General Cricket Discussion
- Thread starter aussie1st
- Start date
spooony
Club Captain
What is a slower ball then?
JD10
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2007
- Location
- North England/Melbourne
Also many good bowlers of the slower ball don't need to slow there momentum but only the release is different.
And why is it not correct? Umpires have even warned KP over switch hit but neither Ashwin or Hafeez has been warned for that kind of delivery. I don't see anything wrong in it. How about pause bowling is a skill? No one has done it before, so skill?
----------
And a good batsman would hit any kind of ball, it does not matter if the bowler take a pause before bowling.
^It could be a skill sure, but I don't think it's something we want to encourage. Do you really want to watch a bowler waddle up and pause for 10-20 seconds while he waits for the batsman to switch in and out of his stances? It would be BAD for cricket I feel. Umpires can warn players to stop time wasting and I think if a bowler continually paused in delivery and/or aborted his run-up just to see what the batsman was doing he would be vulnerable to a chat from the umpire. We already saw KP warned for time wasting by switch hitting, I can see no reason why bowlers should be immune from wasting time just because they think a batter MIGHT switch hit. That would mean whenever a proven switch hitter came in, the game would just bog down into a stupid cat and mouse saga.
spooony
Club Captain
If you do the switch then you are basically a right handed batsman if you are a left handed batsman actually. That means the field placing is turned around and fielding restrictions like on the leg side is ignored and technically the umpire should no ball the bowler
You know what is the bowlers counter of the switch? A bowler running in and suddenly bowling around the wicket when you were expecting him over the wicket.
You clearly missed the point.
----------
Let's say a right-hand batsman switches and you 'pause', you now have the opportunity to correct your line and bowl accordingly, an opportunity you wouldn't have otherwise.
Last edited:
spooony
Club Captain
No I did not miss the point. The switch was brought up and I merely commented on the controversy surrounding that as well. You switch you turn the field placing around making it illegal at times and the bowler should be no balled.
So in short the ICC should look into it as it technically equals a bowler suddenly bowling over the wicket when he was steaming in over which is not allowed. So in short the switch gives a unfair advantage to batsman. That is my point.
spooony
Club Captain
haha not against it at all. Just technically if you switch it would overstep the leg side restrictions. So according to the laws the bowler should be no balled. They must just fix that part of the rules because somewhere someday some umpire is going to try and hit the spotlight
^Yes it could happen. They also need to decide what to do with the LBW and wide laws. If you suddenly switch sides, which side is your leg side for those purposes? To me the easiest solution is to say the fielding team gets ALL the advantages if a batsman switches stance eg. the 2 behind square rule is temporarily lifted, LBW can be given no matter where the ball pitches, and bowler can bowl in the tram lines on either side of the stumps and it won't be a wide.
spooony
Club Captain
Sound like a good idea. Ball must just go on to hit the stumps should be the lbw requirement
Another thing I was pondering about is all these reviews, previews and whatever they have in cricket now. Ain't it getting a bit too much going upstairs every time with American style "amount of reviews". The technology is not perfect yet its used. Why can't a umpire be the sole judge of lbw? Or edges and such? Its taking the edge out of cricket sit and wait for a blind third umpire to make the wrong decision where the guy in the middle could have just made wrong call. Plus it makes the bloke in the middle look like a arse everytime his decision is over turned.
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
Since their decisions are only overturned when they've definitely got it wrong, I'd say it's not exactly a bad thing that the decision is now correct?
There are still a little too many controversial caught behind/edges, but for the most part the system works well. If a batsman gets a massive inside edge onto their pad, it's only fair they're not given out. Likewise, when someone edges to first slip and it's not given out, it's good that the bowlers can get their due reward for it.
As a spinner, I also appreciate that it's tough for umpires to really judge what a ball is doing, so when you know you've bowled one that goes straight on and have hit them in front of middle, half way up the stumps I definitely like seeing them get their deserved wicket. The negative aspects of it, are a lot of players still refer marginal decisions rather than obvious clangers.
There are still a little too many controversial caught behind/edges, but for the most part the system works well. If a batsman gets a massive inside edge onto their pad, it's only fair they're not given out. Likewise, when someone edges to first slip and it's not given out, it's good that the bowlers can get their due reward for it.
As a spinner, I also appreciate that it's tough for umpires to really judge what a ball is doing, so when you know you've bowled one that goes straight on and have hit them in front of middle, half way up the stumps I definitely like seeing them get their deserved wicket. The negative aspects of it, are a lot of players still refer marginal decisions rather than obvious clangers.
