Results 1,201 to 1,225 of 1754

  1. Post
    Paddles wrote:
    Kuggs didn't get hammered from short of a length... He got hammered from length and full... He didn't bowl short enough... Southee did not bowl a single yorker. At all... He bowled full in his opening spell with swing, mostly to the left hander Dhawan. But Southee bowled most his balls either short, or short of a length. That is what Kuggs needed to do. Its what he does best. It is legitimate bowling tactic, I have no issue with bowlers bowling short against sloggers. But serving up length when they're slogging and looking to smash on the up or get under it with full half vollies - I have an issue with Kuggs doing. He was looking to bowl swing like Steyn. Its not his go. He needed to bring his length back, and take the covers and downtown out of the equation.
    You still don't get what I mean... said, just short of a length, meaning length or standard orthodox deliveries, which is why Kuggs got hit all over the park, was just too predictable... yeah, Southee didn't bowl sandshoe toe crusher deliveries, but as a rough gage was pitching the ball up about 15cm short of yorker length. good luck trying to hit those for 6.

  2. Post
    signman wrote:
    You still don't get what I mean... said, just short of a length, meaning length or standard orthodox deliveries, which is why Kuggs got hit all over the park, was just too predictable... yeah, Southee didn't bowl sandshoe toe crusher deliveries, but as a rough gage was pitching the ball up about 15cm short of yorker length. good luck trying to hit those for 6.
    No I don't understand you.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq4sMR2z4WY

    Here are the game highlights. Goto 8min 30.

    First 6 Kuggs is hit for is full. Second 6 Kuggs is hit for is full. The four at 8min 57 is backish of a length (but not short of a length) on the hip pitching outside leg. Dhawan gets underneath it to smash it easily.

    The Southee gets a wicket with a short one. This is where Kuggs should have been bowling and just in front of. Certainly not full.

    Kuggs then tries to bowl a length ball but is again on the fuller side that Shankar smacks for 4 down the ground. At 9min 34 He then finally bowls length which is flick armed away to the onside because it has a leg side angle given how wide of off Scott K released the ball, length hit but angle all wrong (great angle for a shorter ball though which I think must have been his plan). At 9min 40 he totally overpitches and serves a full half volley smashed down town.

    So I repeat, Kuggs bowled too full and needed to bring his length back. He should have bowled short and short of a length. Like Southee did a lot. All 3 Southee wickets were from short balls. Southee was smashed by Dhoni when he bowled full and on the pads at 14.07. That is not a good area to bowl. Dhoni actually opens up and hits to the off side of the sight screen. Which just demonstrates how much Dhoni is falling apart in SR play, he should have belted it over long on for 6 but he was possibly batting to the field which means he no longer trusts his power to clear the field at 80m.

    The saddest irony of all is that Scott K has a reputation for bowling too short. I prefer him bowling too short, to too full!
    Last edited by Paddles; 7th February 2019 at 1:15 pm.

  3. Post
    When Richard Hadlee started as as international quick he was a tear away quick getting up around 145kms.
    He got smashed by international batsman and someone had a sitdown with him and said there is more to bowling than raw speed, and Hadlee took it to heart for two reasons. One, it was good advice. Two, he fond himself dropped so he knew he had to make some changes.

    Up until now Kuggs has been able to not only put up competent domestic numbers, but in some years even lead the domestic bowling in wickets by simply bowling fast. In Australia they have plenty of merchants in the 140plus area, but we only have a few in New Zealand and as such he has been able to get by with blasting out inferior batsman (e.g. the Clarksons of this world) and not having to out think his opponent.

    I made an observation about him before his debut in T20s that he will make an adjustment and just not expect to blast people out.

    Let's see how he reacts - hopefully they give him the next game so he can make a response from a bowling perspective.

  4. Post
    wrighty wrote:
    When Richard Hadlee started as as international quick he was a tear away quick getting up around 145kms.
    He got smashed by international batsman and someone had a sitdown with him and said there is more to bowling than raw speed, and Hadlee took it to heart for two reasons. One, it was good advice. Two, he fond himself dropped so he knew he had to make some changes.

    Up until now Kuggs has been able to not only put up competent domestic numbers, but in some years even lead the domestic bowling in wickets by simply bowling fast. In Australia they have plenty of merchants in the 140plus area, but we only have a few in New Zealand and as such he has been able to get by with blasting out inferior batsman (e.g. the Clarksons of this world) and not having to out think his opponent.

    I made an observation about him before his debut in T20s that he will make an adjustment and just not expect to blast people out.

    Let's see how he reacts - hopefully they give him the next game so he can make a response from a bowling perspective.
    This is apples and oranges. Hadlee was a gorgeous outswing bowler with the new ball, as good as anyone ever, and when he dropped his pace, became a channel swing and seam bowler. There is no place for channel bowlers in the modern limited overs game if they don't have the ability like Rabada does to mix it up with short balls and yorkers. (Even then I wouldn't call Steyn nor Rabada channel bowlers - and Steyn has a serious limitation of bowling length far too often in limited overs - see Elliot 6 in WC semi - McGrath, Pollock and Hadlee, sure they were channel bowlers) . But Philander and Abbas demonstrate the value of channel bowling still in test cricket.

    I don't want Kuggs to slow it down, I want him to bang it in. Bowl those short rubbish balls and do what Corey and Mitch did. Crap gets wickets. Master it - like Wagner has for tests and Mitch pretends to in white ball. In red ball, sure, let Kuggs work on bowling swing, but even then, I'd be happy for him to replace Wagner when he retires (Wags is already 32...)

    But if Kuggs could master a yorker, that would damn ideal for white ball... But given our bowling woes at present, I would happily have him banging it in when under the pump - there are worse things in life than going for 6 runs an over when under the pump. Even a talent like Ngidi often resorts this when under pressure. Plunkett knows nothing else. Plunkett has no slower ball and no yorker. He just bangs it in.

    * Pretty sure Hadlee dropped his pace after starting county cricket - where he was already entrenched as the NZ spearhead ahead of Collinge and Dayle... Hadlee bowled damn quick in 78 when he skittled England.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRluAShb5w0

    It looks pretty rapid to me... Hadlee described it as bowling "flat out for 2 hours" because the crowd jeered him and NZ... A few years later he was to be booed again in NZ, this time for his short run up...
    Last edited by Paddles; 7th February 2019 at 1:20 pm.

  5. Post
    Paddles wrote:
    No I don't understand you.
    There's nothing complicated about it mate, if you get it very full just short of yorker length} in good areas, {obviously not on leg side of the pads, that easy runs for any batsman} & cramp them up those deliveries are very difficult to score from, why bowl it short a lot of the time ? sure, back of a length & very short ones can be effective as long as those deliveries are bowled in line with the batsman, even then you can get smashed for a boundary because of the format of the game.

  6. Post
    signman wrote:
    There's nothing complicated about it mate, if you get it very full just short of yorker length} in good areas, {obviously not on leg side of the pads, that easy runs for any batsman} & cramp them up those deliveries are very difficult to score from, why bowl it short a lot of the time ? sure, back of a length & very short ones can be effective as long as those deliveries are bowled in line with the batsman, even then you can get smashed for a boundary because of the format of the game.
    By I don't understand you, I politely mean your argument is nonsense to me. You miss a yorker short, its a full pie, a half volley - those get smashed. With all due respect, you're speaking gibberish to me. Full on pads is a good area? This is nonsense to me. Utter nonsense. Leg side of pads? Thats a wide (if not easy runs as you say) to a rhb... I'm sorry - I know we have differing opinions, but I find your argument very poor for reasons given above.

    You either land an effective yorker, or you don't. Bowling full is not a good thing unless the ball is swinging. Even then - Jimmy Anderson credits his success in test cricket to pull his length back! Someone either hits their yorker, or they bowl full rubbish. I prefer short rubbish to full rubbish. Any day of the week.

    Here are the highlights, all Scott Kuggs balls that disappear to the boundary are included. He bowled too full. Not full toss full, but a half volley and too full for a good length. But he should not be bowling length anyway, the one time he hits it, he still disappears cos his angle of delivery is all wrong (and yet ideal for a short ball).

    He needed to bring his length back and bowl short of a length, and short.

    End of.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq4sMR2z4WY

    Here are the game highlights. Goto 8min 30.

    First 6 Kuggs is hit for is full. Second 6 Kuggs is hit for is full. The four at 8min 57 is backish of a length (but not short of a length) on the hip pitching outside leg. Dhawan gets underneath it to smash it easily. This is Dhawan's talent, and Kugg's poor angle for that length.

    The Southee gets a wicket with a short one. This is where Kuggs should have been bowling and just in front of. Certainly not full.

    Kuggs then tries to bowl a length ball but is again on the fuller side that Shankar smacks for 4 down the ground. At 9min 34 He then finally bowls length which is flick armed away to the onside because it has a leg side angle given how wide of off Scott K released the ball, length hit but angle all wrong (great angle for a shorter ball though which I think must have been his plan). At 9min 40 he totally overpitches and serves a full half volley smashed down town.

    So I repeat, Kuggs bowled too full and needed to bring his length back. He should have bowled short and short of a length. Like Southee did a lot. All 3 Southee wickets were from short balls. Southee was smashed by Dhoni when he bowled full and on the pads at 14.07. That is not a good area to bowl. Dhoni actually opens up and hits to the off side of the sight screen. Which just demonstrates how much Dhoni is falling apart in SR play, he should have belted it over long on for 6 but he was possibly batting to the field which means he no longer trusts his power to clear the field at 80m.

    The saddest irony of all is that Scott K has a reputation for bowling too short. But he bowled too full in this game. The video proves it. I prefer him bowling too short, to too full!

    You seem to expect NZ bowlers to go for and land yorkers, and ignore the fact that SA only has Rabada nailing them, BK (at his peak) and Bumrah in India, Starc in Australia, and noone in Pakistan is. Malinga for SL but he's rusty now, noone for Bangladesh. England havn't had anyone bar Woakes and he cheats by going for the wide yorker with a field set for it so the batsman knows when its coming. We all know what happened to Ben Stokes in WT2016 to Carlos when he tried for the yorkers. It is a difficult skill to master.

    Yes Ferg has bowled some beauts, so have Boult and Southee. Southee is now too gun shy to attempt to bowl them, and Ferg and Boult both have been belted when missing them too. Henry is also too scared to attempt them anymore. Boult is a canny bowler who can bowl a host of angles, and has managed to survive well enough in IPL and intl cricket death with cunning rather than nailing yorker after yorker. That said, even he is going for 8.8 runs an over in the IPL and 8.5 in t20i.

    I'll take the short rubbish over missing the million dollar ball rubbish.
    Last edited by Paddles; 7th February 2019 at 2:05 pm.

  7. Post
    Paddles wrote:
    By I don't understand you, I politely mean your argument is nonsense to me. You miss a yorker short, its a full pie, a half volley - those get smashed. With all due respect, you're speaking gibberish to me. Full on pads is a good area? This is nonsense to me. Utter nonsense. Leg side of pads? Thats a wide (if not easy runs as you say) to a rhb... I'm sorry - I know we have differing opinions, but I find your argument very poor for reasons given above.

    You either land an effective yorker, or you don't. Bowling full is not a good thing unless the ball is swinging. Even then - Jimmy Anderson credits his success in test cricket to pull his length back! Someone either hits their yorker, or they bowl full rubbish. I prefer short rubbish to full rubbish. Any day of the week.

    Here are the highlights, all Scott Kuggs balls that disappear to the boundary are included. He bowled too full. Not full toss full, but a half volley and too full for a good length. But he should not be bowling length anyway, the one time he hits it, he still disappears cos his angle of delivery is all wrong (and yet ideal for a short ball).

    He needed to bring his length back and bowl short of a length, and short.

    End of.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq4sMR2z4WY

    Here are the game highlights. Goto 8min 30.

    First 6 Kuggs is hit for is full. Second 6 Kuggs is hit for is full. The four at 8min 57 is backish of a length (but not short of a length) on the hip pitching outside leg. Dhawan gets underneath it to smash it easily. This is Dhawan's talent, and Kugg's poor angle for that length.

    The Southee gets a wicket with a short one. This is where Kuggs should have been bowling and just in front of. Certainly not full.

    Kuggs then tries to bowl a length ball but is again on the fuller side that Shankar smacks for 4 down the ground. At 9min 34 He then finally bowls length which is flick armed away to the onside because it has a leg side angle given how wide of off Scott K released the ball, length hit but angle all wrong (great angle for a shorter ball though which I think must have been his plan). At 9min 40 he totally overpitches and serves a full half volley smashed down town.

    So I repeat, Kuggs bowled too full and needed to bring his length back. He should have bowled short and short of a length. Like Southee did a lot. All 3 Southee wickets were from short balls. Southee was smashed by Dhoni when he bowled full and on the pads at 14.07. That is not a good area to bowl. Dhoni actually opens up and hits to the off side of the sight screen. Which just demonstrates how much Dhoni is falling apart in SR play, he should have belted it over long on for 6 but he was possibly batting to the field which means he no longer trusts his power to clear the field at 80m.

    The saddest irony of all is that Scott K has a reputation for bowling too short. But he bowled too full in this game. The video proves it. I prefer him bowling too short, to too full!

    You seem to expect NZ bowlers to go for and land yorkers, and ignore the fact that SA only has Rabada nailing them, BK (at his peak) and Bumrah in India, Starc in Australia, and noone in Pakistan is. Malinga for SL but he's rusty now, noone for Bangladesh. England havn't had anyone bar Woakes and he cheats by going for the wide yorker with a field set for it so the batsman knows when its coming. We all know what happened to Ben Stokes in WT2016 to Carlos when he tried for the yorkers. It is a difficult skill to master.

    Yes Ferg has bowled some beauts, so have Boult and Southee. Southee is now too gun shy to attempt to bowl them, and Ferg and Boult both have been belted when missing them too. Henry is also too scared to attempt them anymore. Boult is a canny bowler who can bowl a host of angles, and has managed to survive well enough in IPL and intl cricket death with cunning rather than nailing yorker after yorker. That said, even he is going for 8.8 runs an over in the IPL and 8.5 in t20i.

    I'll take the short rubbish over missing the million dollar ball rubbish.
    Well, reckon your argument is just a nonsense... why the hell would you want to favour back of a length & very short stuff over cramping players by getting the ball much fuller or using yorkers in a format where you can only bowl 20 overs ? just doesn't have much logic to it, I'd use short & back of a length bowling mainly as variation in that format & ball more fuller lengths to cramp them.

    In ODIs because you have much more time you can use the back of a length bowling & short stuff much more often because batsmen are not trying to smash you all over the place like in 20/0, you adapt to the format that you're playing.

  8. Post
    signman wrote:
    Well, reckon your argument is just a nonsense... why the hell would you want to favour back of a length & very short stuff in a game over cramping players by getting the ball much fuller or using yorkers in a format where you can only bowl 20 overs ? just doesn't have much logic to it, I'd use short & back of a length bowling mainly as variation in that format & ball more fuller lengths to cramp them.

    In ODIs because you have much more time you can use the back of a length bowling & short stuff much more often because batsmen are not trying to smash you all over the place like in 20/0, you adapt to the format that you're playing.
    Ugh - first you claim Kuggs bowled short.

    I gave you the video. All his full and length balls getting belted.

    He bowled too full.

    Do you agree? Or does the video lie? If the video doesn't lie, you were wrong to begin with.

    As for yorkers, he is unable to land them often enough so he doesn't try. It's that simple. Same with Southee. Same with Henry.

    You can debate that with them. I think it makes sense.

    You want bowlers bowling full besides yorkers or swing? You're the only one in the world who wants this. And it really is yorker length or bust. Half vollies have no place in cricket if the ball aint hooping. There was a time bowlers thought they could get away with a low full toss, even those days are well over now.
    Last edited by Paddles; 7th February 2019 at 4:18 pm.

  9. Post
    signman wrote:
    Was great finishing by him with the bat, but his bowling was poor, he bowled too much just short of a length stuff, with batsman looking to attack you from ball one he made it too easy for them to smash him for a 4 or 6... .
    It was his full and length balls flying to the boundary!

    You have the video. I am done with this debate. He did not bowl short enough. He needed to pull his length back. You seem to think he should just nail yorkers every ball. Well - he isn't Bumrah or Starc. He doesn't have that skill. And he certainly wasn't trying to.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6MaYQ4dieM

    Use the same time captions. Someone geoblocked the first one.

    Sorry for being curt. But he bowled too full. The video shows this.

  10. Post
    i would love for NZ to raise a crop of fast bowlers who could simply nail yorkers like a peak Malinga. But given it is by its very nature, the most difficult length to hit, given it being the greatest distance away from the point of release - thus having the smallest possible angle of margin of error, it is going to take some serious training for this to ever occur.

    We struggle to even make bowlers who can consistently bowl in the channel on a good length at a decent pace. It is a lot easier to bowl short and short of length, with a much greater angle and margin for error.

    If yorkers were so easy, Steyn would rip them out more often. There's a reason he doesn't.

  11. Post
    Paddles wrote:
    Ugh - first you claim Kuggs bowled short.

    I gave you the video. All his full and length balls getting belted.

    He bowled too full.

    Do you agree? Or does the video lie? If the video doesn't lie, you were wrong to begin with.

    As for yorkers, he is unable to land them often enough so he doesn't try. It's that simple. Same with Southee. Same with Henry.

    You can debate that with them. I think it makes sense.

    You want bowlers bowling full besides yorkers? You're the only one in the world who wants this.
    Didn't say Kuggs bowled short, said he bowled orthodox deliveries that were asking to be smashed in a game where you basically attack from ball one.

    Most of the bowlers don't execute yorkers that well because they clearly don't practice them enough, as you said earlier in thread practice makes perfect, that's the old saying anyway, fact is nothing can be done perfectly, but it can be done very very bloody well if you put the hard yakka in to the point where you can become really good at it.... all these blokes do is play cricket, so if you have a weakness you work on it, otherwise how else do you improve ?

  12. Post
    signman wrote:
    Didn't say Kuggs bowled short, said he bowled orthodox deliveries that were asking to be smashed in a game where you basically attack from ball one.
    signman wrote:
    Was great finishing by him with the bat, but his bowling was poor, he bowled too much just short of a length stuff, with batsman looking to attack you from ball one he made it too easy for them to smash him for a 4 or 6... .
    signman wrote:
    Most of the bowlers don't execute yorkers that well because they clearly don't practice them enough, as you said earlier in thread practice makes perfect, that's the old saying anyway, fact is nothing can be done perfectly, but it can be done very very bloody well if you put the hard yakka in to the point where you can become really good at it.... all these blokes do is play cricket, so if you have a weakness you work on it, otherwise how else do you improve ?
    He was picked to execute the skills he does have, not the ones we'd like him to have maybe in the future, if ever at all. Why expect him to start nailing yorkers against India when he has a reputation for bowling short? He didn't do the one thing he was expected to do. Which is bowl short of a length with a few short ones. He bowled far too full and when he finally hit length it was at the wrong angle. Nothing short of a length or short went to the boundary off his bowling. His over pitched balls flew for 6 and 4.

  13. Post
    You mean, what you expected him to do..?

  14. Post
    oddjob wrote:
    You mean, what you expected him to do..?
    Well unless Stead and Larsen have in it in their minds that after years and years of bowling short of a length for ND and NZ A, Kuggelijn was going to suddenly transform in this game and just bowl 24 yorkers, then no.

    He's a bang it in merchant. And there's nothing at all wrong with that. If they want to make him a yorker specialist, get him a custom coach and pick him when he has demonstrated he is able to execute well in a match scenario, but I don't reasonably see it happening overnight. Do you?
    Last edited by Paddles; 7th February 2019 at 4:48 pm.

  15. Post
    haha ****...come to catch up on the chat...but walls of text is too much to digest :P

  16. Post
    turning_point wrote:
    haha ****...come to catch up on the chat...but walls of text is too much to digest :P
    This, lol. Short 'n sweet ladies.

  17. Post
    I think Paddles did well and won that exchange plus was nice and polite.

    Pity none of his highlights links worked as were geoblocked so he loses points for that.

  18. Post
    wrighty wrote:
    I think Paddles did well and won that exchange plus was nice and polite.

    Pity none of his highlights links worked as were geoblocked so he loses points for that.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF_rGLdqnFU

    Whoever is geoblocking it will get bored of it - here's a third upload - if this gets geoblocked - just look for the highlights package that is the 15min 23 second version and the time marks remain the same.

  19. Post
    Its actually quite tiresome debating with some of the folk on here, and opinion from anyone not just mine, that differs from their own gets a wall of text shoved down their throat

    I get it you want to feel important on a very minute cricket forum. I get it.

  20. Post
    Chaosfollowsme wrote:
    Its actually quite tiresome debating with some of the folk on here, and opinion from anyone not just mine, that differs from their own gets a wall of text shoved down their throat

    I get it you want to feel important on a very minute cricket forum. I get it.
    I get that you want to resort to ad hominem instead of the details of the debate. I get it.

    You don't have to read said wall of text when I go into details. It is optional. And you certainly don't have to resort to ad hominem. You're better than this.

    Personally I think the details of any debate are typically far more important than the person debating unless you are raising bias fallacies.

  21. Post
    No I just cbf because you just have to be right.. all the time, the Santner thing could still be going if I didn't voluntarily just decided to just leave it even though I requested to park the argument till after the WC - you still kept going!


    You should also leave the f5 button alone and go outside dude, walk away from GPforums..

  22. Post
    Chaosfollowsme wrote:
    No I just cbf because you just have to be right.. all the time, the Santner thing could still be going if I didn't voluntarily just decided to just leave it even though I requested to park the argument till after the WC - you still kept going!


    You should also leave the f5 button alone and go outside dude, walk away from GPforums..
    You're still getting personal... If you want to discuss me, perhaps start a thread on me? I don't think this is the appropriate thread for it.

    I disagreed with you on Santner. Still do. Am happy to continue that debate in the future if you wish.

    Santner has been a gun for NZ in limited overs cricket so far. An absolute gem.

    Will he have a good world cup? No idea. But he's the best form candidate so far of what we have heading into it and I believe his batting at 8 matters in addition to his bowling. There is nothing personal about that topic.

  23. Post
    Goodnight mate.. lol..

  24. Post
    Thank god the start time is back to 7pm tonight - hooray to the Eden Park Residents association! They hold more power than the BCCI!

  25. Post
    Indigo1 wrote:
    Thank god the start time is back to 7pm tonight - hooray to the Eden Park Residents association! They hold more power than the BCCI!
    lol... at NZC's expense...