NUFAN
Y no Afghanistan flag
Not many bowlers do manage 400 wickets!I can see Sidebottom being around for a while but he won't be going on and getting 400 wickets.
Not many bowlers do manage 400 wickets!I can see Sidebottom being around for a while but he won't be going on and getting 400 wickets.
The whole reason swing-bowling is so useful is because it has nothing to do with the pitch. Sidebottom has bowled excellently on flat pitches by his use of swing - in both directions.
Let's hope his reverse-swing is as good as his conventional.
DWTA. Different pitches wear the ball differently and thus may make it harder to keep the shine on one side. In addition some may wear the ball more and make it more conducive to reverse swing. Pitch has almost as much to do with swing bowling as atmospheric conditions, imo.
Nah I dont agree with Richards point, though I see where he is coming from.TBH I was surprised Goughy missed that, unless he agrees
That's all quite true, but TBH - do you see a Flintoff (or even Simon Jones) or Fraser type bowler emerging again any time in the immediate future?As for Sidebottom, I will not be jumping on any bandwagon any time soon.
I dont doubt he can do a semi-decent job at Test level (as he is a good county player) but he isnt going to be a great del of help in the long run if England want to win tough series.
He is unlikely to dominate or intimidate good batting line-ups and isnt capable of being much more than a complimentary bowler chipping in with a few wickets here and there.
Players like Sidebottom (Bicknell, Illott, Cowans etc) are not what a team needs to win games against strong batting lineups.
Its almost like a thowback to the bad old days where a guy does ok without doing anything special cements a place and the steady, steady is favoured.
TBH, Anderson never really had any initial success - his first real Test series was against South Africa and he struggled there. He just wasn't that good a bowler early on in his career - promising, undoubtedly, but people got too excited, too soon. He had a ODI golden-arm and that faded after his first winter and summer, and that's about it.Although he has his height and accuracy it is still his first year and as Anderson found out batsmen do get to know your bowling and after that it becomes much harder
DWTA. Different pitches wear the ball differently and thus may make it harder to keep the shine on one side. In addition some may wear the ball more and make it more conducive to reverse swing. Pitch has almost as much to do with swing bowling as atmospheric conditions, imo.
TBH I've always believed this aspect is overrated - the ball spends a split second on the pitch. The state of the outfield has far more bearing on how easy it is to keep the ball in good condition - if it's a lush outfield you can keep a ball swinging conventionally for the full 80 overs, and I've seen it happen.However, the pitch is important for swing for 2 reasons.
1) It helps keep the shine on the ball as mentioned above. Larwood mentioned the rough dry nature of Austrailan pitches taking the shine off the ball after 3-4 overs (and therefore stopping swing) as a cause of looking to other tacitics which eventually led to Bodyline.
Agree completely with this BTW.2) A green track helps the swing bowler as the ball swings and then carries on off the pitch exaggerating the movement and making it harder to play.
And? How does Hoggard being very good prevent Sidebottom from being better?sidebottom will never be better than hoggard. hoggard has been consistently englands best seamer for a long time now and just because he has missed a summer everyone seems to forget just how good he was.
Are you debating a point or do you actually believe Sidebottom is or could be better than Hoggard?And? How does Hoggard being very good prevent Sidebottom from being better?
He did have a ODI golden-arm early on and I had a look at other bowlers after 25 ODIsTBH, Anderson never really had any initial success - his first real Test series was against South Africa and he struggled there. He just wasn't that good a bowler early on in his career - promising, undoubtedly, but people got too excited, too soon. He had a ODI golden-arm and that faded after his first winter and summer, and that's about it.
The first time he started to look the real deal was in India in early 2006, and of course he promptly got injured for 6 months again thereafter.
Both really.Are you debating a point or do you actually believe Sidebottom is or could be better than Hoggard?
Not doubting that the outfield plays a major role, maybe even more so than the pitch. But to say that that aspect is overrated because the ball spends only a split second on the pitch is fallacious. The force at which the ball makes impact with the pitch is much, much greater than the force at which the ball makes contact with the outfield. Therefore there is a greater scope for alteration of the ball due to contact with the pitch than the outfield. Hence the reason that the effects of the pitch and even the bat are often very evident on a white ball in limited overs cricket. The pitch can make unalterable changes to the condition of the ball.TBH I've always believed this aspect is overrated - the ball spends a split second on the pitch. The state of the outfield has far more bearing on how easy it is to keep the ball in good condition - if it's a lush outfield you can keep a ball swinging conventionally for the full 80 overs, and I've seen it happen.
Bingo.Not doubting that the outfield plays a major role, maybe even more so than the pitch. But to say that that aspect is overrated because the ball spends only a split second on the pitch is fallacious. The force at which the ball makes impact with the pitch is much, much greater than the force at which the ball makes contact with the outfield. Therefore there is a greater scope for alteration of the ball due to contact with the pitch than the outfield. Hence the reason that the effects of the pitch and even the bat are often very evident on a white ball in limited overs cricket. The pitch can make unalterable changes to the condition of the ball.
Yeah, was just thinking that. The dry pitch will scuff up the ball more than a green one, can't see how anybody could debate that.Bingo.
Kidding, right? Batsmen slam balls into the outfield far, far more often than not when it hits the bat. In fact, the ball can travel faster off the bat than it does into the pitch.Not doubting that the outfield plays a major role, maybe even more so than the pitch. But to say that that aspect is overrated because the ball spends only a split second on the pitch is fallacious. The force at which the ball makes impact with the pitch is much, much greater than the force at which the ball makes contact with the outfield. Therefore there is a greater scope for alteration of the ball due to contact with the pitch than the outfield. Hence the reason that the effects of the pitch and even the bat are often very evident on a white ball in limited overs cricket. The pitch can make unalterable changes to the condition of the ball.
Yet the ball hits the pitch with every delivery. It does not hit the bat with every delivery. And then not every delivery that hits the bat hits the outfield with any significant force. It's common sense, really.Kidding, right? Batsmen slam balls into the outfield far, far more often than not when it hits the bat. In fact, the ball can travel faster off the bat than it does into the pitch.