Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
So you see batsmen charging bowlers who bowl at 70 seam-up with the wicketkeeper standing-up? Yes, happens all the time, doesn't it?tooextracool said:because of what exactly? most players dont have too many problems charging bowlers who bowl at 70 mph, let alone 60. you have to be kidding me if you think players somehow get scared to charge down the pitch when someone is bowling at 60.
They don't "get scared" to charge at 60mph at all, it's just fairly obvious that it's a hell of a lot harder, because once you go too early the bowler can see you coming and change the length, and your small point where you can go when the bowler can't see you coming gets smaller still; the ball also hits it's spot much sooner so you can't get as far as if it's bowled at 50.
And that wouldn't have mattered if he had bowled well, like Giles.no he didnt, but he was rendered completely useless after the few that he did play.
And you know that, of course, given that Ealham hasn't played Test-cricket for... 7 years.point being? giles was, you guessed it an anomaly, most players who are useless at the start of their career end up being useless till the end. ealham hasnt changed.
It's pretty unlikely that he's improved, I'll give you that, but I still maintain that Giles is every bit as likely to score runs in ODIs as Ealham.
Doubt it, there have been far too many.please why not count the number of pace bowlers who were completely useless in ODIs too, and we'll see if you can even manage to count them.
Almost all of whom simply haven't been accurate enough.
All these fingerspinners are fine with accuracy, they're just easy to attack because of the style they bowl.
Samaraweera has always been picked for ODIs for his bowling - he even got into the Test-side primarily as a bowler. If Bharadwaj is a part-timer it's the first I've heard of it. And if Arnold's a part-timer I'd like to know why he's in the side, because he certainly isn't a specialist-batsman.and the fact that you have to include part timers like russel arnold, vijay bharadwaj(and thats despite the fact that he averaged 19 with the ball in ODIs!), samaraweera etc only confirms that you are really desperate.
Croft was never an especially flat bowler, never saw Patel, and Vettori whenever I see him (which is not that often) tends to vary it quite a bit.why then have bowlers like vettori, croft, patel had success too?
no the point is they bowled it flatter, and you have to bowl it flat to be economical not bowl at over 60.
Equally just by bowling it flat and accurately you aren't going to be that good if you're still bowling slowly (as Hauritz and Hurley demonstrate).