Cricket: Art or Science?

[Richard]

err yes i know but it doesnt change the fact that short of a length is not short. its between being short and being full.

No, that is good-length (ie hitting between two-thirds-of-the-way-up the stumps and going a bit over them); short-of-good-length is not too short (ie Long-Hop, Bouncer length), but it is short - that's why it's called short-of-good-length.

 

[SJS]

No, that is good-length (ie hitting between two-thirds-of-the-way-up the stumps and going a bit over them); short-of-good-length is not too short (ie Long-Hop, Bouncer length), but it is short - that's why it's called short-of-good-length.

Hi Guys. May I join in ?

This is really semantics. You can decide to call it/define it whichever way you want. Basically there is a fuller length that the batsman will always come forward to and the shorter delivery that every batsman will playback to (on normal wicket).

Then there is the length (which varies from batsman to batsman depending on his height, reach , style etc) when he is not sure whether to play back or forward. It takes a split second extra for him to decide and that is crucial.

A strong front foot player would prefer to play forward to it and if he was not hesitant to start will do so with relative comfort.

A strong backfoot player , on the other hand, would , again if he decides quickly enough, will go back and play it defensively off the wicket.

So it is this in-between length (in between short and full) that is good length. Clearly it is not A SPOT. It is a band across the wicket and within that band it can be closer to the batsman or further. PLUS this band moves towards the bowler or in the other direction depending on the batsman, the bounce of the wicket etc.

We had a coach who said, ' A half volley can be played only of the front foot and a short pitched ball only off the back foot. The good length ball is the easiest, it can be played off both. You just need to make up your mind fast enough!"

 

[tooextracool]

No, that is good-length (ie hitting between two-thirds-of-the-way-up the stumps and going a bit over them); short-of-good-length is not too short (ie Long-Hop, Bouncer length), but it is short - that's why it's called short-of-good-length.

and conversely short of a good length can be said to be not too full.....do you not understand that no matter what you say the converse is just about as applicable? which is why there should be something in between, which is what short of good length is, its in between short and full.
and if you could read, 'short of good length' also mentions 'good length'......

 

[tooextracool]

On full balls, yes - on short balls, at slowish fast-medium (80mph) or so it takes about three times that amount.

and im not talking about short balls, jeez how tries to get the outside edge bowling short? im talking about short of a length.

Except that just because the wicket is flat it doesn't stop you from moving it in the air - moving it in the air is just not often McGrath's style, so he is better suited to bowling short-of-a-length.

not that i said that it was his style anyways, but of course it must be said that you can only swing the ball to a certain extent in conditions that dont suit swing bowling.