will finish on, because he can't know how much it's going to swing or it's start-line.
 

C_C

International Captain
Richard said:
And as we all know it is totally impossible to know or even predict with much accuracy what a bowler is going to bowl.
That's why you have to say a "realistically unplayable delivery" rather than just "an unplayable delivery".
Because realistically no batsman can know or accurately predict what is going to be bowled to him.
Even if he can accurately predict that he's going to get an away-swinger he can't accurately predict the exact line the ball will finish on, because he can't know how much it's going to swing or it's start-line.
Au contraire.
Some bowlers are easy to predict.
Sikander Bhakt was one, Patterson Thompson was another, Uton Dowe was yet another.
By prediction, i mean knowing what the delivery will do from an intuitive understanding of the game.
If i keep bowling outswingers that move 5 inches(give or take half a cm), you know that my delivery is gonna outswing and all you have to do is guage the line and the length.

A batsman fooled by a half volley that is 'heavier' than expected is no less an 'fooled' than a batsman foxed by a toe-crushing 95mph yorker.
 

venomous

Cricket Spectator
He sure is a great bowler & after his impressive county season, his bowling shld be called as phenomenal...I foresee Rana ripping through England batting line-up in at least 2-3 ODIz, & now he has gained ability to trouble them in Test matches too!
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
C_C said:
Inducing poor strokes is part of the equation of being a credible/good/great bowler.
No it's not apparantly - there's no skill in frustrating a batsman into a false shot because players are all robots supposedly.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
C_C said:
Au contraire.
Some bowlers are easy to predict.
Sikander Bhakt was one, Patterson Thompson was another, Uton Dowe was yet another.
By prediction, i mean knowing what the delivery will do from an intuitive understanding of the game.
If i keep bowling outswingers that move 5 inches(give or take half a cm), you know that my delivery is gonna outswing and all you have to do is guage the line and the length.

A batsman fooled by a half volley that is 'heavier' than expected is no less an 'fooled' than a batsman foxed by a toe-crushing 95mph yorker.
And it's utterly impossible to gauge distance a ball is moving when you're batting, least of all down to half a cm.
Nor is it easy to force yourself to play down the line other than that you see the ball on, which is why late outswingers are so effective.
What, exactly, do you mean a Half-Volley that is heavier than expected. A Half-Volley arrives on the bat exactly the same time regardless of how quickly it comes off the pitch. That's the whole point of a Half-Volley, why it's so easy to hit - it's almost impossible to mi**** it if you get the timing right.
A just-short-of-Half-Volley that skids on quicker than expected (although it'd have to be MUCH quicker than expected) might just cause problems.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
No it's not apparantly - there's no skill in frustrating a batsman into a false shot because players are all robots supposedly.
No, they're not, but most of the best ones do understand that the scoring-rate in the limitless-over game can be slow and it's not the end of The World.
 

C_C

International Captain
Richard said:
No, they're not, but most of the best ones do understand that the scoring-rate in the limitless-over game can be slow and it's not the end of The World.
It is NOT a limitless over game - these arnt timeless test matches - 450 overs maximum with 30 overs extra in special circumstances.

And even IF it is a limitless game, fooling a batsman into committing a mistake is to the credit of the bowler.
It is very much like chess - the one innocent pawn forward can start a check-mate-in-7-moves sequence that will end with a rather straight-forward 'rook advance to the most obvious place' move. Similarly, set up over numerous deliveries can culminate with one incuous delivery that holds its like a foot outside offstump that the batsman tries to drive and nick to the slip cordon.
The bowler does deserve credit for it.
 

C_C

International Captain
Richard said:
And it's utterly impossible to gauge distance a ball is moving when you're batting, least of all down to half a cm.
Nor is it easy to force yourself to play down the line other than that you see the ball on, which is why late outswingers are so effective.
What, exactly, do you mean a Half-Volley that is heavier than expected. A Half-Volley arrives on the bat exactly the same time regardless of how quickly it comes off the pitch. That's the whole point of a Half-Volley, why it's so easy to hit - it's almost impossible to mi**** it if you get the timing right.
A just-short-of-Half-Volley that skids on quicker than expected (although it'd have to be MUCH quicker than expected) might just cause problems.
Half volley being heavier than expected ? you obviously have not batted against some good/decent bowlers. How much spin/torque put on the delivery very much determines the contact velocity of the bat and the contact point for 'optimal contact'- these are little things that a player does intuitively. Which is why you do see bowlers picking up wickets sometimes with the half volley.

And it doesnt matter if the movement is within 5mm of each other if you are bowling down outswingers after outswingers -if i KNOW or have a very good guess that you are gonna bowl an outswinger,then i've already won half the battle. All i have to worry about is the length and line and then make a subtle wrist adjustment for the extra ( or less) 5mm deviation. ( lets say you've never bowled an inswinger in yer life and yer a Sikander Bhakt style '95 outswingers outta 100 delivery' type bowler)

I will tell you what.
Why dont you ask a decent county bowler ( i am sure they would be willing to help ya out if its a school project excuse or you offer them some cash incentives) to bowl 20 outswingers in a row to a decent county batsman(who knows its gonna be 20 outswingers) and see how many ball he middles
Then get him to bowl 20 deliveries 'as he pleases' without the batsman's knowledge and see the difference.

Now obviously a bowler doesnt tell a batsman whether he is gonna bowl an outswinger or not but with the given level of preparation ( for eg i am sure everyone playing cricket competitively knows that McGrath cannot bowl a banana inswinger) in cricket today, where you know the style, speed and major variations posessed by a bowler before you even face him, a weakness(either in the batsman or the bowler) gets exposed in the span of a few innings or sometimes, even in the span of a few overs.
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
C_C said:
It is NOT a limitless over game - these arnt timeless test matches - 450 overs maximum with 30 overs extra in special circumstances.

And even IF it is a limitless game, fooling a batsman into committing a mistake is to the credit of the bowler.
It is very much like chess - the one innocent pawn forward can start a check-mate-in-7-moves sequence that will end with a rather straight-forward 'rook advance to the most obvious place' move. Similarly, set up over numerous deliveries can culminate with one incuous delivery that holds its like a foot outside offstump that the batsman tries to drive and nick to the slip cordon.
The bowler does deserve credit for it.
There is no limit to what a bowler can bowl, or how long a batsman can bat, other than the 450 overs with 30 extra. Just like the fact that a distance, be it object-distance or image-distance, becomes "infinity" as far as a lens is concerned once it reaches a certain point, so the non-limited-over game is, once you go past a certain point, limitless. Slow runs are better than no runs. As such it's better to score 100 off 250 balls than 15 off 15.
 

C_C

International Captain
Richard said:
There is no limit to what a bowler can bowl, or how long a batsman can bat, other than the 450 overs with 30 extra. Just like the fact that a distance, be it object-distance or image-distance, becomes "infinity" as far as a lens is concerned once it reaches a certain point, so the non-limited-over game is, once you go past a certain point, limitless. Slow runs are better than no runs. As such it's better to score 100 off 250 balls than 15 off 15.
regardless of that, if a bowler sets up a batsman, he can be dismissed and that is, to the bowler's credit.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
C_C said:
you obviously have not batted against some good/decent bowlers.
No, I haven't - you should be able to guess that by the regularity with which my batting hopelessness is discussed.
I will tell you what.
Why dont you ask a decent county bowler ( i am sure they would be willing to help ya out if its a school project excuse or you offer them some cash incentives) to bowl 20 outswingers in a row to a decent county batsman(who knows its gonna be 20 outswingers) and see how many ball he middles
Then get him to bowl 20 deliveries 'as he pleases' without the batsman's knowledge and see the difference.

Now obviously a bowler doesnt tell a batsman whether he is gonna bowl an outswinger or not but with the given level of preparation ( for eg i am sure everyone playing cricket competitively knows that McGrath cannot bowl a banana inswinger) in cricket today, where you know the style, speed and major variations posessed by a bowler before you even face him, a weakness(either in the batsman or the bowler) gets exposed in the span of a few innings or sometimes, even in the span of a few overs.
For starters, if you think McGrath cannot bowl a banana inswinger I suggest you rewatch Adelaide 2001\02 in the second-innings to Kallis.
I highly doubt that anyone, even the best of international bowlers, would be able to bowl 20 outswingers in a row. Let me assure you no county bowlers would be able to.
"Natural variation" - ie variation which is not intended - is every bit as much part of the game as deliberately varied deliveries.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
C_C said:
regardless of that, if a bowler sets up a batsman, he can be dismissed and that is, to the bowler's credit.
Of course it is. And I, like most sensible people, will give credit to a bowler who does such.
I won't, however, give credit to a bowler who supposedly "sets-up" a batsman by bowling 20 innocuous deliveries outside off that don't move at all and are very similar in length then gets a poor stroke from the next ball.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
I won't, however, give credit to a bowler who supposedly "sets-up" a batsman by bowling 20 innocuous deliveries outside off that don't move at all and are very similar in length then gets a poor stroke from the next ball.
And why not?

If the bowler bowls a succession of dot balls and the pressure leads to a wicket - he deserves credit.
 
venomous said:
He sure is a great bowler & after his impressive county season, his bowling shld be called as phenomenal...!
An average of 76 in test matches with the bowl is indeed phenomenal.

I wonder how much did Rana pay that guy to get such undeserved praises?
 
Last edited:

Shoaib

Banned
GladiatrsInBlue said:
An average of 76 in test matches with the bowl is indeed phenomenal.
This phenominal bowler (Naved-Ul-Hasan) has an average of 76 because unfortunately he hasn't yet got the chance to decrease his average by playing against Bangladesh & Zimbabwe like Irfan Pathan.IKP has more average than Rana if u exclude their performances against Bangladesh & Zimbabwe.
GladiatrsInBlue said:
I wonder how much did Rana pay that guy to get such undeserved praises?
People praise good bowlers & not rubbish like Nehra & Pathan.I wonder what relation do u have with Nehra & Pathan for blessing them with heaps of ******** & unsuitable praises?Keep trying and i bet that u would never be able to prove your rubbish as legends.Some sentences of unnecessary praises don't make talent-less personalities stand in the list of "legends".
 

Top