View Full Version : just short of a good length
jabbathehut
20 Nov 2008, 14:43
Question- When is just short of a good length going to become a good length
emperor
20 Nov 2008, 15:04
When back of a length becomes forward of a length? :confused:
Illinois Nazi
20 Nov 2008, 17:43
but then just on a good length becomes just short of a length.
Adelaide Hawk
20 Nov 2008, 17:59
Question- When is just short of a good length going to become a good length
When they shorten the pitch.
Gavin Excell
20 Nov 2008, 18:24
An excellent question.
There are those who say that being short of a good length is actually better than being precisely on a good length. I find this logic hard to accept but appreciate the spirit in which it is debated.
ashley12
20 Nov 2008, 22:31
The title "on a good length" is misleading anyway.
A yorker right at the toes is a good ball based on how far up the pitch the ball pitches, so that is a good length, as is a bouncer at the head/chest of a batsmen, which is also a good length...
Irrelevant either way, but a good point...
dr nick
20 Nov 2008, 22:37
it pretty much refers to balls pitching that would take the off bail.
Contrary to the popular belief that a good length ball is one where the batsman has a tough choice whether to go forward or back - which is short of a good length.
DoubleO7
21 Nov 2008, 00:53
Good length delivery:
A length which put's the batsmen in two mind's. Should i play off the back foot or should i play off the front foot.
Gavin Excell
22 Nov 2008, 18:11
Good length delivery:
A length which put's the batsmen in two mind's. Should i play off the back foot or should i play off the front foot.
does this mean then that "short of a good length" is, in fact, crap?
Adelaide Hawk
22 Nov 2008, 19:36
The perfect answer to the question was seen in the final delivery of the 3rd days play in this Test match. The ball that Stuart Clark bowled Elliott was a good length ball ... hitting a spot where the ball would clip the the top of the stumps. It was a ball that Elliott would have commited himself to playing on the front foot .. had he chosen to play it rather than let it go.
The ball "just short of a length" is one where the batsman is in two minds whether to play forward or back. It's quite simple really, and if you can't understand that, then you haven't played enough cricket.
Good length hits the top of the stumps.
Just short of a good length bounces over the stumps, but is still full enough to put the batsman in two minds about playing forward or back.
Thus the precise distance of a good length varies depending on the pitch conditions.
It is not really that difficult... ;)
themuddy#3
23 Nov 2008, 11:46
Maybe a good length varies because of height of release, so Mcgrath's good length would be different to brett lees good length.
therefore Mcgrath was always just short of a good length.
Pretty clever observation though:thumbsu: