archie mac
International Coach
I have only heard you mention your sonFOUR!!!!!!!
I worked out what caused it after the third
Three wifes four kids for me
Not in the class of Bill Edrich
I have only heard you mention your sonFOUR!!!!!!!
I worked out what caused it after the third
happen not but that's still impressive - inferior protective equipment and a better bat in the old days for you I suppose (don't want to be infracted for going off topic )I have only heard you mention your son
Three wifes four kids for me
Not in the class of Bill Edrich
IMO it doesn't really. As a bowler you're watching the batsman from front on, seeing how he moves his feet and such, and just plot where on the pitch to land the ball to him. So transferring what you learn to the pitch isn't so hard. As a batsman, you can tell from the screen how the ball is gripped or how quick he bowls, but not from the POV you'd have when you're batting. So it doesn't transfer as easily. You don't get the same experience as facing the bowler. I supposed you could study the plans the bowler normally uses to predict what he'll do, or spot out changes in his action when he bowls a variation, but those are rare. Bowlers normally change plans per batsman and at Nat level variations are very, very well hidden.interesting point about the preponderance of tv and the availability of statistical and video assessment techniques allowing bowlers to figure out batsmen. wouldn't that also work the other way? allowing batsmen to understand bowlers as well as their own technical deficiencies? perhaps less so, i suppose. the tv aspect would also play a big role in allowing kids to ape their heroes more effectively, thus allowing for an overall increase in the quality of the game, or at least its evolution. more doosra and reverse swing bowlers out there nowadays for example. different kinds of batting too, in the limited formats, at least.
Miller who played with both the 8 and six ball overs, thought 7 was a good ideawonder about the 8 ball over and the effect it had on the batsman and bowler. harder on the bowler i would imagine, especially a fast bowler.
have also wondered about the effect that the back foot noball had on fast bowling or, more appropriately, the speed at which the batsman had to play the ball. i suppose that a good, supple fastman could stretch hsi stride and drag his back foot enough to get a little closer to the batsman. perhaps a yard closer? hence would be a yard quicker....
anybody seen and tried both?
thanks, archiemac.
bagapath,
completely agree about the fielding bit.
here's my take on stats and their use on these sorts of fora: while apercus and impressions might be all very well and dandy, especially when recounted by a hoary locked cardusian figure (preferably with a dram of speyside's finest at one's side!), the use of comprehensively analysed statistics can add an immeasurable amount to a discussion about the loveliest of all - non procreation related, that is - activities. the incompetent use of statistics (ie not asking the right questions and sometimes even the purposefully obtuse use of 'filters', generally construed) is what causes threads and riffs to become completely puerile in their almost swordfight-level bravado.
i invite anyone stataway inclined to let the numbers fly in this thread. after all, i wouldn't even have known about the interesting lbw tidbit that i refer to a couple of times in this thread if it hadn't been for a couple of propeller-heads taking it upon themselves to look into the incidence of lbw pre and post neutral umps! no offence to propeller heads, was one myself in a previous avatar.
anyway, enough pomposity for now.
must see what the sobers and imran chappies have managed to come up with!
back in those days, fielding meant running after the ball and fetching it back from the boundary. all this diving and stopping has certainly made modern day cricket more athletic.
also, i am comfortable with the two bouncers per over restriction. while hostile fast bowling always makes the game more exciting to watch, too many unreachable balls flying 10 feet above the batter make the game slower and boring beyond a point.
and, yes, i am happy batsmen wear protective gear these days. there is no point in spilling blood for a sport. however, it is sad to see the demise of the hook shot which was a necessity in the pre-helmet era to counter dangerous bouncers. i saw a lot of those in the 80s when the batters from the pre-helmet years were still playing it frequently whenever the ball was within five inches of their skulls.
now, can i please post some spreadsheet and **** up this thread?