Dravid goes to number 1 in test ratings

[Richard]

I'm afraid you're wrong yet again Richard. It's not always the balls that get some movement that are going to get wickets, but if you move just a handful in all day (i.e in the same direction as McGrath usually does) it's very unlikely that the batsman will get comfortable enough to leave anything hovering around off to a foot outside. As has been explained to you before, this is one of the reasons Mcgrath is dangerous on most wickets.

So why is it not the case with others?
If only a handful of deliveries move in the day, no bowler, no matter how accurate, will cause trouble if the batting is good.
If, however, it's moving quite often then you do indeed create doubt as to what to leave, what to play, etc.

 

[Richard]

Really? So fooling someone with a slower ball is complete error on the batsman's part? What exactly do you define as complete error? Does it take into account what's happened up to that point? Or just that ball?

Getting fooled by a slower-ball is a complete error. Getting fooled by a straight-on ball when lots have been moving away previously is a wholly understandible mistake. Chasing a delivery that's swinging away and, if it weren't swinging away, would be a hit-me ball, is not a complete error, but it's an error nonetheless.
Slower-balls very rarely fool batsmen into giving their wickets away; they do often make them look uncomfortable though.

 

[C_C]

Getting fooled by a slower-ball is a complete error. Getting fooled by a straight-on ball when lots have been moving away previously is a wholly understandible mistake.

That didnt make ANY sense.
If its 'completely understandable' to get fooled by a straight delivery while the previous 50 have been jagging around, i dont see why it isnt 'completely understandable' to get fooled by a slower delivery (say 83mph) when the previous 50 have been consistently 90mph or above.

Slower-balls very rarely fool batsmen into giving their wickets away; they do often make them look uncomfortable though.

You obviously havn't watched much cricket if you think the slower delivery isnt a wicket-taking delivery.
I would suggest you watch Walsh in the mid-late 90s onwards when his well-concealed slower delivery was the primary wicket-taking delivery of his.
I would also suggest that you watch Akram bowling in the death overs (ODIs) or Tests(in general) and see just how many of his wickets are from the slower ball. You will find quiete a few.
I would also suggest that you watch Kapil Dev in action in the mid-80s when the slower delivery and his outswinger were the primary wicket-taking deliveries in his arsenal.

 

[C_C]

No, with plenty of knowledge.

I beg to differ. I think its plenty of dementia to be frank. But then again, self-praise is the last bastion of the egotistic fools, or so said someone.

The knowledge that no-one can ever know remotely accurately how fast bowlers were before 1998, and certainly that comparisons can't be made with any accuracy without two deliveries right in front of you at the exact same moment. And the fact that there's no realistic reason why bowlers should be bowling any slower 70 years ago.

Like i said, the human eye isnt good at precise calculations (with respect to velocity or trajectory) but it is quiete good at 'relative speed' guaging. Ie, you cannot tell if a car that zoomed by was going at 85mph or 88mph but you can very well tell which one is the slower car, given that one goes past at 85mph and the next at 82mph.

And there are plethora of reaons why bowling on average can conceivably be slower than it became in the post 70s era( by average i dont mean the absence of a superfast bowler but rather, the number of superfast bowlers in any given timeframe or the mean average bowling speed of the field,broken down by type-specific bowling).

For one, try getting your mind around the fact that bowling is a HIGHLY complex action that requires astounding precision and coordination of muscles. Its not just running in and hurling the ball. If that were so, the strongest bowlers would almost always be the fastest bowlers.
The fact that there were no coaches back then, or atleast, coaches with even remotely of the same callibre as the ones we've had for a few decades is a decisive reason. The reason you see many 'weird' bowling actions that are totally amatuerish in old tapes and shows is a direct reason of that.

For two, try getting your mind around the fact that nutrition in the early 1900s/late 1800s was nowhere CLOSE to the 70s/80s/90s/2000s etc. standard and neither were rehabilitation therapy.

Err. eh? No, for the record, but what's it to do with anything?

if you dont think that 'constant length' means 'identical deliveries', then i see no reasoning behind your comment : " Any doubt created by constant length is unreasonable."

No, it's based on no statistical research, it's based on viewing research - McGrath between 2001 and 2004 was not capable of bowling wicket-taking deliveries on pitches that offer neither seam-movement or uneven-bounce.

It *IS* based on statistical research.
There is always more than what meets the eye and Ambrose/McGrath are prime examples of that.
I've TALKED to players personally who've faced McGrath and they all tell you one thing :
That after Wasim Akram, McGrath has the most variety and variations in his bowling.

The fact that his current ball moves 3cm away while his previous one moved 3cm in is enough of a movement to create doubt and trouble in the mind of batsmen.

Clarrie Grimmett wasn't a big spinner of the ball. Anil Kumble isnt a big mover of the ball.
Curtley Ambrose wasnt a big mover of the ball and neither is Ambrose.
Yet they are/were all highly successful. Why ? because their variations are subtle and gets the job done.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I'm basing my thoughts on what I know from watching a whole stack of cricket; my playing, like anyone else's, doesn't make me any better at analysing stuff at the top level.

Why then, do you talk like you have no idea what actually happens on a field!? If you've never played the game, but based your thoughts on reading and watching cricket there's next to no chance you'd know more about it than someone who has played at the top level. This doesn't mean that everyone who has played at a high level knows everything about the game mind you.

 

[Son Of Coco]

So why is it not the case with others?
If only a handful of deliveries move in the day, no bowler, no matter how accurate, will cause trouble if the batting is good.
If, however, it's moving quite often then you do indeed create doubt as to what to leave, what to play, etc.

They will Richard, because a batsman that is aware of this happening will be more likely to play at a ball hovering around off than leave it. It's got something to do with the length you bowl too, you'll notice McGrath often bowls people around the top of the stumps. If you're continually bowling too short it won't make a great deal of difference if you're moving it around all over the place as the batsman will be comfortable leaving it. Bowling the length McGrath bowls, with the regular movement in towards the batsman, means that he will be played at more than someone who bowls a more varied length. If you see a couple move in and know that a ball being delivered is stump height you'll play at it if it's around off - simply really.

As for watching the game...I've seen this happen in all levels of cricket from the grade I play through to test level. I also move the ball into the batsman off the seam, and know exactly where i have to bowl to get an edge/result (not that I do it as well as him! ) I watch bowlers in state and test cricket bowling in the same corridors and getting results...so if it's all about watching it on TV and reading about it in the papers then I have a degree in cricket!

 

[Son Of Coco]

Getting fooled by a slower-ball is a complete error. Getting fooled by a straight-on ball when lots have been moving away previously is a wholly understandible mistake. Chasing a delivery that's swinging away and, if it weren't swinging away, would be a hit-me ball, is not a complete error, but it's an error nonetheless.
Slower-balls very rarely fool batsmen into giving their wickets away; they do often make them look uncomfortable though.

What's the difference between getting fooled by a ball that is 20kms an hour or more slower than you thought, and a ball that is straighter than you thought? Both are evidence that a bowler has used deception to get a batsman out. The key to a good slower ball is bowling it with the same action so it looks like it's a normal delivery to the batsman.

So, basically what you're saying is it's ok to miss a straight ball on the stumps that you thought was swinging away, but if you try to play a shot at a ball that's not on stumps and swinging away that's a mistake!? What if you play a shot at a ball that pitches on stumps, but cuts away getting the edge? Is this a bad shot because at the end of the day you could have left it if you knew it was going to miss the stumps?

Do you not realise that if a bowlers bowls 3-4 balls outside off, short of a length, and straight...then pitches one up outside off, swinging away and the batsman drives and gets caught behind that's good bowling? Gillespie sets left-handers up like this all the time, directing the ball over middle short of a length, then pushing it across the batsman....now this might be luck, but as you pointed out in another thread - he gets Trescothick out in similar fashion each time.

It's fine to watch things on TV and read about them in the papers Richard, but it doesn't make you an expert. You need to actually understand what you're reading/talking about.

 

[C_C]

You need to actually understand what you're reading/talking about.

BINGO!
which is why its different being a data entry clerk and a data analyst.

 

[Top_Cat]

I've TALKED to players personally who've faced McGrath and they all tell you one thing :
That after Wasim Akram, McGrath has the most variety and variations in his bowling.

GOOD LORD! I swear I thought I was the only person in the world who knew this. Funnily enough, the people who told me this ALSO faced him in the nets.

 

[aussie]

Which is not forced, as attested to by the fact it doesn't happen anything close to all the time.

not all the the yes, but when McGrath bowls it sure does

 

[aussie]

And you haven't got a CLUE on the history of the game, so you can't talk.

and your so sure that you do?

 

[aussie]

A wicket-taking delivery is one that took a wicket without complete error on the batsman's part.
Anyone knows what a wicket-taking delivery is, and you can't bowl one unless the ball's moving.

not totally true, cricket its a batsman game its the bowler who is doing all the hard yards so any wicket taken is always a mistake on the batsman behalf

 

[aussie]

and statistics tell the truth as long as you use them carefully.
Something any fool will realise.

hold their sparky, no, no, no.... stats dont always tell the truth cause for one it is a quantity and you cant put a plyaers temperament & concentration has a statistic, stats just give you a idea of how the player was, it wont tell you everything for e.g some players throughout their careers who were excellent players e.g Carl Hooper but barely had an average in the mid/hight 30, thats stat surely doesn't reflect how good a player he was mate. Also their are days when a bowler may have figures of 35-2-100-1 and when you watch the game their were 4 catches dropped off his bowling stats wont tell you that though but according to your understanding of stats i'm pretty sure after reading bowling figures like that you would say that x or y bowler has bowled garbage

 

[aussie]

Hang on... did you just say Mcgrath has played just two tests against up-to-standard opposition? Which two tests are those, praytell?

So, the batting lineup he faced in India in 2001 and 2004 was not up to standard? The 1995 West Indies side he dominated was not up to standard? The 2001/02 South African team was not up to standard? What on earth are you smoking?

hehehe, in jamaica thier is this type of weed called the ABYSS, i think he has had an awfull lot of that, he just keeps coming up with these fascinating hypothesisis on stuff which just never amases me

 

[aussie]

Some people can - McGrath between 2001 and 2004 certainly could not.

more ignorance, so again u say McGrath has failed to bowl a single wicket taking delivery since the SCG test againts the West Indies on January 2nd 2001 to the Boxing day test againts Pakistan at the MCG on December 26 2004, hehehehehehe thats the biggest load of codswallop i've heard in a while

 

[Richard]

Nope, the period I was talking about commences at The Oval 2001 and concludes at The 'Gabba in 2004\05.

 

[Richard]

hold their sparky, no, no, no.... stats dont always tell the truth cause for one it is a quantity and you cant put a plyaers temperament & concentration has a statistic, stats just give you a idea of how the player was, it wont tell you everything for e.g some players throughout their careers who were excellent players e.g Carl Hooper but barely had an average in the mid/hight 30, thats stat surely doesn't reflect how good a player he was mate. Also their are days when a bowler may have figures of 35-2-100-1 and when you watch the game their were 4 catches dropped off his bowling stats wont tell you that though but according to your understanding of stats i'm pretty sure after reading bowling figures like that you would say that x or y bowler has bowled garbage

Depends - if I read reports or watch it myself that say that good deliveries have been bowled and catches been dropped off good deliveries then the chances are I'd say he'd bowled pretty reasonably.
Carl Hooper's Test-match average, meanwhile, does show that he wasn't the greatest Test-match player.

 

[Richard]

not totally true, cricket its a batsman game its the bowler who is doing all the hard yards so any wicket taken is always a mistake on the batsman behalf

Complete rubbish, the bowler has the ball in his hand and he dictates how play goes.
And there is such thing as a realistically-unplayable delivery you know, any fool can tell that, one where the batsman cannot realistically avoid dismissal.

 

[Richard]

What's the difference between getting fooled by a ball that is 20kms an hour or more slower than you thought, and a ball that is straighter than you thought? Both are evidence that a bowler has used deception to get a batsman out. The key to a good slower ball is bowling it with the same action so it looks like it's a normal delivery to the batsman.

It's not possible for a ball to be straighter than you thought - unless, of course, it moves, or unless you've made the crass error of premeditating your stroke, leaving a ball having already decided before it's bowled that it's not going to be straight.
And as for slower-balls - yes, of course I know that the best way is to bowl it with the same action (not easy to do of course), but that doesn't change the fact that changes of pace rarely get wickets, the most common thing is to induce a false stroke.

So, basically what you're saying is it's ok to miss a straight ball on the stumps that you thought was swinging away, but if you try to play a shot at a ball that's not on stumps and swinging away that's a mistake!? What if you play a shot at a ball that pitches on stumps, but cuts away getting the edge? Is this a bad shot because at the end of the day you could have left it if you knew it was going to miss the stumps?

When on Earth have I said that?
All the instances you name are good bowling.

Do you not realise that if a bowlers bowls 3-4 balls outside off, short of a length, and straight...then pitches one up outside off, swinging away and the batsman drives and gets caught behind that's good bowling? Gillespie sets left-handers up like this all the time, directing the ball over middle short of a length, then pushing it across the batsman....now this might be luck, but as you pointed out in another thread - he gets Trescothick out in similar fashion each time.

Again - when on Earth have I said that this isn't good bowling?

It's fine to watch things on TV and read about them in the papers Richard, but it doesn't make you an expert. You need to actually understand what you're reading/talking about.

Yes, and believe it or not I do.

 

[Richard]

They will Richard, because a batsman that is aware of this happening will be more likely to play at a ball hovering around off than leave it. It's got something to do with the length you bowl too, you'll notice McGrath often bowls people around the top of the stumps. If you're continually bowling too short it won't make a great deal of difference if you're moving it around all over the place as the batsman will be comfortable leaving it. Bowling the length McGrath bowls, with the regular movement in towards the batsman, means that he will be played at more than someone who bowls a more varied length. If you see a couple move in and know that a ball being delivered is stump height you'll play at it if it's around off - simply really.

As for watching the game...I've seen this happen in all levels of cricket from the grade I play through to test level. I also move the ball into the batsman off the seam, and know exactly where i have to bowl to get an edge/result (not that I do it as well as him! ) I watch bowlers in state and test cricket bowling in the same corridors and getting results...so if it's all about watching it on TV and reading about it in the papers then I have a degree in cricket!

Yes, you do indeed.
You don't, however, if you reckon McGrath is adept at the tactic (or was in the 2001-2004 period) on flat pitches.
In our recent correspondances you've devoted a whole lot of time telling me that something is good bowling which I already know is good bowling.
Why?