phoenix373
Cricket Spectator
hi all,
so i had a heated discussion with my room mate a while ago about which type of good length balls are easier to whack. my understanding from playing and watching are as follows:
1. good length ball gets its name because its not optimal for a batsman to commit fully to either front or back foot while standing at crease and trying to play it.
2. the most natural power slog shot is the baseball style swing (towards mid-wicket)
3. an "easier" shot is one where you can generate sufficient power, have a wide angle of options in terms of where to hit the ball, AND you are NOT increasing wicket exposure risk
4. a batsman has more options on where he wants to move when the ball is NOT middle and leg (i.e. when it is pitched middle and off, outside off, good length nonetheless) e.g. steve waugh's slog sweep on good length balls on middle, middle/off, ganguly's down the track or standing ground shots over long-on, long-off all good length middle and off, outside off balls... (i know the examples are specific)
given these observations i feel that its a lot easier (going by definition 3) to whack middle and off and outside off balls that are good length than it is to hit those good length balls pitched on middle and leg.
some extra points:
* i understand that a ball on middle and leg follows the batsman (on the body/legs), while a ball on middle and off, and outside off is one the batsman is able to follow
* a batsman has anywhere between square on the offside to mid-wicket to whack a good length ball pitched on the offside & middle-off stump (simply because he can choose to move towards it, if necessary, and choose the optimal way to swing it), while a ball on middle and leg that is good length is hard to move into good position since you will risk exposing the stumps and just standing ground and swinging will also expose you to getting bowled out rather than it going for a six.
* i am making no comments about WHERE exactly the batsman chooses to hit the ball (on side or off side), just saying if its middle and leg you have fewer options in terms of actual angles, movement will risk exposing your wickets, and standing ground and swinging will do the same (because your completely cross batted on a ball, so you might top edge it or under edge it).
i know this may be a really stupid thing to discuss, but what do you guys think?
so i had a heated discussion with my room mate a while ago about which type of good length balls are easier to whack. my understanding from playing and watching are as follows:
1. good length ball gets its name because its not optimal for a batsman to commit fully to either front or back foot while standing at crease and trying to play it.
2. the most natural power slog shot is the baseball style swing (towards mid-wicket)
3. an "easier" shot is one where you can generate sufficient power, have a wide angle of options in terms of where to hit the ball, AND you are NOT increasing wicket exposure risk
4. a batsman has more options on where he wants to move when the ball is NOT middle and leg (i.e. when it is pitched middle and off, outside off, good length nonetheless) e.g. steve waugh's slog sweep on good length balls on middle, middle/off, ganguly's down the track or standing ground shots over long-on, long-off all good length middle and off, outside off balls... (i know the examples are specific)
given these observations i feel that its a lot easier (going by definition 3) to whack middle and off and outside off balls that are good length than it is to hit those good length balls pitched on middle and leg.
some extra points:
* i understand that a ball on middle and leg follows the batsman (on the body/legs), while a ball on middle and off, and outside off is one the batsman is able to follow
* a batsman has anywhere between square on the offside to mid-wicket to whack a good length ball pitched on the offside & middle-off stump (simply because he can choose to move towards it, if necessary, and choose the optimal way to swing it), while a ball on middle and leg that is good length is hard to move into good position since you will risk exposing the stumps and just standing ground and swinging will also expose you to getting bowled out rather than it going for a six.
* i am making no comments about WHERE exactly the batsman chooses to hit the ball (on side or off side), just saying if its middle and leg you have fewer options in terms of actual angles, movement will risk exposing your wickets, and standing ground and swinging will do the same (because your completely cross batted on a ball, so you might top edge it or under edge it).
i know this may be a really stupid thing to discuss, but what do you guys think?
Last edited:
