Cricket fred

[Banquo]

Not sure where I'd find the stats numbers on balls faced to give away an edge but he is way below most other batters, I can't imagine such stats date back all that far so it'd be hard to compare him to someone like Tendulkar even. Whether he avoids edges due to discipline I don't know, but it does seem for all he moves right across the stumps he does that early and the back leg doesn't then come around very often so he's not getting squared up which makes it easier not to chase wide balls

If someone knows how to get his stats on test dismissals and how to compare that to other leading players please do shout

53% caught or caught behind, Cook is 56%, Tendulkar 56%....so some validity in what you were saying; I picked up my view from an analysis on BT which showed how he picks his bat up (very similar to DB). Though chasing wide balls is not the same as being done by outswing...my take is that any batsman will struggle to play pacy outswing thats aiming to hit the top of off stump, but not many can do that. Its interesting that the one area he doesn't score heavily in is the arc from extra cover to straight as well.
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statisti ... yerID=3756

I wonder how much he's caught Vs caught behind, he is quite attacking. Everyone is going to get out caught behind, it's the biggest weakness as you just wouldn't be there if you were the sort to get bowled overly, but for all his pick up goes to 2nd/3rd slip he plays straight and that back leg does stay still so he's putting himself in a position to not be drawn to wider balls other than attacking shots, and he's not much of a poker outside his stumps. So yes swing isn't the same as prodding outside the off stump, but he's better set not to be exposed to swing with despite the movement and the pick up, maybe if his technique changes and his left elbow drops he's going to then get himself tangled more often. Trouble with my theory of bowling straight at him is he's more than decent of his pads so he'll be very likely to score well even if he gets out, so my theory isn't exactly wonderful.

That's why I gave you the link ...caught behind 23% v 14% Tendulkar,

And if you look at his scoring arc, he is very strong off his legs.
(my 'rithmetic was crap...Cook out caught or caught behind 66%+ which seems way above the norm, even Gower was only at 63%)

[Galfon]

Smith/Marsh aleady 11th. highest 5th.wkt. test.partnership on 301 ( Eng. highest is Fletcher/Greig 254 ), chasing Bradman/Barnes 405.
There are 4 other recent Aus. Partnerships to pass first - they keep churning them out.
Of course, it's largely due to the favourable climate..

[WaspInWales]

It's on a knife edge and still too close to call at the moment.

We took the most wickets of the day which in itself is a victory.

Lyons' talk of ending careers looks like it might be coming true. This is truly abysmal stuff from England.

We're pretty much just gifting them the Ashes.

[Digby]

53% caught or caught behind, Cook is 56%, Tendulkar 56%....so some validity in what you were saying; I picked up my view from an analysis on BT which showed how he picks his bat up (very similar to DB). Though chasing wide balls is not the same as being done by outswing...my take is that any batsman will struggle to play pacy outswing thats aiming to hit the top of off stump, but not many can do that. Its interesting that the one area he doesn't score heavily in is the arc from extra cover to straight as well.
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statisti ... yerID=3756

I wonder how much he's caught Vs caught behind, he is quite attacking. Everyone is going to get out caught behind, it's the biggest weakness as you just wouldn't be there if you were the sort to get bowled overly, but for all his pick up goes to 2nd/3rd slip he plays straight and that back leg does stay still so he's putting himself in a position to not be drawn to wider balls other than attacking shots, and he's not much of a poker outside his stumps. So yes swing isn't the same as prodding outside the off stump, but he's better set not to be exposed to swing with despite the movement and the pick up, maybe if his technique changes and his left elbow drops he's going to then get himself tangled more often. Trouble with my theory of bowling straight at him is he's more than decent of his pads so he'll be very likely to score well even if he gets out, so my theory isn't exactly wonderful.

That's why I gave you the link ...caught behind 23% v 14% Tendulkar,

And if you look at his scoring arc, he is very strong off his legs.
(my 'rithmetic was crap...Cook out caught or caught behind 66%+ which seems way above the norm, even Gower was only at 63%)

Either when that site says caught behind they mean only by the keeper (i.e. not in the slips) or I've paid no attention when watching cricket, or I'm just really thick. As I don't think I'm thick, though aware stupid people are often under such impression, I'd want a breakdown of what caught means to feel we can use it when considering how likely a player is to edge a delivery

[Mellsblue]

I’m not sure I want to wake up tomorrow. That’s not a plea for help. Just a recognition that I don’t want see Aus posting 1000 for 4 declared.

[Banquo]

I wonder how much he's caught Vs caught behind, he is quite attacking. Everyone is going to get out caught behind, it's the biggest weakness as you just wouldn't be there if you were the sort to get bowled overly, but for all his pick up goes to 2nd/3rd slip he plays straight and that back leg does stay still so he's putting himself in a position to not be drawn to wider balls other than attacking shots, and he's not much of a poker outside his stumps. So yes swing isn't the same as prodding outside the off stump, but he's better set not to be exposed to swing with despite the movement and the pick up, maybe if his technique changes and his left elbow drops he's going to then get himself tangled more often. Trouble with my theory of bowling straight at him is he's more than decent of his pads so he'll be very likely to score well even if he gets out, so my theory isn't exactly wonderful.

That's why I gave you the link ...caught behind 23% v 14% Tendulkar,

And if you look at his scoring arc, he is very strong off his legs.
(my 'rithmetic was crap...Cook out caught or caught behind 66%+ which seems way above the norm, even Gower was only at 63%)

Either when that site says caught behind they mean only by the keeper (i.e. not in the slips) or I've paid no attention when watching cricket, or I'm just really thick. As I don't think I'm thick, though aware stupid people are often under such impression, I'd want a breakdown of what caught means to feel we can use it when considering how likely a player is to edge a delivery

well drop em a note and make your own mind up on thickness, or perhaps being over analytical. Caught behind likely means by the keeper, but if it's that important to you, clarify,

[WaspInWales]

Are the Aussies that good, or are we just shit?

A little from column A, a little from column B?

[WaspInWales]

We've got this!

Aussie complacency will be their downfall...

Marsh out lbw with the 2nd ball of the day.

That's it guys, lull them in.

[WaspInWales]

Andrew Samson:

Shaun Marsh still has the highest score by a Marsh in Test cricket - he made 182 against West Indies at Hobart.

That has gotta hurt Mitchell, and it's all part of the plan.

Cunning stuff...perfect timing.

#straws

#clutching

#at

[WaspInWales]

It's all coming together.

[WaspInWales]

Do we have to bat again, or can we just agree on a draw?

[WaspInWales]

This is too much now.

3 wickets in about 20 minutes.

We still have to bat ffs.

They're toying with us...shewerly.

[Mellsblue]

Ffs

[Galfon]

Snatching defeat from the jaws of draw..
cook & root gone cheaply leaving it to the newbies again to show some fight..arf-ton for vince but he's just gone too.
6 wickets left , over 150 deficit.
The final day's going to be a short affair..the .turkeys have voted for xmas.

[Banquo]

Shoddy stuff. Lyons prophecy coming true. Our attack is toothless in non English conditions, and our batting lacks mental resilience and quality. Pretty much as was called out when the squad was named- could ill afford Stokes being a nob.

[Banquo]

That's why I gave you the link ...caught behind 23% v 14% Tendulkar,

And if you look at his scoring arc, he is very strong off his legs.
(my 'rithmetic was crap...Cook out caught or caught behind 66%+ which seems way above the norm, even Gower was only at 63%)

Either when that site says caught behind they mean only by the keeper (i.e. not in the slips) or I've paid no attention when watching cricket, or I'm just really thick. As I don't think I'm thick, though aware stupid people are often under such impression, I'd want a breakdown of what caught means to feel we can use it when considering how likely a player is to edge a delivery

well drop em a note and make your own mind up on thickness, or perhaps being over analytical. Caught behind likely means by the keeper, but if it's that important to you, clarify,

This might interest you
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/42379131

[Mellsblue]

Not sure anyone would’ve survived the ball that got Vince.

Just seen Cook’s wicket. Pretty unlucky. 99/100 that just rolls towards mid-on. Still, he needs a big couple of matches in the next two tests.

[Banquo]

Not sure anyone would’ve survived the ball that got Vince.

Just seen Cook’s wicket. Pretty unlucky. 99/100 that just rolls towards mid-on. Still, he needs a big couple of matches in the next two tests.

He picked the wrong time to give up scoring

[fivepointer]

That ball would have got any RH batsman in test history out. If you want a definition of unplayable, this was it.

Pity, as Vince was looking really good.

Weathers come in. Rain for the next day appears our best chance of getting out of this.

[Digby]

Not sure anyone would’ve survived the ball that got Vince.

Just seen Cook’s wicket. Pretty unlucky. 99/100 that just rolls towards mid-on. Still, he needs a big couple of matches in the next two tests.

Often with something like Vince's dismissal I'd just observe play straight and you'd be fine, but that went so late and so far it's about as bad as it gets for lateral movement, maybe only those that don't bounce or bounce alarmingly would give less of a chance. Joe Root on the other hand looked only like he was making sure he wasn't out lbw

[Mellsblue]

Not sure anyone would’ve survived the ball that got Vince.

Just seen Cook’s wicket. Pretty unlucky. 99/100 that just rolls towards mid-on. Still, he needs a big couple of matches in the next two tests.

Often with something like Vince's dismissal I'd just observe play straight and you'd be fine, but that went so late and so far it's about as bad as it gets for lateral movement, maybe only those that don't bounce or bounce alarmingly would give less of a chance. Joe Root on the other hand looked only like he was making sure he wasn't out lbw

Root’s dismissal was village......and there are a few village cricketers that are rightly upset with that comparison.

[Banquo]

Not sure anyone would’ve survived the ball that got Vince.

Just seen Cook’s wicket. Pretty unlucky. 99/100 that just rolls towards mid-on. Still, he needs a big couple of matches in the next two tests.

Often with something like Vince's dismissal I'd just observe play straight and you'd be fine, but that went so late and so far it's about as bad as it gets for lateral movement, maybe only those that don't bounce or bounce alarmingly would give less of a chance. Joe Root on the other hand looked only like he was making sure he wasn't out lbw

Geoff Boycott said the same, both he and Ponting (? I think)thought that Vince should have changed his guard, and been playing back towards the bowler, whilst admitting he'd still have been out, but might have nicked it. It was a jaffa

[Digby]

Not sure anyone would’ve survived the ball that got Vince.

Just seen Cook’s wicket. Pretty unlucky. 99/100 that just rolls towards mid-on. Still, he needs a big couple of matches in the next two tests.

Often with something like Vince's dismissal I'd just observe play straight and you'd be fine, but that went so late and so far it's about as bad as it gets for lateral movement, maybe only those that don't bounce or bounce alarmingly would give less of a chance. Joe Root on the other hand looked only like he was making sure he wasn't out lbw

Geoff Boycott said the same, both he and Ponting (? I think)thought that Vince should have changed his guard, and been playing back towards the bowler, whilst admitting he'd still have been out, but might have nicked it. It was a jaffa

Boycs was happier than most not scoring and simply being there. Sometimes I feel they cheat a little at test level and frankly are playing across the line, this wasn't one of them. So you could play straight to balls pitching there, but your strike rate would be dropping to 15 or so and on modern pitches that's never going to leave time to take 20 wickets so it's not really fair (imo) to say that delivery should have been played back down the V

I didn't have the sound on earlier so didn't know I was agreeing in part with Geoff and Ricky (Spanish).

[Banquo]

Often with something like Vince's dismissal I'd just observe play straight and you'd be fine, but that went so late and so far it's about as bad as it gets for lateral movement, maybe only those that don't bounce or bounce alarmingly would give less of a chance. Joe Root on the other hand looked only like he was making sure he wasn't out lbw

Geoff Boycott said the same, both he and Ponting (? I think)thought that Vince should have changed his guard, and been playing back towards the bowler, whilst admitting he'd still have been out, but might have nicked it. It was a jaffa

Boycs was happier than most not scoring and simply being there. Sometimes I feel they cheat a little at test level and frankly are playing across the line, this wasn't one of them. So you could play straight to balls pitching there, but your strike rate would be dropping to 15 or so and on modern pitches that's never going to leave time to take 20 wickets so it's not really fair (imo) to say that delivery should have been played back down the V

I didn't have the sound on earlier so didn't know I was agreeing in part with Geoff and Ricky (Spanish).

I know, grew up on a diet of Geoffrey, who was dropped after scoring 246 not out for England, for scoring too slowly. He was a great batsman though, not exactly a team player....but then again, cricket is quite unique as a team sport that is very much about the individual's stats.

I don't understand your point really- surely its better to not get out not that, that ball was playable, even Boycott said that had he played it perfectly, he'd still likely have gone; his point was he didn't give himself the best chance of playing that delivery, by not being set up to play Starc's angle of attack in this spell.

[Banquo]

Not sure anyone would’ve survived the ball that got Vince.

Just seen Cook’s wicket. Pretty unlucky. 99/100 that just rolls towards mid-on. Still, he needs a big couple of matches in the next two tests.

I just found Cook's wicket too, not sure about unlucky, just badly timed