SA Footy

2/4

Well the openers have done their job, seen in the new ball.

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:

The Dark Knight wrote:Well f**k me, it's not raining in Sydney and the sun is shining there.

And it's 1/0

And STARc gets another topender batsman out, he is lockying his status as an all time great Left Handed Test fast bowler

Babar for under 10 and they crumble here.

.

mal wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:

The Dark Knight wrote:Well f**k me, it's not raining in Sydney and the sun is shining there.

And it's 1/0

And STARc gets another topender batsman out, he is lockying his status as an all time great Left Handed Test fast bowler

Babar taking him apart lol

Hitting?

Booney wrote:Hitting?

Ball tracking is so hit and miss

To the naked eye it looked missing but technology is never wrong is it ?

Arry Gablett wrote:

Booney wrote:Hitting?

Ball tracking is so hit and miss

To the naked eye it looked missing but technology is never wrong is it ?

Off course it is but I reckon the naked eye and preconceptions of what we thought would hit the stumps is less accurate than technology

Babar, Boon's mate , might go ape by the time he got to the changerooms?
Hitting ?

Drs has looked very ordinary this series.

How does that happen? Such a Marsh-like error.

RB wrote:How does that happen? Such a Marsh-like error.

The amount of wickets of no-balls says there has to be something in it.

That split second extra pace being closer to the batter must make just enough of a difference, a natural quicker ball i suppose.

Listen to the keeper. What a waste.

whufc wrote:

RB wrote:How does that happen? Such a Marsh-like error.

The amount of wickets of no-balls says there has to be something in it.

That split second extra pace being closer to the batter must make just enough of a difference, a natural quicker ball i suppose.

In Marsh's example I feel as though it's not a run up issue and bowlers are just striving that little bit too hard sometimes (potentially for extra pace) so that extra effort whilst running in lengthens their delivery stride and therefore they overstep.

Luckily it only cost 8 runs and Marsh nicked him off 11 deliveries later.

The Dark Knight wrote:

whufc wrote:

RB wrote:How does that happen? Such a Marsh-like error.

The amount of wickets of no-balls says there has to be something in it.

That split second extra pace being closer to the batter must make just enough of a difference, a natural quicker ball i suppose.

In Marsh's example I feel as though it's not a run up issue and bowlers are just striving that little bit too hard sometimes (potentially for extra pace) so that extra effort whilst running in lengthens their delivery stride and therefore they overstep.

Luckily it only cost 8 runs and Marsh nicked him off 11 deliveries later.

Yeah, i was more focusing on that the no-ball would result in a batter having a millisecond less reaction time, which potentially does make a difference when batsmen are dealing in such small reaction times.

look at some of them in recent times, particularly Nathan Ellis, they just arent a little way over they are no where near the line, there is no excuse really

whufc wrote:

The Dark Knight wrote:

whufc wrote:

RB wrote:How does that happen? Such a Marsh-like error.

The amount of wickets of no-balls says there has to be something in it.

That split second extra pace being closer to the batter must make just enough of a difference, a natural quicker ball i suppose.

In Marsh's example I feel as though it's not a run up issue and bowlers are just striving that little bit too hard sometimes (potentially for extra pace) so that extra effort whilst running in lengthens their delivery stride and therefore they overstep.

Luckily it only cost 8 runs and Marsh nicked him off 11 deliveries later.

Yeah, i was more focusing on that the no-ball would result in a batter having a millisecond less reaction time, which potentially does make a difference when batsmen are dealing in such small reaction times.

Absolutely agree, when the bowler bowls a no ball they're obviously closer (only by a little bit of course) to the batter than they would be when they bowl a legal delivery and I think we can safely assume their release point is closer therefore the batter has a lesser reaction time when the ball is bowled at them like you said.

Speaking of release points and reaction times it did remind me that Jarrod Kimber made a video during the last England v India series about Jasprit Bumrah where he briefly explained Bumrah's release point being so much closer towards the batter than any other bowler in world cricket, effectively shotening the pitch.
https://youtu.be/U8DNeqhGBkw?si=euUlb25NjRKqjt96
This Channel 7/Damien Fleming video explains it too.
https://youtu.be/5mB2FXedIIU?si=_26TZKzCIKsAaB5z

On that note it surprises me we dont see bowlers more often try and bowl with only half a foot or one foot back from the line occasionally. Weve seen blokes bowl from as far back as the umpire but the more subtle variation would almost act as the perfect slower ball without having to change action or grip.

whufc wrote:On that note it surprises me we dont see bowlers more often try and bowl with only half a foot or one foot back from the line occasionally. Weve seen blokes bowl from as far back as the umpire but the more subtle variation would almost act as the perfect slower ball without having to change action or grip.

Yep, I've said that before.
Even more variation at the crease, if normally get in over the umpire just go a fraction wider and change up the angles