social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
He's already done thatWow, an entire year of record breaking performance, and you put it down to dropped catches. Next thing you'll tell us is McGrath's just been lucky all these years in Test cricket.
He's already done thatWow, an entire year of record breaking performance, and you put it down to dropped catches. Next thing you'll tell us is McGrath's just been lucky all these years in Test cricket.
So tell me - how many of those big innings did NOT involve said let-offs?Wow, an entire year of record breaking performance, and you put it down to dropped catches. Next thing you'll tell us is McGrath's just been lucky all these years in Test cricket.
Do you not think that was a tongue-in-cheek comment, knowing full well as everyone does that I've already done that?He's already done that
Pollock was most certainly quite hostile when he first came onto the scene and right up until 2001 or so he was still bowling at a bit above 80mph. He was certainly a far cry from the medium pacer he is now.I think a certain amount of pace is helpful. Without either pace or awkward bounce off a length to make strokeplay more difficult, you're not going to be that successful. There's the odd exception, like Pollock and Collymore, but I think it holds true most of the time.
Brett Lee barely swings the red ball. certainly not conventionally at least.Brett Lee pretty conclusively disproves that.
Without a decent accuracy, no bowler is anything.
It is for an Australian cricketer. It is harder for younger blokes to force themselves into state sides and Aussie cricketers always have knack of being later bloomers.24-25 is not "such a young age".
Yeah, I know that. He is still reasonably effective though, and he doesn't have much pace or the awkward sort of bounce that your McGrath and Ambrose types got. Not a great bowler these days, but still reasonably good.Pollock was most certainly quite hostile when he first came onto the scene and right up until 2001 or so he was still bowling at a bit above 80mph. He was certainly a far cry from the medium pacer he is now.
Pollock was no quicker than Kallis and Klusener when timing was first brought in in 1998 - they were all in the low 80s mostly, late 80s occasionally.Pollock was most certainly quite hostile when he first came onto the scene and right up until 2001 or so he was still bowling at a bit above 80mph. He was certainly a far cry from the medium pacer he is now.
Possibly because he hasn't bowled with the new red Kookaburra too often, and a Kookaburra doesn't often swing conventionally for much more than 15-20 overs.Brett Lee barely swings the red ball. certainly not conventionally at least.
In which case why do so few Aussies have short careers?It is for an Australian cricketer. It is harder for younger blokes to force themselves into state sides and Aussie cricketers always have knack of being later bloomers.
Klusener was extremely hostile when he first burst onto the scene before his ankle injury.Presumably he was bowling at around 90mph consistently and after injury he was reduced to bowling slower off cutters for 3-4 balls every over.Pollock was no quicker than Kallis and Klusener when timing was first brought in in 1998 - they were all in the low 80s mostly, late 80s occasionally.
Cant see how someone bowling at 77-78 mph regularly isnt a medium pacer to be honest. Occasionally he gets it up to 80, but he used to consistently bowl at 82-83 mph before 2001The only time Pollock lost a serious amount of pace was when he injured his ankle in 1996.
Yes, he's been getting very, very gradually slower since 2001 but he's certainly far from a medium-pacer, he's not putting the ball down at 71mph.
Was it Atherton who said that he found (early) Pollock as fast as Donald?Pollock was no quicker than Kallis and Klusener when timing was first brought in in 1998 - they were all in the low 80s mostly, late 80s occasionally.
The only time Pollock lost a serious amount of pace was when he injured his ankle in 1996.
Yes, he's been getting very, very gradually slower since 2001 but he's certainly far from a medium-pacer, he's not putting the ball down at 71mph.
Honestly the only occasion i remember him getting the ball to swing for more than a couple of overs was in Sydney against India in 03/04. By and large otherwise hes rarely ever got the ball to swing with any sort of consistency and certainly nowhere near as much as he has in ODIs where hes actually been a lot more successfulPossibly because he hasn't bowled with the new red Kookaburra too often, and a Kookaburra doesn't often swing conventionally for much more than 15-20 overs.
Lee has, on occasions, taken the new red ball and sprayed it all over everywhere. And been ineffective even as he swung it..
He has on a few occasions, most notable at TB in 2005.And he is also occasionally capable of bowling reverse-swing. Still hasn't managed to make that much of a weapon of it, though.
He wasn't bowling at 90mph in 1998 (the only time he'd have been timed pre-ankle-injury), he was bowling at Pollock pace.Klusener was extremely hostile when he first burst onto the scene before his ankle injury.Presumably he was bowling at around 90mph consistently and after injury he was reduced to bowling slower off cutters for 3-4 balls every over.
77-78 is medium-fast IMO. Only once you go down to the early 70s are you medium - and virtually no-one of that pace is any use in Test cricket. Test-cricket is not a game for medium-pacers, you need to be medium-fast at the very least.Cant see how someone bowling at 77-78 mph regularly isnt a medium pacer to be honest. Occasionally he gets it up to 80, but he used to consistently bowl at 82-83 mph before 2001
He certainly got it to swing for a while against England the previous year at the same ground. The SCG is clearly the most swing-friendly ground in Aus. Even then, of course, he bowled two good-'uns to Vaughan and Butcher (didn't get the decision on the 2nd one) and then sprayed it.Honestly the only occasion i remember him getting the ball to swing for more than a couple of overs was in Sydney against India in 03/04. By and large otherwise hes rarely ever got the ball to swing with any sort of consistency and certainly nowhere near as much as he has in ODIs where hes actually been a lot more successful
That's why I said "not much" not "none at all". There have, clearly, been one or two occasions where he has. Mostly, though, when he has managed to get it to reverse-swing he's looked clueless as to how to use it.He has on a few occasions, most notable at TB in 2005.
Exactly. But with pace alone, he would be a left-handed Tino Best. The fact is that the movement, bounce and accuracy are what will bring him success ADDED to the pace. The pace is not primary.No.
10 - 15 ks slower and he's Bracken or Bradshaw.
Both good bowlers but without the edge in pace that would see them be consistently successful at test level
Johnson's big attribute is being able to do the things he does AT PACE
Dale Steyn proves it. As does Edwards, because he's really only deadly when it's swinging.Brett Lee pretty conclusively disproves that.
Without a decent accuracy, no bowler is anything.
Can't exactly remember the exact number off of the top of my head, but the fact that he was dropped several times doesn't mean he didn't get the runs. When he was dropped he made the opposition pay big time, and later on in the year he tended to give less chances. Theres no way you're going to bat chancelessly for an entire year.So tell me - how many of those big innings did NOT involve said let-offs?
77-78 is medium-fast IMO. Only once you go down to the early 70s are you medium - and virtually no-one of that pace is any use in Test cricket. Test-cricket is not a game for medium-pacers, you need to be medium-fast at the very least.