• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Mark Wood

Status
Not open for further replies.
Billy Rocket said:
Do fast bowlers really need wass run ups? Do they actually end up running faster on delivery if they start their run at Scotch Corner? I've never understood that.
Click to expand...

Marshall had a relatively short run and was fairly sharp!!

Having said that Mikey had a long run up so don't really know if there is a right or wrong approach
 

Malcolm Marshall had it all, could swing and seam it when necessary and do 90mph throat balls. Woody is all about pace, it's all or nothing with him. Shame he isn't effective bowling 80mph.
 
King Kareoke said:
Marshall had a relatively short run and was fairly sharp!!

Having said that Mikey had a long run up so don't really know if there is a right or wrong approach
Click to expand...
I saw a TV interview with Michael Holding (I'm certain it was him) where he said that a bowler's run up should be what is comfortable to that
individual person. There is no right or wrong distance to run prior to releasing the ball - the run up adds relatively little to the bowler's actual pace. Most of it comes from the final few steps and the 'coil' and release point.

I also don't agree that you can manufacture fast (or faster) bowlers by tinkering with their natural action - making them conform to a 'one size fits all' standard simply makes them, for me, more prone to injury.

In other words, you're either quick, or you're not. And as most of our wickets in this country do not encourage fast bowling, the naturally quick lads (and lasses) find it more profitable to slow down rather than bowl at full pelt, as it brings them greater rewards.
 
Billy Rocket said:
Didn't bowl 90mph but was hostile. A vastly bigger threat than Woakes.
Click to expand...

He did. He was over 90mph a few times.

matt_catchpennie said:
Wood should have played, and plunkett should have been given a test too. Both would have been more of a threat then jake ball or chris woakes.
Click to expand...

100% right. Both Wood and Plunkett had the batsmen jumping around, which is more than can be said of any of the Test bowlers.

Parkside said:
Let's remember Plunkett isn't a 1st choice in Yorkies CC XI. He can't bowl lengthy spells required in red ball cricket without breaking down. Likewise with Wood.
Click to expand...

He wouldn't have to, nor would Wood. You get the lengthy spells from your other bowlers. Mitch Johnson rarely bowled more than 4 overs a spell last time we were humped in Oz.

There are ways to protect your luxury players. Plunkett and Wood can focus on bowling as fast and as hostile as they can every time they bowl. Anderson, Broad and Stokes can do the donkey work.
 
Last edited:
brandon said:
He did. He was over 90mph a few times.



100% right. Both Wood and Plunkett had the batsmen jumping around, which is more than can be said of any of the Test bowlers.



He wouldn't have to, nor would Wood. You get the lengthy spells from your other bowlers. Mitch Johnson rarely bowled more than 4 overs a spell last time we were humped in Oz.

There are ways to protect your luxury players. Plunkett and Wood can focus on bowling as fast and as hostile as they can every time they bowl. Anderson, Broad and Stokes can do the donkey work.
Click to expand...
True but you'd expect them to bowl 3 or 4 such spells each day and I doubt they could manage that.
 
Parkside said:
True but you'd expect them to bowl 3 or 4 such spells each day and I doubt they could manage that.
Click to expand...

You don't think he could manage 4 x 4 over spells?! He bowled 10 overs in (effectively) less than two sessions today.

I don't get why it's such a problem. He doesn't even have to be on the field all the time when he isn't bowling.
 
Of all the shite hoyed at the England selectors, the criticism that they didn't pick enough bowlers with pace is the silliest. They should have picked Plunkett. That's all it basically boils down too. I agree, they should - I had a thread on here spitting blood about it, when Finn broke down. But there are plenty of reservations about his durability and after him, who? Wood was unfit, Finn unfit, Roland-Jones unfit, Jamie Overton unfit.

They deserve plenty for some of the batting picks, the batting coaching generally and the absurd selection of Mason Crane as the only cover for Ali. Curran was an utterly bizarre selection too. But I do have a degree of sympathy for them on the pace bowlers.
 
Parkside said:
Sidearse, Patterson, Brooks and Bresnan are their front four with Coad also. Admittedly playing CC in Spring and Autumn doesn't help Pudsey's cause but that's a big reason why we don't produce fast bowlers.
Click to expand...
Question that about Sidebottom .... think he lost a lot of last season due to injury and isn't he retiring? Not sure.

Sillypoint will know the crack on this.
 
Bri said:
Question that about Sidebottom .... think he lost a lot of last season due to injury and isn't he retiring? Not sure.

Sillypoint will know the crack on this.
Click to expand...
Yes, he's retired-on Yorkies coaching staff iirc. In fact Brooks, Patterson and Bresnan all looked past their best last season yet Pudsey still only played a couple of games.
 
Parkside said:
Yes, he's retired-on Yorkies coaching staff iirc. In fact Brooks, Patterson and Bresnan all looked past their best last season yet Pudsey still only played a couple of games.
Click to expand...

Only played a couple cos he had a groin injury which kept him out for a bit and England commitments
 
brandon said:
You don't think he could manage 4 x 4 over spells?! He bowled 10 overs in (effectively) less than two sessions today.

I don't get why it's such a problem. He doesn't even have to be on the field all the time when he isn't bowling.
Click to expand...
If only ICC rules allowed an off field M.A.S.H. unit, we'd be laughing.

brandon said:
He did. He was over 90mph a few times.
Click to expand...
Really? I didn't hear any mention of that. Just that he'd bowled the second fastest ball of the tour at 149kph (88mph). The fastest being Woakes. Good news though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy Rocket said:
If only ICC rules allowed an off field M.A.S.H. unit, we'd be laughing.


Really? I didn't hear any mention of that. Just that he'd bowled the second fastest ball of the tour at 149kph (88mph). The fastest being Woakes. Good news though.
Click to expand...

145kph is 90mph mate, so not sure what you've heard - if the figure was 149kph though, thats 93mph.
 
brandon said:
145kph is 90mph mate, so not sure what you've heard - if the figure was 149kph though, thats 93mph.
Click to expand...
Well TMS were converting on t'net and then there's my cloth lugs...

Though I'm fairly sure that the answer was less than 90.
 
brandon said:
He did. He was over 90mph a few times.



100% right. Both Wood and Plunkett had the batsmen jumping around, which is more than can be said of any of the Test bowlers.



He wouldn't have to, nor would Wood. You get the lengthy spells from your other bowlers. Mitch Johnson rarely bowled more than 4 overs a spell last time we were humped in Oz.

There are ways to protect your luxury players. Plunkett and Wood can focus on bowling as fast and as hostile as they can every time they bowl. Anderson, Broad and Stokes can do the donkey work.
Click to expand...

Might be breaking rocks at Her Majesty’s pleasure soon...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top