Bowling attacks hit for six

[Mister Wright]

Bowling attacks hit for six

Some interesting points in this article about the current state of international cricket.

Thoughts?

 

[Jono]

The only argument I really agree with is the flat tracks. Anything else is nothing really to complain about. Satellite television and heavier bats aren't really an excuse. If you're good enough you'll beat the batsman's bat, thus the weight is irrelevant.

 

[Adamc]

I find shorter boundaries particularly worrying. It is understandable bringing the ropes in a couple of metres in the interests of player safety, but at some venues (especially in ODI's)they are brought in up to 20 metres, which is frankly ridiculous.

 

[Mister Wright]

I don't think the article was implying because the bats are heavier that it makes it harder for the bowlers to get them out, rather that batsman are able to get more runs from their shots then they were 10-20 years ago.

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

I think that the influence of Australia and how quickly they score their runs, not just in ODI's but Tests also, that has seen other sides adopting quick scoring methods. This has lead to bowling attacks being punished more than ever.

Satelite TV with games being able to be shown live is no excuse.

 

[Token]

Too many flat tracks...see NZ pitches do the world a favour..

 

[PY]

I completely agree with some of the pitches being too flat. It doesn't breed close games enough for my liking. Low-scoring matches are always more interesting for me even though it's nice to see really big scores.

One of the best games I've seen on TV and got into the tense nature of it was England v West Indies, Lords 2000. Was truly engrossing to watch. And only 646 runs were scored on 4 innings.

I can only hope that making a 5-day Test doesn't come in front of making pitches that keep bowlers interested.

 

[age_master]

the swing bowling thing is the most relevant, most bowlers just dont swing the ball for long enough and consistantly enough

 

[Richard]

I completely agree with some of the pitches being too flat. It doesn't breed close games enough for my liking. Low-scoring matches are always more interesting for me even though it's nice to see really big scores.

One of the best games I've seen on TV and got into the tense nature of it was England v West Indies, Lords 2002. Was truly engrossing to watch. And only 646 runs were scored on 4 innings.

I can only hope that making a 5-day Test doesn't come in front of making pitches that keep bowlers interested.

My sentiments exactly - I could have written that post.
But I can tell you for certain that brilliant game, easily my favourite Test of all-time, was in 2000, not 2002!

 

[Richard]

I agree thoroughly with everything in the article - though I don't think TV-coverage is a bad thing.
Good bowlers can't be picked no matter how many times you watch them - no-one will ever be able to pick Murali from the hand if you ask me. See also Warne's orthodox-leg-break, slider and zoota; Harvey and Fernando's slower-balls.
The single most important thing, though, is flat wickets and boundaries that are too short. Without these, none of the other stuff would have that much impact. For me, the longer the boundary, the better.

 

[PY]

My sentiments exactly - I could have written that post.
But I can tell you for certain that brilliant game, easily my favourite Test of all-time, was in 2000, not 2002!

D'oh, I knew I'd get something wrong.

 

[Eclipse]

I have no problem's with boundry rope's in Australia because even with the rope's in much closer we still have huge ground's.

My problem is boundry rope's on some of the small sub-contenent ground's it just make's them soooo small.

In the recent TVS cup I saw Ponting play a little chip shot only half a swing and the ball went for six but it would probably have only made it half / three quarters the way to then fence at the Adelade oval.

 

[Craig]

The only really good thing about playinng cricket on AFL Grounds. ALso outfields are lightening quick.

 

[KishanTeli]

I agree with all points apart from the satellite argument, after all we are forgetting that it only takes one ball to get a batsman out, so it is "easier" (if thats the word) for the bowler to watch satellite television and "figure" out the batsman IMO, rather then vice versa.

Good bowlers can't be picked no matter how many times you watch them - no-one will ever be able to pick Murali from the hand if you ask me. See also Warne's orthodox-leg-break, slider and zoota; Harvey and Fernando's slower-balls

I agree with this 100%, satellite may help slightly but won't change this, its all about how you deal with the bowlers in the middle.

 

[Richard]

I have no problem's with boundry rope's in Australia because even with the rope's in much closer we still have huge ground's.

My problem is boundry rope's on some of the small sub-contenent ground's it just make's them soooo small.

In the recent TVS cup I saw Ponting play a little chip shot only half a swing and the ball went for six but it would probably have only made it half / three quarters the way to then fence at the Adelade oval.

It's a bigger problem with grounds outside Australia, but what's the point in having a nice huge ground unless you use the whole thing?
One of the essences of Australia is that boundaries should be harder to come by.

 

[Eclipse]

It's a bigger problem with grounds outside Australia, but what's the point in having a nice huge ground unless you use the whole thing?
One of the essences of Australia is that boundaries should be harder to come by.

Nahh I personaly think most of the ground's in Australia are probably just to big to even consider playing without boundry ropes.

Most are made for AFL football and without ropes they are just to big.

 

[Richard]

No such thing as "too long a boundary" in my opinion.