Walk around your local pub and ask the question: in limited-overs cricket what’s the toughest delivery to score off?
I reckon that the great majority of answers would be ‘the yorker’, and it’s easy to see why. Okay, the 160 kilometres per hour late swinging ball on a length that seams away is harder to score off, but let’s just consider the usual suspects.
Remember, the question is about scoring runs. Let’s also keep the discussion to seamers and quicks.
If you’re willing to accept that the yorker is a reasonable answer, then why isn’t it bowled or attempted for the majority of deliveries mixed up with a variety of other deliveries depending on the bowler’s style to make sure that the batsman doesn’t expect a yorker every ball? Of course the yorker has the benefit of not only being difficult to score off but also threatens your wicket. All very obvious.
So why isn’t it bowled more regularly?
(Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
Yes, I know it’s very difficult to bowl, but I’m talking national-level professionals who are specialist white-ball bowlers. These guys have plenty of time to practice it and should be proficient, even under pressure. And please don’t give me the ‘when the ball’s new and hard there’s more potential for wickets and limiting runs by chucking it into the pitch for movement off the seam, letting it swing, surprising the batsmen with bounce’ yadda yadda. I know and agree, but that doesn’t stop the seam up bowler from bowling yorkers more often than they do. The question is about the regularity of the yorker.
Batsmen move around the crease to better handle the yorker, look at the field setting for queues et cetera, but even if the batsman anticipates a yorker, scoring off it regularly is still a bigger ask than for other deliveries. Is the risk not worth the reward in the eyes of the bowler?
The research I’ve done over both ODI and T20 matches would suggest the yorker is used on average less than once an over until around 35th and 13th overs respectively and then climbs steadily but erratically depending on the bowling group of any one team. A Billy Stanlake-type bowler clearly delivers fewer yorkers per over on average.
My statistical sample of 20 overs in each of ODI and T20 may be way too small to get reasonable indicators. Also, influences such as the required run rate, ground size, run chase rate, wicket condition, and batsman skill set all play a part in the bowling strategy and therefore the frequency of yorkers.
When a yorker was attempted but missed the target and went for two runs or more, the next ball was not a yorker in about 80 per cent of instances. Additionally, that next delivery went for more than two runs over 60 per cent of the time. Double penalty. Why, after trying the yorker and getting your range, would you not attempt another one next ball? Perhaps psychologically you don’t want to get it wrong again. Do teams actually use this type of statistic as a guide to what to bowl, or are there more Darren Lehmann and fewer John Buchanans in charge?
For the argument that too many yorkers enables the batsman to anticipate it, I’m not convinced. I give you James Faulkner, who comes on at the death, when everyone knows he’s probably going to bowl five slow balls in the over. Do batsmen set themselves for the slow ball as the normal delivery? No – they keep playing it as the variation to normal. It has always been so. The great exponent of the slower ball, Victorian Ian Harvey, was treated likewise. Why wouldn’t batsmen treat the yorker in the same inexplicable way?
It’s possible that the slower ball tends to work regardless of length, so bowlers opt more for the slow ball than the yorker and it’s easier to bowl.
I would argue that regardless of all these factors a yorker is a yorker is a yorker and as such should be bowled more often than it is, particularly now that so many bowlers have developed an effective slower ball, potentially giving them the slower yorker. I would argue that this ball would not need to be as accurate as the full-pace yorker, to be just as effective.
Doesn’t everyone look at the likes of Lasith Malinga and Peter Siddle and see the yorker’s effectiveness? I can’t read minds and I don’t know what strategy the coaches and captains plan, but surely the use of yorkers is high on the list of weapons in the arsenal.
Perhaps it is just too difficult to bowl, but given the money available for high-impact bowlers, why wouldn’t you spend all day perfecting it?
I’ll leave it up to Roar contributors. My vote is for many more yorkers.
anon
Roar Pro
At the death they are looking to hit the ball over the fence, so the yorker becomes very effective. Especially the wide yorker. Our bowlers seem to just bang the ball it into the ground harder and shorter when things aren't going their way.
Marty
Roar Rookie
Well if its just a matter of coaching then why doesn’t every test bowler have a Starc caliber late in swinging Yorker in their arsenal? Is it because they choose not to, their coaches haven’t figured out how to do it, or because it’s no where near as straight froward as you seem to be suggesting? As far as learning new skills go, initially it’s done at slow speed, but if you are seriously suggesting that you then attempt it at international level without extensive practice at full pace and expect to be successful then you’re right, we will have to agree to disagree. Anyway, cheers for the article and chat.
RowiE
Roar Rookie
Hi Marty, I think I'll just agree to disagree on this one. I do agree that Starc's yorker is effective because sometimes it has late movement, and that he probably has a high degree of what is termed 'natural ability'. To assert that you can't learn late movement is like asserting you can't learn how to bowl a wrong'un. If you can't learn late movement, what else can't you learn? As a coach for about 20 years, including at first grade level, I'd like to know, so that I can stop wasting my time on some skill development areas and only work on those skills that can be learnt. I think it's a given that you have to practice etc, but the reason can't be injury, because all new skills are learnt at slow speed, so that argument doesn't work for me. Finite time is an issue. Perhaps these internationals could spend more time on skills and less on advertising and other time spent with promoters? Thanks for your input, I think we are on different boats here. Cheers, RowiE
Marty
Roar Rookie
The reason Starc’s yorker is so effective is that he gets late movement. This is something that can’t be taught, it’s just how it comes out of his hand. That’s what I mean by natural ability. Hazlewood could practice bowling Yorkers until the cows come home but they’ll never be as effective as Starc’s. All the time he’s doing that he’s not practicing his length balls, and moving away from his strength. Skills need to be constantly practiced at a high level to be maintained at the elite level, and the amount of time available to train is finite to avoid injury. Just because he’s paid well doesn’t mean he can train 24/7.
Derek Murray
Roar Rookie
Rabada uses it a lot. He’s cleaned up set test batsmen with it
Carlin
Roar Rookie
It amazes me that not many bowlers bowl the traditional yorker aiming for the base of the stumps or the batsmen toes. The old fashioned yorker was en vouge in the mid 90s with Wasim and Waqar. I also remember Danny Morrison getting a ODI hat trick in the 1994 (I think) vs India bowling three in a row. The focus with batsmen being more creative is to bowl yorkers wide of the stumps. I guess the more they focus and practice on that skill, the traditional type of yorker becomes less prevalent which is sad.
RowiE
Roar Rookie
Thanks Marty, agreed it's very difficult. Not sure I can agree with the net and translating into the match difficulty, I think that applies to everything, Ravi Ashwin worked for a couple of years on his carrom ball before he was game enough to bowl it in a match. I reckon it's a matter of persistence. If you practice it and can do it in the nets, but then can't do it in a match, you haven't got it mastered or you need a coach to help you understand how to deliver in the middle, under pressure. I'm also not sure about the 'natural ability' proposition. I think it's more of developing a bowling style and methodology that works for you. I agree that Hazlewood may have greater difficulty in bowling yorkers than Starc, but not because of any 'natural ability' it's because he has spent the last 15 years learning how to bowl length. Regardless, you can't just bowl length in white ball cricket as a general strategy, you'd get hammered. So Josh has to change his length and pace, why not include the yorker? I think he's good enough, he certainly gets enough money to practice it.
RowiE
Roar Rookie
Flexis, it seems that risk v reward is the general answer, and I'm happy to go with that, except that some bowlers manage to bowl yorkers effectively, even against the big hitters. My research indicated that the yorker was a greater risk later in the game, particularly in T20, but it was very effective when delivered somewhere between the bottom of the stumps and about half a metre in front of the popping crease, that's 1.5 metre range, if the batsman didn't move. I'm not saying that a ball in this area isn't hit, but it is generally effective run wise. Yes Malinga is different, but Siddle bowls at 135 kph tops and bowls it very effectively. Overall, yes I agree that it's very difficult to bowl, get it wrong and it's punished, but I still want to see more of them, perhaps I just love it when it comes off. Thanks for your comments. RowiE
Marty
Roar Rookie
Very hard skill to execute with virtually no room for error and if you miss you get punished. You can practice in the nets all you want but that doesn’t necessarily translate to match conditions. Different players have different natural abilities. Hazelwood’s is hitting a length and Starc’s is bowling full. At the elite level it’s about developing those natural abilities to the maximum to gain an advantage. Telling Hazlewood to bowl more yorkers would be like telling Starc to bowl more length, why would you?
Flexis
Roar Rookie
You’ve answered your own question a few times. Risk vs Reward. Get a slower ball wrong and it’s still a chance of a wicket or dot. Get a yorker wrong and you’re probably gonna pay a bigger price. Batsmen comes out to a slower ball and they are premeditating and more reliant on the pace of the ball. Batsman comes out to a yorker and it ain’t a yorker. Malinga gets away with it cause he’s a gun and his action is so difficult to judge.
Mark
Guest
When bowlers bowl a half-volley or a full-toss, in nearly all cases they have not tried to bowl that delivery, but have tried to bowl a yorker or at least a very full-pitched delivery. Yorkers are a hard delivery to bowl, especially under pressure and with a batsman moving around in the crease. And if you miss with a yorker, you probably end up with a half-volley or a low full-toss that the batsman may put 10 rows back. One of the reasons Mitchell Starc is such a good bowler is that he can bowl yorkers, with some consistency, at 150Ks. But there aren't many bowlers as good or as fast as Starc. If you bowl at 135K and are facing Stoinis or Maxwell or Kohli or Stokes in the last few overs of a run chase, an attempt at a yorker that is less than perfect may result in a six. In such a situation, a slower ball has more margin for error for the bowler.
Paul
Roar Guru
I was watching some of the Saffers/England ODI last night and Pollock was talking about the England team setting fields for the bowler to deliver yorkers wide of the off stump. That suggests to me more thought is being given to use this type of delivery, but not in the traditional manner, ie not trying to get the batsman out. Your piece focuses on yorkers in white ball cricket but I rarely see this delivery being used in Tests any more, apart from Starc but he seems to only bowl it when the ball is swinging or when he's bowling to tailenders. I agree it's a delivery that's a great weapon for a bowler to have, yet so few seem to be able to delivery it, which makes no sense given how much time cricketers at the top level have to practice.