Don Bradman Cricket 14 General Discussion

[dhump]

the compulsory serving of asparagus for breakfast.

I think they only serve lunch at bigants (and that from take away nearby).

 

[BigAntStudios]

Thanks a lot! I've a very strong feeling about my suggestion

I have no idea... (I really just needed to post so all the Poms could get another look at Mitch....)

 

[The_Pharoah]

I have no idea... (I really just needed to post so all the Poms could get another look at Mitch....)

lol I watched that last night....if the best bastmen in the world couldn't play him, no wonder the likes of Trott/Cook/KP/etc had nothing. Hell, I wouldn't want to face him either.

I realise that MJ is such a threat because of:

1. speed (150kph+)
2. bounce (bodyline anyone?)
3. the ability to bowl straight and fast; and
4. the ability to swing the ball in.

So thats why the bastmen have to face every ball and try and pick up the length quickly (not easy to do when at 150 kph).

I reckon I'd piss my pants if I had to face him IRL (then again I'm not a test bastman). Fastest I ever faced was 140 kph or thereabouts and I happened to knick a ball for 6 (bowled next ball through the gate...broke middle stump)

 

[ethybubs]

1. speed (150kph+)
2. bounce (bodyline anyone?)
3. the ability to bowl straight and fast; and
4. the ability to swing the ball in.

1. speed(140+ slower than morkel)
2. Bounce(A short pitched ball in a 5 day game at 140+ kph is nothing like a 150 kph bouncer bowled in a timeless test to batsman with minimal protection and a ring of fielders waiting for him to hit one.)
3. the ability to land the ball off the pitch when out of form (which has been 75% of his career)
4. the ability to bowl the easier of the two forms of swing.

I think that has fixed it up.

 

[Frostyvegi]

I think that has fixed it up.

So let's just call the English and South African teams spineless squids who can't stand up to a wayward medium pacer who offers no real threat to head or fingers.

I'd personally class the balls bowled by Mitchell to be more bodyline than those of the classic 'body line series', particulary due to the absence of a leg side theory field setting. Infact I was only saying to myself after listening to the first dismisal described yesterday that I wouldn't be surprised if other teams tried to get sanctions applied against this type of bowling.

 

[ethybubs]

I'd personally class the balls bowled by Mitchell to be more bodyline than those of the classic 'body line series'

How can something be more bodyline than the bodyline series? Surely the bodyline series is the benchmark for bodyline bowling, you can't have something be more like the thing that it is copying. That's like saying an Elvis impersonator is more like Elvis than the real Elvis.

 

[The_Pharoah]

trying to get sanctions against this kind of bowling is like trying to get sanctions against switch hitting....ridiculous.

 

[Frostyvegi]

How can something be more bodyline than the bodyline series? Surely the bodyline series is the benchmark for bodyline bowling, you can't have something be more like the thing that it is copying. That's like saying an Elvis impersonator is more like Elvis than the real Elvis.

More from the 'success' he has in causing injuries considering all 'body line' balls bowled to leg side theory fields never resulted in injuries. It shouldn't be more intimidating than as experienced in the 'body line series', but the success he has found with the varied length and lethal bounce is what makes it so daunting to the opposition.

trying to get sanctions against this kind of bowling is like trying to get sanctions against switch hitting....ridiculous.

I knew someone was going to say something like this, which is why I was very clear when I said 'I wouldn't be surprised if..'.. unlikely to happen, but as I said.. I would not be surprised if someone tried.

 

[ethybubs]

More from the 'success' he has in causing injuries considering all 'body line' balls bowled to leg side theory fields never resulted in injuries. It shouldn't be more intimidating than as experienced in the 'body line series', but the success he has found with the varied length and lethal bounce is what makes it so daunting to the opposition.

A) It wasn't designed to hurt the Australians that was just an added bonus for Jardine.
B)How many skulls has Johnson fractured/ribs broken?

 

[blockerdave]

1. speed(140+ slower than morkel)
2. Bounce(A short pitched ball in a 5 day game at 140+ kph is nothing like a 150 kph bouncer bowled in a timeless test to batsman with minimal protection and a ring of fielders waiting for him to hit one.)
3. the ability to land the ball off the pitch when out of form (which has been 75% of his career)
4. the ability to bowl the easier of the two forms of swing.

I think that has fixed it up.

would take issue with number 4. a left armer bowling over the wicket to a right hander, who can get the ball to swing in, is very difficult to face at any speed, because of the difficulty in judging line.

 

[asprin]

^ Have to agree. During his early career, Irfan Pathan used to be potent because of that, even though he wasn't blazing fast. It's a very special skill to possess.

 

[blockerdave]

I'd personally class the balls bowled by Mitchell to be more bodyline than those of the classic 'body line series', particulary due to the absence of a leg side theory field setting. Infact I was only saying to myself after listening to the first dismisal described yesterday that I wouldn't be surprised if other teams tried to get sanctions applied against this type of bowling.

the leg theory field was what made it bodyline, because the catchers made orthodox defence risky (in terms of loasing the wicket), leaving the batsman the choice of being hit (without padding/helmets etc.) or offering chances to the fielders.

the same bowling without the field would be much easier to face.

Johnson is particularly difficult because of being a left-arm over bowler, providing an a "natural" angle across the body but being able to get the ball coming back in to the body, leaving the batsman unsure of the line to play. yesterday, a bit of swing and slightly variable bounce combined to him continuing the accuracy he showed in the ashes (which was highly variable before) made him very difficult to play.

in the past, johnson has always been easier to play when the ball isn't moving, and then his confidence drops and so does his accuracy/pace. the 2010/11 ashes is a case in point, the one match where he got the ball swinging (Perth) he ripped through us and Aus won handomsely, the rest of the games he couldn't and fell to pieces.

add in clarke's good captaincy in limiting him to short, fast spells, and you get these results.

----------

^ Have to agree. During his early career, Irfan Pathan used to be potent because of that, even though he wasn't blazing fast. It's a very special skill to possess.

exactly, and same with Johnson, when gets that movement he's on fire, when he doesn't, he can look ordinary.

not in the same class, but Allan Mullally for England, could never swing the red-ball like he could the white-ball. He was very mediocre in test-cricket, often bowling longish, unthreatening spells for not many runs but the batsman had hardly had to play at more than 20% of the balls. In ODIs, he got that swing going somehow, and was like number 2 bowler in the world for a while.

 

[kizla12]

Also Jono's slingy action makes picking up the length difficult. Not to the extend of a Thompson whose arm went behind his back on delivery stride but still a sling action combined with an accurately pitched short ball equals batsmen having less time to get out of the way or hook/uppercut.

 

[Guybrush Threep]

This is some of the worst fielding I've seen for a long time. Are the South Africans not used to being pushed around like this?

 

[RedskinsUK]

Has there been any word or confirmation of retailers in uk that will be selling db14?