Which evidence would that be?
And where is the said evidence of such? I'd like to see it really as I wouldn't think it to be that rare, other than the fact that many bowlers simply don't attempt to do it.
You picked on the least important part of the post. What I consider the meat is above the bit you mention. The addition of Rhodes was just to add some colour to what was effectively a description of basic spin bowling skills.
Well if it was such a good idea you'd imagine more people'd attempt it, I'd say.
Quite often actually.
You obviously have never seen Bedi bowl.
yes, and it is also harder to judge the speed of the ball the higher the ball is when coming towards you. Once above eye level it becomes almost impossible to judge for a split second, but enough time in a batsmens brain to create doubt
A bit. Not a massive amount, but a bit.
Not if the bowling doesn't allow them to. That's the whole point. Good bowling-attacks can bowl line-and-length for 40 overs (and if the batsmen don't go for it and gift wickets away that'll probably mean a score of 140-150 off 40 overs) then revert to Yorkers, which doesn't allow the going-hell-for-leather, no matter how many wickets are in hand. And, obviously, by then there's no choice, you've got to try, and sooner or later if you try hitting Yorkers you're going to get bowled.
Prey, where did I say it was the be-all-and-end-all? Obviously bowling wicket-taking deliveries is helpful, especially in the early overs, but it's still very much a 2nd to a good economy-rate.
Err, obviously, because both are excellent in both terms.
But you see said doubt all the time and mostly it just results in a slightly false stroke - not a lob to the infield.
Your operative word is 'good bowling attacks', that are composed of containing as well as expensive-but-wicket-taking bowlers.
You've commentated on several discussions by going 'his e/r is better, so he is it for me', implying that you pretty much judge an ODI bowler almost entirely based on E/r
I thought Grimmett was one of those useless oldies who only profited from the unprofessionalism of most of his peers...
Err, not neccessarily. Ntini and Nel certainly don't "bleed runs more often than not", it's near enough 50\50 in the last 3 years. I've seen plenty of occasions where all 3 have bowled economically, and Hall as well occasionally. Of course, none of them are that good at the death so whoever bowls there often ends-up having his figures ruined. Smith, though, is smart enough to realise that Pollock has the most to gain from not bowling at the death.
And yet the likes of Wasim, de Villiers, Donald, Fleming, hell even Gough, were all much more effective death-bowlers than him.
Nope, not almost entirely. Probably about 75\25, but it's not even quite as simple as that. There are bowlers who have had long careers of getting wickets, but many of those wickets have not been through good bowling, they've been throwaways. This, IMO, does not make someone a good bowler.
Sort of. Don't see how that changes the fact that Grimmett took wickets without relying on spin much at all. I am talking about the method of his operation here, not how high quality it was.
No, it goes to show that when you got Gavaskar for an opening bowler, you are fooked.
Disagree. Wasim, sure - he was by far and away the best death bowler ever but Waqar was as good as anyone else- he bled runs, took crucial wickets and deflated the opposition.
Such is the nature of yorkers. No other delivery has such a small margin of error for going into 'freebie' as the yorker is when it goes wrong. Which is one reason why most great bowlers arnt yorker specialists either..
okay fair enough. To me its 60-40
And the same argument's been meted-out a thousand times to you about Bradman and God-knows-who-else... their method was superior, if it was so easy because of the lack of professionalism, why didn't 50 or 60 people do it?
Abid Ali and Solkar weren't the worst.
And who on Earth suggested you need good seamers if you're a good spinner on a turning pitch? Whoever they were, they were insane.
Donald, Gough, Fleming and especially de Villiers stopped runs at the death, too. Not as effectively as Wasim, but effectively nonetheless.
But the best ODI death-bowlers are... and only a tiny number have ever been capable of being good at other stages, too. But there have been one or two: Wasim, Donald, de Villiers, Gough, Fleming. And, to an extent, Waqar. Waqar was certainly not the worst ODI bowler either.
Lets not get into that debate again. I do consider Bradman as the best. However, i don't consider Hobbs, Hutton,Headley, etc. to be a patch on Tendulkar, Richards, Lara etc.
I am sure they compare favourably with the average opening bowlers.
Well you just called Prasanna insane.
Yes. But i'd put Waqar in the same bracket and Gough has no business being there.
Yes they will. But the difference would be 5-100 and 3-50 between not having good seamers and having good seamers.
lol.
And therefore it means that the way Grimmett gets his wickets is pretty immaterial - none of it matters because he's a pro in a World of amateurs.
They certainly compare favourably with the Gavaskars, Jaisimhas and others who just bowl an over or two to get the shine off.I am sure they compare favourably with the average opening bowlers.
Exactly. When foreign teams presented them with such wickets. But at home, when the Indian groundsmen could choose, turning pitches resulted and such bowlers could still take bags of wickets cheaply even if the ball didn't loop and dip (certainly doesn't require any condition to impart spin on the ball - sure it's slightly easier to spin a rougher ball than a shiny one but no way is it impossible to spin a shiny one).
Gough in the end mastered Yorkers even better than his old mentor. He didn't become anywhere near as devestating with them, of course, because he didn't bowl them as often, but there were countless games between 1994 and 2000 where Gough bowled 4 or even 5 death overs for little more than 4-an-over, which is an exceptional effort.
Not neccessarily. I've seen pitches where spinners have shot teams out for low totals with barely an over bowled by a seamer.
Apart from the fact Garner was from a different ODI era, his Yorker had the added bonus of coming from an obscene height. Nor was a he a massive inswing-style bowler. Garner wasn't exactly a Yorker-only bowler, either, his Yorker was just the most memorable part of his bowling. Like Richards and his stroke through midwicket.
Well then you know nothing about spin bowling. It is a zillion times harder to spin a new ball compared to an old one - which is why you don't see Kumble, Murali, Warney, etc. opening the bowling in front of far crappier pacers. It is also zillion times harder to loop a ball that isnt worn out. Your argument would be valid if cricket had the option to begin the innings with an old ball - which it doesnt. Therefore, spinning pitches or not, spinners are at an inherent disadvantage if they don't have good pacers to back them up because they invariably face a scenario of 30-40 extra runs and 1-2 less wickets taken on a consistent basis.
Such pitches are extremely rare.
So what ? Yes, Garner had the plate made for him given his gigantic stature but that is a part and parcel of who he was as a bowler. Doesnt diminish his accomplishments one bit.
