EarlCG
Club Cricketer
You're quite right - as far as the game was concerned the game decides that the majority of these were "good balls", apart from the deliveries which were called a wides and the ones I edged when charging down the wicket to the legside which would quite probably otherwise have been equally been penalised. IMO though the deliveries you were bowling at the end were wider than your standard, as I will describe more fully later on.
However, to describe the crux of my argument in a paragraph, my problem is that you were able to bowl in a way which stopped me playing to half of the field (the legside) and then packed the remaining half (the offside) with all nine fielders. That, in my opinion, is bodyline in reserve and works purely because because we are playing a computer game with limited (and in some cases, flawed) mechanics.
From what I remember these catches were going to point and short cover, to out swingers and slower balls by fast and medium bowlers, bowling outside off stump. I think you were finding that those deliveries, however well you connected with them, weren't cutable/couldn't be slashed over point.
Now my standard custom field is a 6/3 (offside/onside) with men at second slip, a gully, point and short cover up close plus a deep mid off and a deep extra cover. That makes it less offside biased than even the standard ring field you use, plus there is large gap through the infield between the short cover and the deep mid off, with only the deep extra cover defending the rope. I think you're simply seeing the problem opposition batsmen face against your standard bowling from the other point of view - for the spell when wickets tumbled I was simply bowling outswingers and slower balls with a similar line to that you default to.
It's not just about timing - it's also placement. You can hit "perfect" attacking shots, and they won't always go to the fence even if they get past the field (they slow up just short of the rope) as the game believes you haven't played it to the ideal part if the ground. Whether the game judges correctly is a matter of debate - I'm not convinced either way tbh.
Firstly, I don't come down the wicket as much against any other player; I usually only use my feet against the spinners (who I am coming to the conclusion are completely negated against a good opponent with their ideal length (in the games opinion) being virtually on the batsmen's toes). However, this is the only way I have found to regularly combat your standard line and length combined with the ring field. If I come down the wicket and play a lofted shot I am far more likely to get it over the infield, even if I don't quite time it, compared to if I played the same shot from within my crease where I find myself far more prone to looping up a catch for you.
There's a large amount of truth in that. Firstly I think you've backed up my point about me being largely compelled to come down the wicket. The fact was I was having to play risky shots to combat your bowling and after that start I had hoped, having made it halfway to my target so early on, that I could play more cautiously from then on. Unfortunately I struggled readjusting to the different timing speed and length of timing windows of playing from within my crease.
Unless you meant to put "different only in the fact" I'd certainly argue with that; I can't remember having ever "packed the offside boundary edge". I think I had a deep point after a while as well as my usual deep extra cover, but that was it as far as deep fielders. If you did mean to put "different only in the fact", I think the phrase "packed the offside boundary edge" is a crucial difference and leads back to the crux of the problem.
Again, I'm not disputing that game thought they were okay, but in my opinion they should either be called wide (and they were certainly borderline at best) or I should have been able to play them onto the completely vacant legside (I'm not talking about through square leg here or mid wicket here - just through mid off). It has to be one or the other or we get into imbalanced situations like the field you employed.
I really don't think the singles were there to be had. Where were the gaps with all 11 men on the offside? Admittedly I was reluctant to take just singles and leave Siddle on strike, but at that point I was of the mindset that playing to your tactic would be accepting it, which I wasn't prepared to do. Therefore I kept coming down the wicket to try and meet the ball while it was towards the middle of the pitch laterally in an attempt to negate the width of you bowling and hit it towards the vacant the midoff as, in my opinion, I would be perfectly entitled to do if it wasn't a wide ball. However the timing window for this was barely more than a sliver and so I kept edging it.
That's a part of the equation that made me feel quite so strongly - in really caught me off guard as it just didn't seem necessary. You'd already shown you were capable of bowling me out normally with the previous nine wickets. If you had continued to do so I have little doubt you'd have won and I would have had no grounds for complaint - the fact you did cheapened the victory in my view. Personally I put the manner and quality of my performance above the outcome. If I had lost normally I would have been frustrated having relinquished the momentum on two key occasion, but would have been satisfied that I had at least given you a decent game.
If you moved the cursor wide, then you weren't bowling your usual line and length, surely? Your cursor certainly didn't start any closer to the pads than usual.
I'd honestly expect those to be called a wide in limited overs (and particularly Twenty20) personally. The lines don't apply in the same way as in Test/FC Cricket remember, since forcing the batsmen to leave the a delivery being to the bowler's advantage in limited overs, while it being far less beneficial in Test/FC where you want to make the batsmen play the majority of the time. Therefore umpire's are far stricter on wides.
I can only remember scoring one boundary which was with a lofted shot off of a free hit which negated the field. I just don't feel like I should have been in the position of being left with lofted shots as my main scoring option when the whole of the legside was wide open - it's just not cricket IMO - but that's where I was with that field and bowling line.
Still, I appreciate your willingness to conform to whatever the group consensus is. I think now is the right time for debating it now you've explained things from your point of view.
I think we can see from Flintoff's figure of 3/7 how effective my charging against him was. To repeat the only closer fielders I use on the offside were a second slip, a gully, a point and a short cover (I don't include a deep mid off as close by definition.) As I have previously stated, the standard ring field you use employs more close fielders (just not the short cover, who I don't think took more than two catches, if that).
I'm happy to stick to pre-defined rules though if that's what people want to do.
Again, I appreciate your willingness to accommodate. I would want further agreement on it before considering, but personally, I don't think I'd be willing to stick around if you were to use wideline against me in the future, even if me quitting saw my name on any blacklist. I'd rather play fewer games rather than lots of games where that tactic is employed as I know I simply won't enjoy it with the latter. My sense of fair play is too integral to my enjoyment of the game and I'm afraid that tactic contravenes it.
Agreed - it was an excellent contest that final phase of play aside. I do feel like I lost it rather than you winning it (which you definitely did in the first game), but you deserved the victory (which was still the most likely result IMO, even before the wideline) for another two superb fightbacks/recoveries. It's purely the manner of how the game ended that I have a problem with.
Right - I need a lie down after all that... reckon anybody will mind if I take a nap at my desk after having already wasted an hour or two of work time?
Last edited:
