Green Track Awaits Team India at Sabina Park

[Ankit_sharma03]

10 minutes ago, Adi_91 said:

Interestingly, his good knocks have come against oppositions in batting friendly conditions if at all. So, it seems the moment the ball begins to do something off the pitch, Rohit is in trouble against the bowlers.

 

Sehwag too had weaknesses, but it is supreme ability to smash the bowler and dent his confidence. I think the most disappointing aspect has been the way he has been found wanting against spinners. He had ample opportunities to do well in the SC with spinners playing a major role, but he failed, which a Sehwag countered much better again.

Yes all good knocks when its damn flat or avg attack or he has been dropped enough times. Well he has been found wanting against any sought of movement be it swing or turn coz to face that u need to have a game plan or Prep, but he is to lazy to do either.

 

Sehwag did have his weakness and so many other did to but the guy played like boss many times when other legends failed. His 2-100s against NZ having bond in that 2002-03 nightmare tour, His lone geniuses against murali-mendis, he was highest scorer in a tri series with sl-nz where batting was a nightmare, his 155 against Mcgrath warnie in chennai in home series where our batsman struggled, His assault to ashely giles negative line when tendulkar was choked for runs, 100 on debut in Sa where many indian batsman have always struggled, Runs in 1st two test against England where other were still finding their feet Etc etc etc. Sehwag was pure genius and for him conditions n oppositions didnt matter so it makes no sense to put them in same category. 

This guy sledges steyn to come to india to have his answer that shows his mindset and sehwag had one of the greatest and clearest mindset i have seen.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Ankit_sharma03

[Adi_91]

40 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

Yes all good knocks when its damn flat or avg attack or he has been dropped enough times. Well he has been found wanting against any sought of movement be it swing or turn coz to face that u need to have a game plan or Prep, but he is to lazy to do either.

 

Sehwag did have his weakness and so many other did to but the guy played like boss many times when other legends failed. His 2-100s against NZ having bond in that 2002-03 nightmare tour, His lone geniuses against murali-mendis, he was highest scorer in a tri series with sl-nz where batting was a nightmare, his 155 against Mcgrath warnie in chennai in home series where our batsman struggled, His assault to ashely giles negative line when tendulkar was choked for runs, 100 on debut in Sa where many indian batsman have always struggled, Runs in 1st two test against England where other were still finding their feet Etc etc etc. Sehwag was pure genius and for him conditions n oppositions didnt matter so it makes no sense to put them in same category. 

This guy sledges steyn to come to india to have his answer that shows his mindset and sehwag had one of the greatest and clearest mindset i have seen.

True. I compared him to Sehwag because of the sheer ability of both batsmen to stand and play some breathtaking shots. The comparison ends right there.

 

When it comes to execution, Rohit is light years away from Sehwag. And as you said with no game plan against pitches and opposition that have quality attacks, he is bound to fail, unless he focuses hard on his game. For starters, I don't want him to play tomorrow's game.

[cowboysfan]

Btw if its a real Green track then i think they should play Rahul in place of Mishra.

[Adi_91]

2 minutes ago, cowboysfan said:

Btw if its a real Green track then i think they should play Rahul in place of Mishra.

Rahul will play in place of Vijay tomorrow. The indications are that our bowling lineup may well remain the same going by Virat's PC.

[Muloghonto]

10 hours ago, maniac said:

I am not a science guy so I will skip the science part but here is how I look at it.

 

I have admitted that Walsh and Ambrose were lethal due to the bounce they extracted from an Awkward length due to their height,consistency and skill... Md.Irfan from Pak is half a foot taller than Ambrose of all people and a he bowls at a similar pace to Ambrose which is 135ish most times ...and maybe a couple of clicks faster than Walsh.At times his length is pretty unplayable as well and but that is too far in between because most batsman easily negotiate him 90% of the time even though he will beat you once in a while,he is not at the same level obviously.

 

Similarly on a minefield of a pitch or a dustbowl,Kumble becomes the most dangerous bowler and I have seen him break fingers and hurt batsman....Would you call him an express bowler too?

 

I attribute that to skill rather than speed.

 

Simple apples to apples a perfect yorker bowled by Brett Lee or an Akthar is more likely to hurt you than a Malinga one....Physically aside I also mean the reaction time to negate it. It is just that Malinga is consistent with that type of a delivery that he has a higher probability of delivering the perfect yorker.

 

The reaction time to Wasim,Ambrose,Walsh might be relatively less because their skills levels are high and the batsman is on his toes guessing what next...while as someone like Wahab Riaz might bowl the same length over and over again at 10 clicks faster for the batsman eyes to get set.

 

Another example.....I have been to baseball batting cages in the USA where I have easily smacked 80mph baseball pitches after maybe missing the first 1 or 2 once my eyes got set....but if I have a decent club level spinner bowling me a 60mph flighted delivery I might miss it 9/10 times or even hurt my self if I get into an awkward position....that doesn't make 60mph faster than 80mph....now the same spinner bowls a similar delivery at 80mph I will have no shot whatsoever.

 

No one questions the greatness or skills of Walsh or AMbrose but in terms of pace they would no way be called express pace or even Right Arm Fast,they were Right Arm Fast Medium at best and with Walsh towards the end Right Arm Medium Fast or even Right Arm medium

I am not talking about their skill. I am talking about the velocity imparted on the ball by them. In strict velocity terms, Ambrose and Walsh are fast bowlers. Just as fast as 'quintessential fast' bowlers like Mohammed Sami or Dale Steyn. 

That conclusion is inescapable, in terms of what batsmen consider fast bowlers- bowlers who hurry them for reaction time, due to the velocity of the ball.

 

[Muloghonto]

7 hours ago, express bowling said:

There is bound to be different terms for different things in sports even if the physics behind them is somewhat similar.

 

 

Ultimately,   pace of a bowler has to be gauged from a batsman's point of view.    If a ball is pitched up, a batsman gets much less time to play it  as the speed in the air is much more than the speed after pitching.  A shorter bouncing delivery gives the batsman more time because speed after pitching is less than speed in the air and the ball has much more distance to cover even though the displacement is far lesser.

 

 

The bouncing shorter  balls  may have greater vertical velocity after pitching but they give the batsman more time to play it. The difficulty they pose are partly because of the difficulty in playing vertical velocity but also due to factors like   1)  Fear of getting hit on the face or neck.  2)  It is difficult to bring the bat in front of the face or neck to play a ball quickly.  

 

 

I feel that the primary reason why bowlers who can generate vertical velocity after pitching are not considered express bowlers nowadays ,  if they have slower release speeds , is because it is pitch dependent. A pacer with high release speeds look quick to the batsman even on low or  slow pitches, especially when they bowl yorkers and almost yorkers.  Whereas a bowler who can bounce the ball, but has a slower release speed , does not hurry the batsman on low and slow pitches. We have seen it so many times in the IPL, where bouncy bowlers have been hit for 6s with ease and treated as medium pacers whereas bowlers who can release the ball at 140 K+ consistently, and bowl yorkers and low full tosses, have hurried the batsmen.

 

 

With flatter pitches, better protective gears, better bats, fitter batsmen and the 2 bouncer rule...the tall, bouncy bowlers have lost the fear factor and speed in the air has become more important,  in combination with vertical velocity after pitching , to hurry the batsmen.

Precisely correct : Pace is to be assessed from batsman's PoV. 

From a batsman's point of view, vertical velocity AND horizontal velocity matters, which is why we have plenty of modern and old time batsmen stating 'xyz being the fastest bowler' they faced, despite those bowlers not being technically the fastest on your 'horizontal speed measuring speed-gun' device.

How quickly the ball is on to the batsman, is a matter of horizontal & vertical speeds. 

Technically the lateral speed matters too, but in terms of actual numbers pertaining to cricket ball hucked at 60-100 mph, it is a very small component of it (basic trigonometry, proves so). 

Your idea of 'getting beaten = beaten by velocity every time' is actually not true, since 'getting beaten' is strictly not a function of velocity alone, it is also a function of cognitive decision-making. Batsmen get beaten if they misread the ball, pre-meditate their shots, get tired, etc. 

 

Best way to find out who 'fast bowlers are', is to take vertical and horizontal speed in conjunction, i.e., speed and bounce in conjunction, because they represent the lion's share (for a fast bowler, i.e., balls hurled at over 75mph with cricket bowling action) of the actual velocity.

 

For example, a ball that ends up bowled at good length & rises to a batsman's shoulder at 85mph vs a full ball that is 90 mph and rises to the waist, the former example quite easily has a greater net velocity. The batsman's perception of speed, is related to velocity, not just the horizontal component of it. Which is why great batsmen will unhesitatingly call xyz as the quickest bowler they faced, even if their radar gun reading (x axis of velocity) is not technically the highest.

 

[Vilander]

3 hours ago, Garuda said:

Thanks for the laughs. I think on my old Bush TV, he looked slower than Kumble

thanks bud, some peps here are fed up with my digs on Venky Prasadham..but somehow i cant stand the guy. He was super slow has a very fake accent on air, but is pretty confident and assertive even like an all time great. Good bowler for his time, played international cricket but super slow.

[Rightarmfast]

7 hours ago, Vilander said:

Yeah but just that Prasad was even slower he bowled 114- 132

 

Prasad's regular speeds were 128-133kph. Not 114. You are talking about Robin Singh.

[Vilander]

1 minute ago, Rightarmfast said:

Prasad's regular speeds were 128-133kph. Not 114. You are talking about Robin Singh.

dude i have certainly seen him bowl 114 and not slower ones but stock balls in that pace. I have seen him hit 132ks.

[Adi_91]

11 minutes ago, Vilander said:

dude i have certainly seen him bowl 114 and not slower ones but stock balls in that pace. I have seen him hit 132ks.

That is ridiculously slow. I was too young to watch when he was bowling. Wasn't he carted around the park with that pace?

[Vilander]

3 minutes ago, Adi_91 said:

That is ridiculously slow. I was too young to watch when he was bowling. Wasn't he carted around the park with that pace?

he used to bowl slower deliveries or may be bowled slow most of time and leg cutters dipping deliveries at almost yorker length (not quite), remember lots of lbws but also over his head sixes 

not many games had speed guns just some word cup games..he might have bowled slower in tests one never knows.

[Rightarmfast]

27 minutes ago, Vilander said:

dude i have certainly seen him bowl 114 and not slower ones but stock balls in that pace. I have seen him hit 132ks.

I have seen Brett lee also bowling at 110

[Vilander]

Just now, Rightarmfast said:

I have seen Brett lee also bowling at 110

cool

[Rightarmfast]

4 minutes ago, Vilander said:

he used to bowl slower deliveries or may be bowled slow most of time and leg cutters dipping deliveries at almost yorker length (not quite), remember lots of lbws but also over his head sixes 

not many games had speed guns just some word cup games..he might have bowled slower in tests one never knows.

Vilander, don't misguide people. His regular pace was 128 - 133. His slower ones and leg cutters used to be around 115 -125.

[Vilander]

1 minute ago, Rightarmfast said:

Vilander, don't misguide people. His regular pace was 128 - 133. His slower ones and leg cutters used to be around 115 -125.

easy there fella, i have seen him bowl stock deliveries at 114 as in 114 , 118 etc whole over of them. I dont know what you are on about here, but dont take the high road and say misguide people etc this is no place to guide or misguide people there is no audience here. No videos to prove my anecdotes though so nothing to go by, you can say what ever you want. Besides i know its pathetically slow any way, his deliveries.

[Rightarmfast]

1 hour ago, Vilander said:

easy there fella, i have seen him bowl stock deliveries at 114 as in 114 , 118 etc whole over of them. I dont know what you are on about here, but dont take the high road and say misguide people etc this is no place to guide or misguide people there is no audience here. No videos to prove my anecdotes though so nothing to go by, you can say what ever you want. Besides i know its pathetically slow any way, his deliveries.

Whether its pathetically slow or not, you seem to have watched a different match. 114-115 was not his pace. Or I think you watched one single match in your lifetime and formed your opinion.

[express bowling]

5 hours ago, Vilander said:

 i have seen him bowl stock deliveries at 114 as in 114 , 118 etc whole over of them. 

Vilander...he sometimes used to bowl entire overs consisting of slower cutters.  It is possible that you remember one such over.

 

I think both Rightarmfast and you are right.

 

Prasad's normal pace was 126 k to 133 k as RAF is saying.

 

And his overs consisting of slower cutters were often bowled at   114 k to 120 k or thereabouts.

Edited July 30, 2016 by express bowling

[express bowling]

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Precisely correct : Pace is to be assessed from batsman's PoV. 

From a batsman's point of view, vertical velocity AND horizontal velocity matters, which is why we have plenty of modern and old time batsmen stating 'xyz being the fastest bowler' they faced, despite those bowlers not being technically the fastest on your 'horizontal speed measuring speed-gun' device.

How quickly the ball is on to the batsman, is a matter of horizontal & vertical speeds. 

Technically the lateral speed matters too, but in terms of actual numbers pertaining to cricket ball hucked at 60-100 mph, it is a very small component of it (basic trigonometry, proves so). 

Your idea of 'getting beaten = beaten by velocity every time' is actually not true, since 'getting beaten' is strictly not a function of velocity alone, it is also a function of cognitive decision-making. Batsmen get beaten if they misread the ball, pre-meditate their shots, get tired, etc. 

 

Best way to find out who 'fast bowlers are', is to take vertical and horizontal speed in conjunction, i.e., speed and bounce in conjunction, because they represent the lion's share (for a fast bowler, i.e., balls hurled at over 75mph with cricket bowling action) of the actual velocity.

 

For example, a ball that ends up bowled at good length & rises to a batsman's shoulder at 85mph vs a full ball that is 90 mph and rises to the waist, the former example quite easily has a greater net velocity. The batsman's perception of speed, is related to velocity, not just the horizontal component of it. Which is why great batsmen will unhesitatingly call xyz as the quickest bowler they faced, even if their radar gun reading (x axis of velocity) is not technically the highest.

 

Agree with some points there.  We were discussing these issues relating to velocities after pitching in another thread.

 

I was talking about the reasons why  the shorter rising delivery poses problems and not reasons why batsmen get beaten.

 

One factor that hurries batsmen is when a bowler can cause some deliveries to come off the pitch at a greater velocity along the trajectory of the delivery than is expected of a delivery of that release speed  ( although obviously it is still much less than the release pace ).  Bowlers like Walsh could do that often , even when he was bowling in the high 120s during the last 2 years of his career.

 

The reason why a demarcation between fast bowlers ( those who have high release speeds ) and bouncy fast-medium bowlers ( decent release speeds with good vertical velocity on some deliveries ) is required in cricketing  parlance is because the fast bowlers hurry batsmen irrespective the nature of the pitch and the bouncy fast-medium bowlers need bouncier pitches to do so.

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, express bowling said:

Agree with some points there.  We were discussing these issues relating to velocities after pitching in another thread.

 

I was talking about the reasons why  the shorter rising delivery poses problems and not reasons why batsmen get beaten.

 

One factor that hurries batsmen is when a bowler can cause some deliveries to come off the pitch at a greater velocity along the trajectory of the delivery than is expected of a delivery of that release speed  ( although obviously it is still much less than the release pace ).  Bowlers like Walsh could do that often , even when he was bowling in the high 120s during the last 2 years of his career.

 

The reason why a demarcation between fast bowlers ( those who have high release speeds ) and bouncy fast-medium bowlers ( decent release speeds with good vertical velocity on some deliveries ) is required in cricketing  parlance is because the fast bowlers hurry batsmen irrespective the nature of the pitch and the bouncy fast-medium bowlers need bouncier pitches to do so.

Not necessarily that bouncy fast bowlers need bouncy pitches to hurry batsmen. I saw Courtney Walsh hurrying Indian batsmen when West Indies toured India and we turned out rank turners for them in the early 90s. Bowlers who generate more vertical pace, obviously benefit more from hard bouncy pitches, just as bowlers who have more horizontal speed benefit more from grassy, skiddy pitch. 

But who generates more vertical pace and who generates more horizontal pace is more down to the actions (high arm action or round arm action for example), as well as height and position in the crease. 

 

The reason why that demarcation is irrelevant, is obvious from testimony from the witnesses in the argument: the batsmen. Evidence points towards the fact that plenty of batsmen call xyz fast bowler the fastest, despite the fact that some of these bowlers are not the fastest in horizontal speed, because to the batsmen, how quickly the ball comes to them is a factor of how quickly the ball moves through the air to them AND how quickly it rises on them. So if batsmen do not make that demarcation, its completely irrelevant for us to do so.

 

[express bowling]

36 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

The reason why that demarcation is irrelevant, is obvious from testimony from the witnesses in the argument: the batsmen. Evidence points towards the fact that plenty of batsmen call xyz fast bowler the fastest, despite the fact that some of these bowlers are not the fastest in horizontal speed, because to the batsmen, how quickly the ball comes to them is a factor of how quickly the ball moves through the air to them AND how quickly it rises on them. So if batsmen do not make that demarcation, its completely irrelevant for us to do so.

 

I am going by the testimony of the batsmen too....and they called Bishop and  Patterson as the quickest WI pacers of that era.  ( batsmen's  testimony will obviously be the best but only to the extent regarding the pacers they have actually played  at the same level of fitness and eyesight. )( they often tend to unusually favour the bowlers of their own era or own country when they become commentators ). Batsmen who played McGrath were not that gaga about his pace although a couple of  Aussie commentators in the mid-'90s were.

 

Pacers who have both high release speeds as well as vertical velocity after pitching will obviously  hurry batsmen irrespective of the pitch and Holding, Bishop, Srinath, Donald, Johnson, Morkel etc. will be such kind of pacers.