Originally posted by Gary_86:
What do people make of England's leaked bowling plans? To be honest I think Flintoff might have been following them a little too much rather than trying to improvise and react to the ebb and flow of the game.
Here is what it says for certain Australian batsmen, i've elaborated some of the points from the original cricket-jargon (e.g. 4th stump = outside off stump):
quote:
Hayden: Knicks from outside off-stump on front foot. Hooks bouncers on leg stump in the air. Dot balls to frustrate his ego. Straight catcher on edge of pitch and extra cover catching. Wider 1st slip.
I don't like the insistance on the straight catcher being there all the time - Vaughan used this as a shock tactic to surprise Hayden in England last year - and it unsettled him a little. But keeping a man there for his entire innings even when he's well set seems pointless. Also, feeding his powerful pull shot allows him to dictate the pace of the innings. Why didn't England try bowling to a 7-2 offside field when he was well set - I think Hayden is most uncomfortable when you make him reach away from his body outside off-stump, dry up the runs and bring the slips into play.
quote:
Langer: Early bumper, drive man at extra cover (confuses him). Bell's catching position at Adelaide (backward point?) if its a slow pitch. If its swinging or turning short leg.
For me, Langer is the last man i'd want an extra cover for - how many times does that drive of his skew off the edge through vacant third slip - i'd entice him with a gap there and strengthen the slip corden - maybe even a third man / fly slip for all those thrashes that loop over the slips.
quote:
Symonds: No feet early - LBW & caught driving. Many dismissals caught behind or slip, LBW and attacking the spinners. Bouncer essential
Here we saw England give Symonds plenty of short stuff - but there was no short leg, one of the many catching positions for a fend off the chest. Also Flintoff followed the fast and short approach by bowling Mahmood at Symonds before lunch when I would have prefered to see Panesar (who dismissed him twice in the previous test) get a chance to bowl at him straight away. Then when Panesar did come on to bowl we had 4 or 5 men back on the boundry - as if we were afraid of what he would do rather than attacking the batsman. It allowed him easy runs and to play himself in for a big innings. What's wrong with inticing a big stroke by leaving a few gaps? Much better than all these short pitched balls that Symonds mainly just left alone.
Any other thoughts?
