Originally posted by Nimrod: Someone like Harmison, in particular, will bowl well to the top order and then enter ret@rd mode when the lower order comes in.
, I suppose - though he should bowl better at the top order too! I think he makes the batsmen play less than he used to, they just sway out the way...
Actually, the only bowler who always makes the batsmen play is Matthew Hoggard, which is why he is probably England's best bowler at the moment.
When lower order batsmen come in, the England captain (whoever it is) would usually throw the ball to Flintoff and Harmison; the theory being that not only do they test your skill but they also test your courage. That's all well and good, but if the ball is being sprayed all over the shop, then any advantage is soon squandered.
Originally posted by Nimrod: When lower order batsmen come in, the England captain (whoever it is) would usually throw the ball to Flintoff and Harmison; the theory being that not only do they test your skill but they also test your courage. That's all well and good, but if the ball is being sprayed all over the shop, then any advantage is soon squandered.
Agreed, I think they both like bullying the batsmen having grown up on a diet of pure punishment by WI bowlers of similar stature. I very much dislike how none of them bowl enough yorkers, barely any at all. Especially Harmison's slower ball yorker which has bamboozled about 5 batsmen, yet he barely ever throws that one in.
Far too much short-pitch bowling at the lower-order. For the counter-attacking player a short ball gives them something to swing at- and considering the pace Flintoff and Harmison bowl, it's unlikely to go to hand if they get enough bat on it. For the batsman who just wants to survive and nurdle- well the ball's hardly threatening the stumps and they can flick ones that don't get up to fine-leg all day.
Originally posted by Toga: Far too much short-pitch bowling at the lower-order. For the counter-attacking player a short ball gives them something to swing at- and considering the pace Flintoff and Harmison bowl, it's unlikely to go to hand if they get enough bat on it. For the batsman who just wants to survive and nurdle- well the ball's hardly threatening the stumps and they can flick ones that don't get up to fine-leg all day.
Hmmm, yeah I also think of recent(not too recent as he hasn't played much) we should've given the ball/let keep the ball to Monty who seemed to dry up any counter-attacking runs 'they' were getting. Let him eke them out.
Originally posted by Nimrod: Someone like Harmison, in particular, will bowl well to the top order and then enter ret@rd mode when the lower order comes in.
, I suppose - though he should bowl better at the top order too! I think he makes the batsmen play less than he used to, they just sway out the way...
Another factor why we will miss Simon Jones . Apart from the batsmens' uncertainty against his reverse swing, I reckon that 95 percent of the balls he bowled during the Ashes series HAD to be played.
Relentless attacking of the stumps like that added to the pressure - unlike Harmie, who will almost guarantee one wide-ish "four ball" per over to lift that pressure off the batsman.
As Toga said, too much short stuff at the tail doesn't necessarily work all the time.
