Bowling

[cde]

So this is correct though? Hard to imagine, but alright. Thank you.

That’s the theory. If they like getting on the front foot make them play on the back.

As in real life, most of the time in four day and test matches the best bowling is a good length outside off. The preferences only come into their own if conditions and your bowlers allow. Say you have a player come in to bat and they strongly favour playing on the front foot through the off side. It will make no difference if you pitch the ball short and on middle or leg if the pitch is showing two bars for bounce and your bowler is a FM, he’ll pull you to leg side all day. If the pitch is four or five bars for bounce and you have an in form F bowler then it can pay off.

The field positions will help too. The default fields are a starting point and there to cover some basic positions, you will not get the best out of your bowers using them.

Limited overs I find are different and I have limited interest in playing them, I have setting that work well enough for me and stick to them

[Lynx54321]

None of the line/length stuff makes any notable difference so you're as well just leaving everything on default and clicking through faster.

[CricketNoob]

So this is correct though? Hard to imagine, but alright. Thank you.

[GrahamB]

Hi,

I've read you need to play "full length" if a batter is strong on it's backfoot and "short length" if he's strong on his front foot. That caught me weirdly. I do believe the contrary is the case, if he's strong on his front foot I should play a full length and a short length if he's better on his back foot to force him on his front foot.... Or do I have a logical error and I'm silly...?

Bowl short to a player whose strength is on the front foot.
Bowl full length to a player whose strength is on the back foot.
As for those batsmen that don't have a preference, perhaps neither.

[CricketNoob]

Phew. And I thought it's essential because it's part of cricket. Okay.....

[Dolphins]

Speaking of bowling; there comes another question on my mind: is it even possible in this game to challenge the refs decision?

No . Cant no DRS or anything like that

[CricketNoob]

Speaking of bowling; there comes another question on my mind: is it even possible in this game to challenge the refs decision?

[boonz101]

No worries, happy to help!

[CricketNoob]

Thank you very much for your response; so you pretty much confirmed my thoughts. As my nickname says, I'm a noob, new to cricket but I did have issues to imagine that'd be correct. Like I said, I found this weird. But hey... could've been accurate though, so I needed to ask here. Thank you again.

[boonz101]

Yeah I'm pretty sure that's not right. Think about if a fast bowler is bowling a bouncer at 150kph. As a batter, you're not gonna advance forward to try hit it down the ground, you are likely gonna move to your back foot and try hook it or pull it behind square leg (if you are gonna play at it at all that is)

If a bowler is bowling a full length delivery, you are more likely to use your front foot to defend for hit it down the ground

That's how I interpret it anyway

[CricketNoob]

Can't even remember honestly. Reddit, I believe.

[GrahamB]

Where did you read that?

[CricketNoob]

Hi,

I've read you need to play "full length" if a batter is strong on it's backfoot and "short length" if he's strong on his front foot. That caught me weirdly. I do believe the contrary is the case, if he's strong on his front foot I should play a full length and a short length if he's better on his back foot to force him on his front foot.... Or do I have a logical error and I'm silly...?