Is The Yorker underused in test cricket?

[Bob Bamber]

Just wondering what you thought about this point.

 

[Richard]

Yes, and has been for years.

Absolutely ridiculous as it's one of a seam-bowler's best deliveries, especially if it can be persuaded to swing.

One of the multitude of reasons bowlers have been more poor in recent times than earlier.

 

[andruid]

Yes, and has been for years.

Absolutely ridiculous as it's one of a seam-bowler's best deliveries, especially if it can be persuaded to swing.

One of the multitude of reasons bowlers have been more poor in recent times than earlier.

On the other hand it takes real skill to land that perfect swinging yorker. An inch either way and it becomes a rank full toss or a length ball on the pads which most quality batsmen will quickly dispatch for 4.

 

[Richard]

Yes, it does. But the fact that people just don't try anywhere near as often as they used to is poor.

You don't have to be Joel Garner or Waqar Younis to try to bowl a Yorker. And even if you get 4 wrong, the 1 you get right can well make all the difference.

 

[Manee]

Indeed, 1/16 off 0.5 is something that is just not seen enough in Test cricket.

 

[Richard]

Well, y'know, not all bad deliveries go for four.

 

[Manee]

Some take wickets.

 

[PavlovsDog]

Indeed, 1/16 off 0.5 is something that is just not seen enough in Test cricket.

I think it's underused because it's something different. If bowlers tried the yorker every ball, batsmen would surely adjust accordingly.

The reason the yorker is so effective is because the bowlers have worked over the batsmen with length balls, a few short ones and then the yorker takes them by surprise and often is very effective.

I don't think it would be as effective if the batsmen were expecting it, as it's the element of surprise that makes it what it is.

 

[Richard]

You can expect an inswinging Yorker as much as you want, you'll still have a job playing it.

In any case, it's all well and good keeping it as a shock weapon, but not so much of a shock as "never used".

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Yes, and has been for years.

Absolutely ridiculous as it's one of a seam-bowler's best deliveries, especially if it can be persuaded to swing.

One of the multitude of reasons bowlers have been more poor in recent times than earlier.

Sums it up for me. Especially on flat pitches. If you're bowling on a road why not take the road out of the equation?

 

[Manee]

Why would you bowl on a road?

 

[Goughy]

Im on my way out so Il only give a brief answer.

It could certainly be used more often but it shouldnt become overly common.

Its tough to bowl, expensive when not correct, you cant set fields for it and it can release all pressure.

It also isnt always a particualary dangerous ball. Just looks dramatic when it creeps through.

Certainly though, when wickets are hard to come by variations in length and pace become more important and the yorker features into that.

It is a weapon but only a small part of the armoury

 

[Jamee999]

Why would you bowl on a road?

Because the Highways Agency was sponsoring the series?

 

[GIMH]

Someone like Flintoff who has an awesome yorker underuses the delivery but bowling too many just becomes tedious, like any sort of special delivery really

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Indeed, 1/16 off 0.5 is something that is just not seen enough in Test cricket.

A strike rate of 5 and an average of 16 is fine in Test cricket.6-96 in 5 overs is a good job.

 

[GIMH]

Indeed. If you can blast a team out in 15 overs for even, like, 150, you'll win most matches

 

[Bob Bamber]

The point for me is that on target , the batsman always has to play at it.

The perfect yorker is almost impossible to play , im not saying that it should be over used , just that just because you're not on a flat wicket , doesn't mean you can't use the variation every now and then.

 

[Top_Cat]

A road is pretty much when you would not want to use a yorker. I know it takes the pitch out of the equation but although a well-bowled yorker (vastly in the minority) lifts a team and bowler, poorly-directed (vastly in the majority) ones release pressure like little else. Why? Because yorkers work best when you're able to get the batsman on the back-foot and that just doesn't happen on flat pitches. When you have batsmen totally on the defensive and not feeling confident about getting forward, they can be an effective weapon. Flat pitches make this harder to achieve. Only an absolute jaffa of a yorker will generally get through on a flat deck.

The preponderance of flat pitches has played its part in why we're seeing them less, I reckon. It's just too risky.

 

[GIMH]

What do you think of someone like Flintoff though, who is known to dismiss a couple of top or middle order batsmen with a cracker of a yorker or two, then is reluctant to throw them in against the tail?

 

[Top_Cat]

What do you think of someone like Flintoff though, who is known to dismiss a couple of top or middle order batsmen with a cracker of a yorker or two, then is reluctant to throw them in against the tail?

Really? Against Aus, it was pretty much the opposite. Remember him knocking over Kasper and Gillespie in 2005 multiple times with huge, nasty in-swinging yorkers.

Not sure why he'd be reluctant to use them against the tail. Curtly Ambrose was similar and he was always cricised as a bloke more interested in intimidating tail-enders than getting them out.