Ashes Discussion

[Fitzy]

Neser can move it off the seam or in the air or both.

You’d want to hope he can swing it but he is predominantly a seam bowler. Not swing.

 

[BooKhaki]

The culprit was the Sydney humidity, held that pitch together, that and the lost 65 overs as @1910 mentioned. I'm happy for Anderson, although he seems a complete twat, it must nice to not be the one nicking off to lose the test.

We'd lost most of the overs before we could have declared. I love me some Cummins, but he should have declared earlier. I said it before the first test, I hope he isn't a safe captain like Smith was, and is more like Clarke. I would wager if Clarke is captain we win that test. He would have declared before Usman got his hundred.

 

[Sproj]

We'd lost most of the overs before we could have declared. I love me some Cummins, but he should have declared earlier. I said it before the first test, I hope he isn't a safe captain like Smith was, and is more like Clarke. I would wager if Clarke is captain we win that test. He would have declared before Usman got his hundred.

I agree it seemed like a poor decision to delay the declaration at the time and seems even poorer post-result BUT I don't really care because it resulted in an excellent finish to the game. I actually loved seeing Stokes with his head in his shirt and not being able to watch because it shows this series actually means something to the Brits.

Incidentally though, had Cummins declared earlier, would Smith have still been in the position to bring about a grandstand finish? So many ifs and buts, I loved it.

 

[BooKhaki]

I agree it seemed like a poor decision to delay the declaration at the time and seems even poorer post-result BUT I don't really care because it resulted in an excellent finish to the game. I actually loved seeing Stokes with his head in his shirt and not being able to watch because it shows this series actually means something to the Brits.

Incidentally though, had Cummins declared earlier, would Smith have still been in the position to bring about a grandstand finish? So many ifs and buts, I loved it.

It was great to watch, absolutely. But, Australian captain is there to make decisions to win games, not make sure we have good viewing.

 

[BroncsFan]

We'd lost most of the overs before we could have declared. I love me some Cummins, but he should have declared earlier. I said it before the first test, I hope he isn't a safe captain like Smith was, and is more like Clarke. I would wager if Clarke is captain we win that test. He would have declared before Usman got his hundred.

To me the only real issue with that period of play was the speed / intent that Uzzie and Green were batting with straight after tea.

They were either always batting to a time or batting to a score, but I think the captain and coach could've given them a nudge to start teeing off a bit earlier.

Straight after tea I think they were still tapping it around for singles or playing somewhat conservatively... but the lead was only about 270 at that point and as a bare minimum they would've wanted 350 before declaring... so still needing 80 or so runs.

It just took them a while to inch closer to that mark... and when they got there Uzzie wasnt far off his 100. I dont think Clarke would've declared at that point, at best he might've sent a message to show some urgency

The question would then become do you go recklessly for the 350 run lead and hope the batting holds up.... But if you fall short then you are leaving the door ajar for England.

They did draw their way to 270 runs in the end... so a score closer to 300 or 350 and more time on the clock to chase it down might've been dangerous with Stokes, Bairstow, etc.... also largely unnecessary to give your opponent a chance to chase something down in a dead rubber that has WTC points on the line.

I'd say another 5 overs and we win that game so I dont think the declaration was all that far off... but I think they could've given Uzzie and Green the hurry along once we got over 300 or 320 and look to declare that little bit earlier.

In the end we were always only getting 3 to 3.5 sessions to bowl them out... pretty tough ask on a pitch that was giving nothing and in reality we would've only needed 4 sessions to win it.

 

[1910]

You’d want to hope he can swing it but he is predominantly a seam bowler. Not swing.

I don't think you understand the difference, seam bowler just means you swing it off the seam not swing it through the air.

They both swing the ball.

 

[Unbreakable]

I don't think you understand the difference, seam bowler just means you swing it off the seam not swing it through the air.

They both swing the ball.

What?..

I have never heard of a single person saying you 'swing it off the seam', lol. There's absolutely a difference between swing in the air and seam movement.

Both balls deviate off their original line, but only one of them 'swings'. (Unless the ball swings in the air after seaming off the pitch, I guess)

 

[BroncsFan]

In all honesty I think the reason we weren't able to win that game was due to being 4/89 or whatever it was in the 2nd innings.

If Smith, Marnus or Warner have any sort of innings of substance early on day 4 then we could've been more aggresive with our batting to get a sufficient declaration score on the board earlier.

In saying that if the wickets weren't concreted into the ground and Stokes gets rightfully bowled then England would've been 5 down for 80 or so and we most likely win in 4 days. Instead that pair pushed through to 164 and eventually the lead was only 150 or so.

 

[1910]

What?..

I have never heard of a single person saying you 'swing it off the seam', lol. There's absolutely a difference between swing in the air and seam movement.

Saying Neser doesn't swing the ball because he's bowls seam up is wrong, he swings it a lot. I don't agree with his take on Neser at all.

The ball can swing after it hits the seam, which is what all the Australian seam bowlers are trying to do.

Green was getting to swing yesterday off the pitch, Ryan Harris will tell you seam has to be straight to get swing and he was a seam up bowler who swung it off the pitch.

 

[Hoof Hearted]

If only we didn’t lose the seven overs to rain during the day.

 

[Fitzy]

I don't think you understand the difference, seam bowler just means you swing it off the seam not swing it through the air.

They both swing the ball.

No you just have always interpreted both as swing. Swing is through the air and seam is movement from the bounce off the seam. Not the same at all. Someone can do both but doesn’t make it both swing bowling. Michael Neser is predominately a seam bowler and that is where his success has come from in red ball cricket.

 

[Unbreakable]

Saying Neser doesn't swing the ball because he's bowls seam up is wrong, he swings it a lot. I don't agree with his take on Neser at all.

The ball can swing after it hits the seam, which is what all the Australian seam bowlers are trying to do.

Green was getting to swing yesterday off the pitch, Ryan Harris will tell you seam has to be straight to get swing and he was a seam up bowler who swung it off the pitch.

I disagree with the notion that seam bowlers are attempting to get swing after the movement off the pitch. They're attempting to get seam movement off the pitch. If the ball happens to wobble a bit after the seam movement, that's just a bonus.

There's such little distance between the pitch of the ball and the batsman (assuming the balls that move off the seam are generally in the good-full area) that any 'swing' after it pitches is usually inconsequential anyway, unless you're the wicketkeeper.

 

[Sproj]

I have never heard anyone refer to it as swing off the pitch. In fact, it has always been in swing and out swing (meaning from the hand) and off cut and leg cut (for movement of the bounce / seam).

 

[1910]

I have never heard anyone refer to it as swing off the pitch. In fact, it has always been in swing and out swing (meaning from the hand) and off cut and leg cut (for movement of the bounce / seam).

Ryan Harris talks about it all the time to the Bulls. The Cook dismissal swung after it bounced.

Edit.

"A lot of people have asked me, 'How do you get the ball to swing after it bounces?'" Harris says. "But that's not me doing that.

"My job was to put it on a good length and line and then keep the seam upright, so I give myself every chance to swing it or get it to seam when the ball hits the wicket. It's quite amazing how [the Cook delivery] bounces and swings away as it did."

(I know he says seam there too, but he also says swing several times and he uses the term swing all the time in regard to after it bounces.)

 

[Sproj]

Ryan Harris talks about it all the time to the Bulls. The Cook dismissal swung after it bounced.

Edit.

"A lot of people have asked me, 'How do you get the ball to swing after it bounces?'" Harris says. "But that's not me doing that.

"My job was to put it on a good length and line and then keep the seam upright, so I give myself every chance to swing it or get it to seam when the ball hits the wicket. It's quite amazing how [the Cook delivery] bounces and swings away as it did."

(I know he says seam there too, but he also says swing several times and he uses the term swing all the time in regard to after it bounces.)

So one person uses it, probably without even thinking to deeply about it, and that makes it normal?

 

[BroncosFever]

I have never heard anyone refer to it as swing off the pitch. In fact, it has always been in swing and out swing (meaning from the hand) and off cut and leg cut (for movement of the bounce / seam).

Anything off the pitch is seam movement, it may swing in the air after landing but you can't really control that.

It's more than likely shaping in, bouncing, then continuing on the trajectory. Maybe it goes a bit more if it seams the right way.

 

[Sproj]

Anything off the pitch is seam movement, it may swing in the air after landing but you can't really control that.

It's more than likely shaping in, bouncing, then continuing on the trajectory. Maybe it goes a bit more if it seams the right way.

Yeah but that Harris delivery to Cook was completely unusual anyway, there's a reason it is regarded as one of the best deliveries of all time as it did things a ball normally doesn't do, i.e swing opposite off the pitch.

 

[BroncosFever]

In all honesty I think the reason we weren't able to win that game was due to being 4/89 or whatever it was in the 2nd innings.

If Smith, Marnus or Warner have any sort of innings of substance early on day 4 then we could've been more aggresive with our batting to get a sufficient declaration score on the board earlier.

In saying that if the wickets weren't concreted into the ground and Stokes gets rightfully bowled then England would've been 5 down for 80 or so and we most likely win in 4 days. Instead that pair pushed through to 164 and eventually the lead was only 150 or so.

Agree, all 3 were pretty ordinary, Khawaja was the only reason we were in a position to win that game and if someone said that to me before the game started, I wouldn't have believed them.