• 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.

***Official*** South Africa in England

Should Freddy be included in team for the second Test?


  • Total voters
    44

tooextracool

International Coach
Swing bowler means precisely what it sounds like - a bowler who swings the ball. There's no such thing as "conditions where it swings" - the ball will always swing if it's in the right state, and won't if it's not. Jones and Flintoff are swing-bowlers, because they swing the ball.
Flintoff isnt a swing bowler. That he can swing the ball is not the issue, but anyone who is classified a swing bowler should be able to swing the ball more often than not and Flintoff doesnt do so.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
When watching Vettori and Monty bowl in the same conditions I mentioned that there was a clear gulf in class between the 2 in Vettori's favor. I think when watching Harris and Monty bowl together, I think I can say the same in Monty's favor. Even more encouraging is that he has tossed the ball up generously thus far in this innings and has been rewarded with plenty of turn when he has(such has his wicket of McKenzie and his first delivery to Prince). However, one has to state that Mckenzie was fairly unlucky with that dismissal. Dont think anyone expected that ball to turn as much as it did without hitting the footholes.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
There's no such thing as "conditions where it swings" - the ball will always swing if it's in the right state, and won't if it's not.
The conditions - in particular the state of the pitch, the state of the outfield and the weather - will have a massive effect on the condition of the ball. If it's wet, the ability to obtain either conventional or reverse swing will be affected; and the speed at which the ball scuffs will also be a major factor. So you can't artificially separate "the conditions" from "the condition of the ball".

Apart from that, do you not accept the commonly-held theories relating to atmospheric conditions and swing - eg that the ball will tend to swing more in humid conditions? (I know that this is poorly-understood, but it is a common assumption and I'd be interested to hear your view).
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
When watching Vettori and Monty bowl in the same conditions I mentioned that there was a clear gulf in class between the 2 in Vettori's favor. I think when watching Harris and Monty bowl together, I think I can say the same in Monty's favor. Even more encouraging is that he has tossed the ball up generously thus far in this innings and has been rewarded with plenty of turn when he has(such has his wicket of McKenzie and his first delivery to Prince). However, one has to state that Mckenzie was fairly unlucky with that dismissal. Dont think anyone expected that ball to turn as much as it did without hitting the footholes.
Monty's a lot easier on the eye than Harris because he has such an orthodox high-arm action, but Harris is a useful bowler for all that. Gets more turn than his trajectory suggests he would.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
(re Sidebottom) Yeah, I thought the same. Looking rather chesty.
Whatever the reason, he hasn't bowled well this summer imo. His figures against NZ were flattered by his last day haul when the series was pretty much done & dusted, but he spent much of the rest of the series being left outside off stump - which is precisely what's happened for most of today. Couldn't begin to tell you why though.

Back to the present, I've always agreed with Boycott's adage of starting a session with your most dangerous bowler, which Broad isn't.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Monty's a lot easier on the eye than Harris because he has such an orthodox high-arm action, but Harris is a useful bowler for all that. Gets more turn than his trajectory suggests he would.
Harris is one that you'll notice that i rated from the first time i watched him against India. I dont doubt that he s a useful bowler, but he generates very little in the air while Monty is able to get some drift into the right hander and a bit more turn. Harris did bowl poorly in the first innings though, regardless of the pitch, theres no 2 ways around that.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Whats with very little clapping from the Lords crowd when SA hit a 4? Unusual from English crowds.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Yeah, I guess I'm just used to English crowds generally being the most sporting, whether their team is getting belted or is on top.

That clap for Prince's cut is louder than what is heard during a Pakistan test... even if a Pakistani batsman hits the boundary :ph34r:

Btw, when you started using the term "Fat Gray" all those years ago it stuck to me, and I started using it whenever I talked to cricket to whomever. Absolutely hilarious term, even though on the whole I like Graeme Smith.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Btw, when you started using the term "Fat Gray" all those years ago it stuck to me, and I started using it whenever I talked to cricket to whomever. Absolutely hilarious term, even though on the whole I like Graeme Smith.
That's the ticket. You'll be calling toilets "bogs" & describing choking as "jibbing" before you know it.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
When watching Vettori and Monty bowl in the same conditions I mentioned that there was a clear gulf in class between the 2 in Vettori's favor. I think when watching Harris and Monty bowl together, I think I can say the same in Monty's favor. Even more encouraging is that he has tossed the ball up generously thus far in this innings and has been rewarded with plenty of turn when he has(such has his wicket of McKenzie and his first delivery to Prince). However, one has to state that Mckenzie was fairly unlucky with that dismissal. Dont think anyone expected that ball to turn as much as it did without hitting the footholes.
Absolutely right. Vettori>>>>>>>>>>Monty>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Harris IMO. I wouldn't call McKenzie unlucky though. Getting out bowled to a spinner playing no shot to a ball that pitches so far outside leg is unforgiveable in these circumstances.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
That's the ticket. You'll be calling toilets "bogs" & describing choking as "jibbing" before you know it.
We already call the actual **** a 'bog'. So technically the toilet would have to be called the 'bogger', as in the '****ter.'
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Monty's a lot easier on the eye than Harris because he has such an orthodox high-arm action, but Harris is a useful bowler for all that. Gets more turn than his trajectory suggests he would.
When i've watched Harris he's got as little turn as i've ever seen a "spinner" get, even on good pitches for spin-bowling. The final test in India was a case in point, even Virender Sehwag turned the ball square on that pitch and Harris hardly turned a single delivery.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Absolutely right. Vettori>>>>>>>>>>Monty>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Harris IMO. I wouldn't call McKenzie unlucky though. Getting out bowled to a spinner playing no shot to a ball that pitches so far outside leg is unforgiveable in these circumstances.
The ball pitched way outside leg stump and on his feet. It had very little to go and most people would have let it go thinking it was going down legside especially since it missed the footholes.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
This is where England need to be able to throw the ball to someone with a bit of an edge and let them charge in and try and manufacture a wicket. Everything is getting rather preictable and stale.

Unfortunately they dont have that type of bowler.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Panesar finally tosses a ball up and it ends up being a full toss and hammered for 4.And now, he'll settle back into bowling that flat rubbish that hes bowled for a large part of his career.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The ball pitched way outside leg stump and on his feet. It had very little to go and most people would have let it go thinking it was going down legside especially since it missed the footholes.
True but all he had to do was get his feet between the pitch and the stumps. Really simple. If the ball turned ridiculously and hit off stump then i'd agree he was unlucky. But knowing that Panesar was capable of the occasional big turner, he should have just kicked it. No effort and zero risk required.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
This is where England need to be able to throw the ball to someone with a bit of an edge and let them charge in and try and manufacture a wicket. Everything is getting rather preictable and stale.

Unfortunately they dont have that type of bowler.
It doesn't matter who they have in their attack or who they're playing. The other team will nearly always have a partnership of sorts, especially on a pitch like this. It's not like Flintoff will cut out all partnerships before they get to 43.
 

Top