Death Bowling - A Case for the Defence

[Jono]

You made that sound relatively interesting, but in reality you know damn well that half that stuff doesn't happen and they are on auto pilot.

 

[cnerd123]

You made that sound relatively interesting, but in reality you know damn well that half that stuff doesn't happen and they are on auto pilot.

Only in meaningless ODI since those are pretty much completely played on auto-pilot.

I don't recall any crucial ODI game from previous World Cups/Champions Trophies/Asia Cup/series involving more than two teams with a trophy at stake where sides were just content to sit on the middle over part-time spells. If it's a must win game, both sides play to seize the advantage at any given point, and those part-time overs become a whole lot more interesting.

If anything, ODI cricket in the last few years has seen less and less of this part-time snoozefest nonsense. India, SL and Pakistan usually have an array of tight and useful part-time spinners, Aus, WI and NZ have a plethora of pace-bowling allrounders, and South Africa have 4 bowlers + Duminy.

 

[Jono]

Only in meaningless ODI since those are pretty much completely played on auto-pilot.

Heh, that's good.

 

[NasserFan207]

Also just let the gun bowlers bowl more than 10 overs per match, and these teams won't have 6 wickets in hand every ****ing game come the last 10 overs. No one watches ODI cricket to see ****ing Raina or Duminy bowl. Just let your Starc and Steyn and Malinga bowl 13 overs and **** teams up.

Respectfully disagree with this, I think finding ten overs from five different players is one of the interesting tactical elements of ODI cricket, your way also creates strange imbalances like in the SL Murali case.

Personally I think bowling at the death depends on what each bowler is good at. If you happen to be a god at bowling yorkers/changes of pace, do that. But otherwise, stick to what you are good at. If thats bowling a good length which is hitable but could also take a bunch of wickets do that. There's too much second guessing/misplaced theories bouncing around when it comes to bowling at the death. Seeing Anderson try and bowl yorkers/slow bouncers hurts my brain.

 

[Contra]

That's a silly point. No one is saying don't bowl spinners on a spinning track. Whether Zaheer could bowl 10 overs or 15 overs in the 2011 WC, Dhoni would have bowled Yuvraj because Yuvraj was bowling well. No one is saying don't bowl good part timers when they are effective.

But part timers have been restricted due to the current playing conditions, they're less likely to make an impact with the new rules. I'm saying they should encourage bowlers altogether, and then let them perform, regardless of it being Raina with his gentle offies or Steyn's 140 outswingers.

 

[Dan]

2 man sack race.

I'm sitting in a ****ing international conference right now and almost burst out laughing at this, coming perilously close to making a complete fool of myself in the process.

**** you, Riggins.

 

[Daemon]

I'm sitting in a ****ing international conference right now and almost burst out laughing at this, coming perilously close to making a complete fool of myself in the process.

**** you, Riggins.

Stop making a model un conference sound like such a big deal ****

 

[cnerd123]

I'm sitting in a ****ing international conference right now and almost burst out laughing at this, coming perilously close to making a complete fool of myself in the process.

Figured you'd be rather used to doing that tbh

 

[Dan]

Also, anything that leaves ODI/List A cricket without a place for Ian Harvey, Chris Harris, Scott Kremerskothen or Brad MacNamara type players is an ODI/List A cricket that I don't want to watch.

#SaveBuzz2k15

 

[Flem274*]

I'm sitting in a ****ing international conference right now and almost burst out laughing at this, coming perilously close to making a complete fool of myself in the process.

**** you, Riggins.

Maybe if you were paying attention instead of reading cricket forums we'd have world peace ****.

 

[Adders]

I'm sitting in a ****ing international conference right now and almost burst out laughing at this, coming perilously close to making a complete fool of myself in the process.

**** you, Riggins.

In other words.......you and a few backpacker mates planning your Friday night out

 

[Dan]

Stop making a model un conference sound like such a big deal ****

Heh, model UN conferences are the most brilliant things ever. Never attended one but they sound so dire that they'd be hilarious with how seriously people take them.

Figured you'd be rather used to doing that tbh

Touche.

In other words.......you and a few backpacker mates planning your Friday night out

dammit, you saw right through the ruse!

 

[cnerd123]

You're so flattered 4 people went out of their way to insult you after that comment aren't you?

 

[Dan]

Indeed. Now, back to death bowling.

I think we've pretty much reached a consensus that there's no silver bullet when it comes to bowling at the end of the innings -- between boundary sizes, bat tech, pitches carved out of highways, stronger batsmen backing themselves to tonk it over the fence, less fielders out and Jo-berg's ground being halfway to space, to me it seems like only anti-gravity technology could make things worse for bowlers. But that doesn't excuse some of the filth we see.

Corey Anderson seems to be doing reasonably well at the death these days, and from what I've seen of him it looks like he bowls the most ridiculous mix of variation balls he possibly can. But obviously, as we've seen with Jade Dernbach, that's not enough -- you need some form of control of those variations, and some brain cells in your head to out-think the batsman. To me, death bowling these days is less about pace or magic deliveries or movement or pre-match plans, but it's the ultimate test of a bowlers 'cricket brain' -- knowing what ball to bowl when, and outsmarting the batsmen.

Unsurprisingly, bowlers who we generally see as being relatively erudite guys are doing better than those not renowned for their cricketing brains when it comes to death bowling, and I think that trend will only increase. It may sound like I hate abilities here, but having all the physical tools is overrated at the death imo; you need the intelligence to think on your feet and do what the batsman isn't expecting.

 

[Cabinet96]

Dernbach didn't actually have much variation. He had a back of the hand slower ball, which tended to be his stock, and a quicker one. That's why he got found out after about two games.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Indeed. Now, back to death bowling.

I think we've pretty much reached a consensus that there's no silver bullet when it comes to bowling at the end of the innings -- between boundary sizes, bat tech, pitches carved out of highways, stronger batsmen backing themselves to tonk it over the fence, less fielders out and Jo-berg's ground being halfway to space, to me it seems like only anti-gravity technology could make things worse for bowlers. But that doesn't excuse some of the filth we see.

Corey Anderson seems to be doing reasonably well at the death these days, and from what I've seen of him it looks like he bowls the most ridiculous mix of variation balls he possibly can. But obviously, as we've seen with Jade Dernbach, that's not enough -- you need some form of control of those variations, and some brain cells in your head to out-think the batsman. To me, death bowling these days is less about pace or magic deliveries or movement or pre-match plans, but it's the ultimate test of a bowlers 'cricket brain' -- knowing what ball to bowl when, and outsmarting the batsmen.

Unsurprisingly, bowlers who we generally see as being relatively erudite guys are doing better than those not renowned for their cricketing brains when it comes to death bowling, and I think that trend will only increase. It may sound like I hate abilities here, but having all the physical tools is overrated at the death imo; you need the intelligence to think on your feet and do what the batsman isn't expecting.

so death bowling is like poker. It's not about how good your hand is, it's how much you can **** with their heads.

 

[Dan]

Dernbach didn't actually have much variation. He had a back of the hand slower ball, which tended to be his stock, and a quicker one. That's why he got found out after about two games.

I thought he claimed to have like 27 different variations of it or something.

 

[NasserFan207]

I thought he claimed to have like 27 different variations of it or something.

27 variations of ****e.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I make it 24:

1. short legside ****e
2. short leg stump ****e
3. short middle stump ****e
4. short off stump ****e
5. short fourth stump ****e
6. short offside ****e
7. back-of-a-length legside ****e
8. back-of-a-length leg stump ****e
9. back-of-a-length middle stump ****e
10. back-of-a-length off stump ****e
11. back-of-a-length fourth stump ****e
12. back-of-a-length offside ****e
13. half-volley legside ****e
14. half-volley leg stump ****e
15. half-volley middle stump ****e
16. half-volley off stump ****e
17. half-volley fourth stump ****e
18. half-volley offside ****e
19. full toss legside ****e
20. full toss leg stump ****e
21. full toss middle stump ****e
22. full toss off stump ****e
23. full toss fourth stump ****e
24. full toss offside ****e

 

[Uppercut]

I think Jono's right about allowing unlimited bowling per player. There's a bit of tactical intrigue in trying to scrap together 10 overs from part-timers, but I wouldn't miss it much if it meant watching Midge bowling instead of Phil "The Power" Taylor.

Would be terrible for Ireland though so, move along, nothing to see here.