Slow balls are effective
Especially when is comes from a 6'5 tall menacing fast bowler who averages 90 mph. Harmison's beauty of a slower ball to Clarke in the last over of the day's play was perhaps the best slow ball I have ever seen. No one, least of all Clarke, expected Harmison to bowl that ball which completly flummoxed him. Clarke, having been peppered by short balls aimed at his chest and ribs, played too soon and all over the ball to be bowled. That was the final nail in the Aussie coffin.
Replays of the ball showed that Harmison held the ball loosely, and released it like a normal ball. Now we see most fast bowlers release the ball from the back of the hand to slow the pace of th ball. But this technique of holding the seam with just the tip of his fingers makes it tougher to detect, I suspect. That, and the context in which he bowled this ball, makes it the best slow ball in my book, and deserves a full post in my blog! So there!
Just a quick point - why is it that the batsmen and the fielders have to troop away with 2 balls to go in the final over? So what if a wicket falls in the final over of the day's play? Why can't the next batsman come out and play the 2 balls? This rule is a stupid one, and must go. If the batting side is bad enough to lose a wicket midway through the final over, they must be forced to facee the music for the rest of that over. Imagine Lee walking out to face 2 searing hot Harmison balls yesterday - chances are that Australia would have lost one more wicket. Why penalise England for taking a wicket? Play out the day's quota of overs, wicket falling or not, I say!
Replays of the ball showed that Harmison held the ball loosely, and released it like a normal ball. Now we see most fast bowlers release the ball from the back of the hand to slow the pace of th ball. But this technique of holding the seam with just the tip of his fingers makes it tougher to detect, I suspect. That, and the context in which he bowled this ball, makes it the best slow ball in my book, and deserves a full post in my blog! So there!
Just a quick point - why is it that the batsmen and the fielders have to troop away with 2 balls to go in the final over? So what if a wicket falls in the final over of the day's play? Why can't the next batsman come out and play the 2 balls? This rule is a stupid one, and must go. If the batting side is bad enough to lose a wicket midway through the final over, they must be forced to facee the music for the rest of that over. Imagine Lee walking out to face 2 searing hot Harmison balls yesterday - chances are that Australia would have lost one more wicket. Why penalise England for taking a wicket? Play out the day's quota of overs, wicket falling or not, I say!
Yeah, I totally agree with you on the closing early if a wicket falls thing. And as far as old harmi’s slow ball is concerned. - He took one finger off the ball – that is his right index finger and used just his middle finger to let the ball go. This made the slowed the ball coming out of the hand and hence the slower ball. Nicely done. I am fairly certain that if that ball was delivered at another time Clarkie would have picked it up. It is just that the tension was so gripping during the last over, Clarkie stiffened up a bit. And the slower ball itself was made to look even better than it was because it brushed clarkie’s toe and deviated into the off stump – adding to the drama. From a purely technical perspective, I found the ball that Giles bowled to Clarkie in the first innings – which reversed a bit in the air and defeated Clarke completely a better ball.
And yeah, surely – Lee should have had to face the music, it would have made fantastic viewing..
Harsha
Posted by
Anonymous |
7:22 AM
fantastic slower ball, and very well observed by you! You were bang on - the magic of the ball was in the context it was bowled in.
Posted by
ze rambler |
5:54 AM
Don't forget the one that Walsh got Thorpe with a few years ago, and Thorpe didn't know what hit him...
Posted by
Gameboys |
3:12 AM