Which way will it go?
It's been a few days now since the end of the last test match. It's going to take a lot longer than that for me to forget it. When those DVD's of the Edgbaston Test were rushed out with the title "The Greatest Test", I did think "mmm... (I even "mmm..." in my head), that may be a little premature. I mean, they're going to look pretty silly if the next one is even better." Of course, I didn't think that the next one would be even better, and it wasn't, not from a neutral standpoint, but personally, I enjoyed it more.
As I said in the last post, I had been expecting a draw, because the wicket was flat, it hadn't broken up and the Australian batting line up is rather strong. To win, I thought that we would need at least 3 wickets by lunch, 6 by tea, and, of course, all 10 by the end. In each instance, we were one short. Even so, at the end of the first two sessions, I was very happy with England's performance. It sounded like they'd been bowling well. In particular, Flintoff's bolwing sounded special (I was listening to the radio) first to Hayden in the morning, and then to Katich and Gilchrist in the afternoon. Hayden was made to look very ordinary, playing and missing repeatedly before being bowled around his legs, and when did Gilchrist last score just 4 in 30 balls?
After tea though, I thought that Vaughan got it wrong. Earlier even, before tea, after Flintoff had finished his afternoon spell, I was thinking that the obvious choice to replace him was Jones, who had taken 6 for 53 in the first innings, and is the other bowler in the England team who can make the ball reverse swing. After tea, I was sure that he would be brought back. Instead, Giles bowled a few more innocuous overs from one end (his success may depend on batsmen going after him) while Harmison banged it in from the other (please, please pitch it up, for Christ's sake). What was going on? Why wasn't Jones bowling? It seems like I wasn't the only one wondering (see the comment in the 73rd over). Anyway, just to prove that I am one hell of a smart ass, when Jones was finally brought back, he took a wicket in his second over after, making one go back in to Clarke like a particularly bendy banana. When Hoggard dismissed Gillespie with a straight one in the next over, I thought that the end was nigh. But no, with the old ball reversing nicely and Freddie getting ready for a final spell, they took the new ball. Big mistake, fellas. What the hell were you thinking of? The old ball was moving. The new one didn't, allowing Warne to bat for ages with Ponting. Shit.
Anyway, I'm just being picky, because overall England were great, and Vaughan has to be applauded for his captaincy. I just hope that he's been reading what the Australians have been saying about the difficulty they're having in playing reverse swing. Reverse swing is the difference. Flintoff and Jones have been down to the crossroads at midnight, or whatever is the cricketing equivalent (around the pavilion at tea time?).
By the way, does anyone know (as if anyone is reading this) the physics behind reverse swing? There's a good article about its history over on cricinfo, but I'm yet to read a comprehensible and convincing explanation of the phenomenon. From those I have read, I've got the idea that it happens because air sliding past a ball which is travelling at over 80 mph actually goes around the rough side quicker. Why this happens though, is not entirely clear. Does the air just give up trying to go through the rough bits because the ball is travelling so quickly? I'm not a physicist, as you may have guessed. Also, does bowler actually do something different when trying to make a ball reverse swing, or does he just try to bowl a ball in the same way that he would an outswinger/inswinger and then watch it go the other way? Not many people seem to know. Call Sarfraz!!
As I said in the last post, I had been expecting a draw, because the wicket was flat, it hadn't broken up and the Australian batting line up is rather strong. To win, I thought that we would need at least 3 wickets by lunch, 6 by tea, and, of course, all 10 by the end. In each instance, we were one short. Even so, at the end of the first two sessions, I was very happy with England's performance. It sounded like they'd been bowling well. In particular, Flintoff's bolwing sounded special (I was listening to the radio) first to Hayden in the morning, and then to Katich and Gilchrist in the afternoon. Hayden was made to look very ordinary, playing and missing repeatedly before being bowled around his legs, and when did Gilchrist last score just 4 in 30 balls?
After tea though, I thought that Vaughan got it wrong. Earlier even, before tea, after Flintoff had finished his afternoon spell, I was thinking that the obvious choice to replace him was Jones, who had taken 6 for 53 in the first innings, and is the other bowler in the England team who can make the ball reverse swing. After tea, I was sure that he would be brought back. Instead, Giles bowled a few more innocuous overs from one end (his success may depend on batsmen going after him) while Harmison banged it in from the other (please, please pitch it up, for Christ's sake). What was going on? Why wasn't Jones bowling? It seems like I wasn't the only one wondering (see the comment in the 73rd over). Anyway, just to prove that I am one hell of a smart ass, when Jones was finally brought back, he took a wicket in his second over after, making one go back in to Clarke like a particularly bendy banana. When Hoggard dismissed Gillespie with a straight one in the next over, I thought that the end was nigh. But no, with the old ball reversing nicely and Freddie getting ready for a final spell, they took the new ball. Big mistake, fellas. What the hell were you thinking of? The old ball was moving. The new one didn't, allowing Warne to bat for ages with Ponting. Shit.
Anyway, I'm just being picky, because overall England were great, and Vaughan has to be applauded for his captaincy. I just hope that he's been reading what the Australians have been saying about the difficulty they're having in playing reverse swing. Reverse swing is the difference. Flintoff and Jones have been down to the crossroads at midnight, or whatever is the cricketing equivalent (around the pavilion at tea time?).
By the way, does anyone know (as if anyone is reading this) the physics behind reverse swing? There's a good article about its history over on cricinfo, but I'm yet to read a comprehensible and convincing explanation of the phenomenon. From those I have read, I've got the idea that it happens because air sliding past a ball which is travelling at over 80 mph actually goes around the rough side quicker. Why this happens though, is not entirely clear. Does the air just give up trying to go through the rough bits because the ball is travelling so quickly? I'm not a physicist, as you may have guessed. Also, does bowler actually do something different when trying to make a ball reverse swing, or does he just try to bowl a ball in the same way that he would an outswinger/inswinger and then watch it go the other way? Not many people seem to know. Call Sarfraz!!
posted by djbrd at 1:36 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home