• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Negative spin bowling...

Langeveldt

Soutie
Why was Ashley Giles pilloried for bowling a negative line outside the right handers leg stump, yet Ramnaresh Sarwan who always bowls around the wicket outside the right handers legstump is not?

Surely they are spinning the ball the same way, both looking to pitch the ball in the rough outside leg stump... Yet Sarwan is "looking for the rough" and Giles is "bowling negatively"?

Just an observation after watching him bowl today...
 

Swervy

International Captain
marc71178 said:
Could it be because Giles is picked as a bowler, but Sarwan isn't?
its probably more to do with the 'surely England cant be good, and if they are, there is a dodgy reason for it' brigade
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Exactly.

I wonder what sort of reaction there would be on here if Australia had won a game in the manner England did today?
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
marc71178 said:
Exactly.

I wonder what sort of reaction there would be on here if Australia had won a game in the manner England did today?
"OI, Bruce... Chuck another shrimp on the barbie mate... So what's it tonight? Sheep or Sheila?
Neither mate, get me another can of warm **** in a blue can"...
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
marc71178 said:
Exactly.

I wonder what sort of reaction there would be on here if Australia had won a game in the manner England did today?
Clinical seizing of the moment in the field and professional run chasing I guess.

As opposed to luck against poor side.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
A similar clinical effort to the first 3 Tests in the West Indies and the 3 games in the NZ series.

In each of those games, it was one or 2 sessions when England upped their game, and won it fairly comfortably from an even position.

7 times in 10 games is too much to just be conincidence?
 

Anil

International Coach
england is so obviously playing fantastic cricket now...if anyone says it is due to negative or dodgy tactics or luck, they clearly don't know the game...
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
Anil said:
england is so obviously playing fantastic cricket now...if anyone says it is due to negative or dodgy tactics or luck, they clearly don't know the game...
Word...

Just like the South Africans of the nineties.. And then they come up against some Australian fellows and suddenly everything is doom and gloom again... Things are very fickle...
 

steds

Hall of Fame Member
marc71178 said:
Could it be because Giles is picked as a bowler, but Sarwan isn't?
I also think it has something to do with Sarwan being a wrist spinner, while Giles is a humble left arm finger spinner. Shane Warne has changed many peoples thinking to going around the wicket, and now, whenever a leggie goes around the wicket it is seen as more positive than other spinners
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Langeveldt said:
Word...

Just like the South Africans of the nineties.. And then they come up against some Australian fellows and suddenly everything is doom and gloom again... Things are very fickle...
Personally I think it's more likely to happen when they come-up against the South Africans this winter...
I can't imagine Graeme and co. letting this bowling get away with bowling them out for 400 or less very often. And 400 is a pretty good effort and gives you a good chance of getting a first-innings lead or a small deficit ATM. But if they get it right there'll be regular 600s I reckon.
Not many of this likely squad have played in South Africa before, either. And none of them have had any success there. I'd guess Trescothick will start failing again, for one thing.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
A similar clinical effort to the first 3 Tests in the West Indies and the 3 games in the NZ series.

In each of those games, it was one or 2 sessions when England upped their game, and won it fairly comfortably from an even position.

7 times in 10 games is too much to just be conincidence?
Beating what's put in front of you is all anyone can be reasonably asked to do.
What comes will come and we'll judge it when it does.
 

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
Swervy said:
its probably more to do with the 'surely England cant be good, and if they are, there is a dodgy reason for it' brigade
haha, maybe some of us are just a little bit more cautious. England have obviously improved, but on previous occasions have gotten very excited after having beaten Bangladesh, and losing to India/holding S.L to a draw at home only to find things a bit more miserable in the Ashes Tests. Obviously, though, they have improved a great deal - we will only find out how much when next year rolls around. Personally, I still don't think they match up, but could be proven horribly wrong next year!
 

Swervy

International Captain
Son Of Coco said:
haha, maybe some of us are just a little bit more cautious. England have obviously improved, but on previous occasions have gotten very excited after having beaten Bangladesh, and losing to India/holding S.L to a draw at home only to find things a bit more miserable in the Ashes Tests. Obviously, though, they have improved a great deal - we will only find out how much when next year rolls around. Personally, I still don't think they match up, but could be proven horribly wrong next year!

Oh I dont think England are in a position to beat us next year (unless they continue improving of course), but I dont think they will be humiliated...its shaping up to be the tightest Ashes series since 81
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Not always it isn't.

If the ball isn't turning than flighting it is about as useful as Kadeer Ali.
 

14th Seamer

Cricket Spectator
I don't think leg spin outside leg stump is as negative as an off spinner spearing it on leg stump at pace (John bloody Emburey) or a medium or fast bowler bowling 6 inches outside off stump- see Jacques Kallis in 1998 and Alan Mullally semper.

Anyone who pitched leg spin within 6 feet of where they aim is OK with me.
 

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
14th Seamer said:
I don't think leg spin outside leg stump is as negative as an off spinner spearing it on leg stump at pace (John bloody Emburey) or a medium or fast bowler bowling 6 inches outside off stump- see Jacques Kallis in 1998 and Alan Mullally semper.

Anyone who pitched leg spin within 6 feet of where they aim is OK with me.
I thought six inches outside off stump is where you're supposed to bowl as a seamer etc. Bowling on middle/off is just asking to get picked off - a ball that pitches on off and seams in is on, to outside, leg making it absolutely useless. If it's turning quite a bit then outside leg is not a bad spot to bowl as a leg-spinner, I don't think Warney's ball that pitched outside leg to Gatting was too bad! haha

I'd much rather watch someone like Murali flighting it up outside off and turning in to the batsman that having a leg gully, short fine leg, square leg etc and a bowler that spears it into the batsmans legs.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Swervy said:
Oh I dont think England are in a position to beat us next year (unless they continue improving of course), but I dont think they will be humiliated...its shaping up to be the tightest Ashes series since 81
Or even '97...
Most of us'd prefer a repeat of '85, though... :p :p :p
20 years down the line and all that.
 

Top