Piyush Chawla

[Prince EWS]

Harbhajan > Powar, as ER > SR. Not that I reckon Powar is going to be getting a hell of a lot of ODI wickets, other than against England.

4.6 is never, ever a good ER. Accept that and you see why scoring-rates are so fast at the current time. You'll only become a truly top-notch OD bowler if you aim high (ie, at the 4-4.1-4.2 mark).

It really depends when you find yourself bowling. If you're an opening bowler who bowls his first seven off the reel and the comes back to bowl three of the five six overs at the death, then 4.6 is very, very good economy rate. Powar tends to bowl his ten out in the middle overs though, so 4.6 isn't too flash. I don't think anyone is suggesting he's going to be awesome though; just that he's good to watch, offers a refreshing attitude and is, at least, ODI standard.

Regarding your scoring rates comment: I can just imagine you saying that in 1991 after the "change of eras" as you put it regularly about an economy rate of 4.1 never being any good if you had witnessed all the earlier ODIs. I think we'll look back at the early to mid 2000s as the start of a new area in five years or so as the scoring rates have quite obviously gone in the last few years, and it's not all because of bad bowling either. The trend will probably continue with Twenty20 cricket becoming more readily played as well, whether we like it or not.

 

[JBH001]

Interesting discussion, pity I have not seen either of these bowlers bowl - cricket coverage in NZ is absolutely awful, Aussie is miles better by comparison (Though, to be fair, being swamped with uni means little time for cricket anyway).

But as a sometimes average and often poor off-spinner for school I have enjoyed reading some of the comments about the art - especially some of the insightful comments by SJS and vic_orthodox and that great little excert from Swervy.

What I would like to ask, is where do say Warne and Murali rank (not as a comparison mind!) in terms of flight and loop? Especially against say past masters like Prasanna and Bedi? Maybe SJS can give an opinion?

Murali used to be quite good from what I remember, especially around the late 90's to early 2000's before excessive work on the doosra seemed to, in my eyes, make him a little lazy (injuries may have affected his action too, and his ability to put revs on the ball for greater dip at the last minute). However, recently - from time to time - he seems to have returned to that old paradigm (especially I think, as I read, in the latter tests against Bangladesh).

Warne has, of course, often been a champion in that regard.

 

[honestbharani]

The point here is, flight is just like any other weapon for a bowler like speed or turn. Just being able to turn a ball alone won't get you any wickets, and neither does bowling at a good pace guarantee you wickets. You always have to couple these with control and the same goes for flight. A guy who can turn the ball a mile but has no control is just as bad as a guy who can throw the ball up nicely but can't control it.... There is no real way to say one is better than the other, tbh...

 

[SJS]

What I would like to ask, is where do say Warne and Murali rank (not as a comparison mind!) in terms of flight and loop? Especially against say past masters like Prasanna and Bedi? Maybe SJS can give an opinion?

Thats an interesting question.

I started answering and it is becoming a full fledged article. I find it difficult to answer this without going into the are of flighting in some detail and that takes some words.

Doubt if we want to do that here do we ? So I have cut and pasted the two pages I had just written and may finish it off and post as an article.

 

[Prince EWS]

Thats an interesting question.

I started answering and it is becoming a full fledged article. I find it difficult to answer this without going into the are of flighting in some detail and that takes some words.

Doubt if we want to do that here do we ? So I have cut and pasted the two pages I had just written and may finish it off and post as an article.

It doesn't bother me whether you post it here or up on the main page as an article, but I'd like to read it regardless so please put it somewhere.

 

[Perm]

Interesting discussion, pity I have not seen either of these bowlers bowl - cricket coverage in NZ is absolutely awful, Aussie is miles better by comparison (Though, to be fair, being swamped with uni means little time for cricket anyway).

The 7 match ODI series between England and India was on Sky TV mate

 

[Richard]

Considering he is bowling against Indian batsman, traditionally the best players of spin in the world, and bowling on the flat Indian pitches I think 4.6 is an okay economy rate, particularly when coupled with a good strike rate.

If he's bowling on flat pitches it just says he's not going to be that effective on flat pitches - but nonetheless, I'd expect some pitches in Indian domestic cricket to offer some receptiveness to spin, in which case a top-notch spinner should do much better than 4.6-an-over, regardless of how good a player of spin the batsmen he's bowling at are. Harbhajan and Anil Kumble's domestic records are excellent.

 

[Richard]

The point here is, flight is just like any other weapon for a bowler like speed or turn. Just being able to turn a ball alone won't get you any wickets, and neither does bowling at a good pace guarantee you wickets. You always have to couple these with control and the same goes for flight. A guy who can turn the ball a mile but has no control is just as bad as a guy who can throw the ball up nicely but can't control it.... There is no real way to say one is better than the other, tbh...

I've not once said any of speed, flight or turn are any use without control. Not once. That'd betray my lifetime's cricket principles.

All I've said is that flight with no real spin is not much use; spin aplenty with monotonous flight is so, though obviously the two combined are lethal.

 

[Richard]

Interesting discussion, pity I have not seen either of these bowlers bowl - cricket coverage in NZ is absolutely awful, Aussie is miles better by comparison (Though, to be fair, being swamped with uni means little time for cricket anyway).

But as a sometimes average and often poor off-spinner for school I have enjoyed reading some of the comments about the art - especially some of the insightful comments by SJS and vic_orthodox and that great little excert from Swervy.

What I would like to ask, is where do say Warne and Murali rank (not as a comparison mind!) in terms of flight and loop? Especially against say past masters like Prasanna and Bedi? Maybe SJS can give an opinion?

Murali used to be quite good from what I remember, especially around the late 90's to early 2000's before excessive work on the doosra seemed to, in my eyes, make him a little lazy (injuries may have affected his action too, and his ability to put revs on the ball for greater dip at the last minute). However, recently - from time to time - he seems to have returned to that old paradigm (especially I think, as I read, in the latter tests against Bangladesh).

Warne has, of course, often been a champion in that regard.

Interesting observations... I once wrote on CW that my favourite Murali ball is the wide one from wide of the crease, thrown up, which the batsman moves to play the cut to and is bamboozled by the ball turning back onto the stumps.

And of times he seemed to neglect that ball in favour of excessive Wrong-'Un use, which is such a shame.

 

[Richard]

It really depends when you find yourself bowling. If you're an opening bowler who bowls his first seven off the reel and the comes back to bowl three of the five six overs at the death, then 4.6 is very, very good economy rate. Powar tends to bowl his ten out in the middle overs though, so 4.6 isn't too flash. I don't think anyone is suggesting he's going to be awesome though; just that he's good to watch, offers a refreshing attitude and is, at least, ODI standard.

Exactly. Though I'd not go quite so far as to say 4.6 would be very good for said first scenario, just decent. Obviously, the ER for a death-bowler will be higher than someone bowling off the reel or in the middle. But a good death-bowler is just that - someone who can bowl 3 overs for 14 or 15 at the end. If you manage your first 7 for 25, that's 4-an-over or so.

Regarding your scoring rates comment: I can just imagine you saying that in 1991 after the "change of eras" as you put it regularly about an economy rate of 4.1 never being any good if you had witnessed all the earlier ODIs. I think we'll look back at the early to mid 2000s as the start of a new area in five years or so as the scoring rates have quite obviously gone in the last few years, and it's not all because of bad bowling either. The trend will probably continue with Twenty20 cricket becoming more readily played as well, whether we like it or not.

I see no evidence it's because of anything other than bad bowling. The change happened at exactly the same time as lots of bowlers either retired or deteriorated (or both). And the exact same thing happened in Test cricket too, which is the key - such a thing was not the case in the early 1990s. ODI cricket changed. IMO, it's the bowling that changed in 2001\02.

Twenty20 might change some things - we've already seen the infamous Loye sweep-shot offer some sort of potential eye to the future - but I remain to be convinced. Some of his innings in Australia would have been decent Twenty20 ones but were pretty poor efforts for a ODI - it was obvious that the class of McGrath had the chance to oust him due to the greater number of overs.

 

[Prince EWS]

I see no evidence it's because of anything other than bad bowling. The change happened at exactly the same time as lots of bowlers either retired or deteriorated (or both). And the exact same thing happened in Test cricket too, which is the key - such a thing was not the case in the early 1990s. ODI cricket changed. IMO, it's the bowling that changed in 2001\02.

Twenty20 might change some things - we've already seen the infamous Loye sweep-shot offer some sort of potential eye to the future - but I remain to be convinced. Some of his innings in Australia would have been decent Twenty20 ones but were pretty poor efforts for a ODI - it was obvious that the class of McGrath had the chance to oust him due to the greater number of overs.

Really, it's going to be a matter of opinion on that, as neither of us are going to be able to prove it either way until the bowling standards go back to their former levels - if they ever do. I do agree that bowling standards have dropped in quality, but I don't believe it is the sole reason for scoring rates increasing since 1999 or so. I'm fairly confident you'd have put the era-change in 1990 down to the same thing had you followed it closely at the time but it's only now that you can look back in hindsight and see it. We'll see over the next few years hopefully.

Exactly. Though I'd not go quite so far as to say 4.6 would be very good for said first scenario, just decent. Obviously, the ER for a death-bowler will be higher than someone bowling off the reel or in the middle. But a good death-bowler is just that - someone who can bowl 3 overs for 14 or 15 at the end. If you manage your first 7 for 25, that's 4-an-over or so.

I'd argue that, but my argument would be dependent on you accepting my opinion on the other issue in my post - which you didn't, so I won't bother. Personally, I think three overs for 14 at the end of the innings would only come about due to poor batting, bowler-friendly pitch conditions or some of the most impressive death bowling I've ever seen. But if you put the increase in scoring rates simply down to the decrease in bowling standards, that'd be wrong, so I won't argue it.

EDIT: And before you ask, Snape was a self-inflicted avatar challenge, not another random change.

 

[Richard]

Really, it's going to be a matter of opinion on that, as neither of us are going to be able to prove it either way until the bowling standards go back to their former levels - if they ever do. I do agree that bowling standards have dropped in quality, but I don't believe it is the sole reason for scoring rates increasing since 1999 or so. I'm fairly confident you'd have put the era-change in 1990 down to the same thing had you followed it closely at the time but it's only now that you can look back in hindsight and see it. We'll see over the next few years hopefully.

Rates really didn't increase in 1999, it was a virtual overnight thing in the 2001 sort of time. As I say - if there'd been a similar change in scoring-rates in Test cricket at the same time as the ODI change in 1990, I'd think there was some substance in the notion that it was just due to decrease in bowling standards. But there wasn't - the Ambroses and Walshs were pretty much in the same league as the Marshalls and Holdings. Likewise the McGraths and Gillespies and the Lillees and Thomsons.

Heck, I don't believe decrease in bowling standards is the sole reason for ODI increased scoring paces, but it's overwhelmingly the biggest one IMO. In fact, I think increased aggressiveness in batting has to a great extent been caused by the reduction in bowling standards, and that that too could work the opposite way again.

I'd argue that, but my argument would be dependent on you accepting my opinion on the other issue in my post - which you didn't, so I won't bother. Personally, I think three overs for 14 at the end of the innings would only come about due to poor batting, bowler-friendly pitch conditions or some of the most impressive death bowling I've ever seen. But if you put the increase in scoring rates simply down to the decrease in bowling standards, that'd be wrong, so I won't argue it.

I've seen bowling that can condemn to 5-an-over at best in the death overs before now, on many types of surfaces.

EDIT: And before you ask, Snape was a self-inflicted avatar challenge, not another random change.

Aus v Zim?

 

[honestbharani]

I've not once said any of speed, flight or turn are any use without control. Not once. That'd betray my lifetime's cricket principles.

All I've said is that flight with no real spin is not much use; spin aplenty with monotonous flight is so, though obviously the two combined are lethal.

again, not much use in test cricket, maybe... but in overs-limit cricket, it is reasonably useful, esp. if the guy doing it has any degree of control and consistency.

 

[Prince EWS]

Aus v Zim?Rates really didn't increase in 1999, it was a virtual overnight thing in the 2001 sort of time. As I say - if there'd been a similar change in scoring-rates in Test cricket at the same time as the ODI change in 1990, I'd think there was some substance in the notion that it was just due to decrease in bowling standards. But there wasn't - the Ambroses and Walshs were pretty much in the same league as the Marshalls and Holdings. Likewise the McGraths and Gillespies and the Lillees and Thomsons.

Fair points, I still disagree though. I genuinely just think that, for the most part, the increase in scoring rates has come about by more adventurous batting. Obviously the bowling standards have made that easier, but I don't think they have been so bad to influence it so drastically. The Mahmoods and Plunkletts of the world who get a few games on the grounds of potential and then get belted exist within all teams and think they've helped lift the overall rates for sure, but I don't think Mohammad Asif for example is a bad ODI bowler by the standards of 1997 - he bowls accurately, has some pace at times and gets movement. His problem is an over-predictable length when bowling inside the first 15 overs, and this problem didn't really exist for bowlers of his type 10 years ago (or certainly not as much so).

Basically, as I said before, with two people generally so opinioned, we aren't going to get anywhere until we see some higher bowling standards.

Aus v Zim?

Yeah. I declared that if I enjoyed a game more than the first test in England (against India), I'd Snape-up my avatar. So a big apology to the T20IBS, but that game was gun.

 

[Richard]

Your Zimbo side ousted your Aussie one then?

I didn't enjoy the game, incidentally - just laughed at the result (the way I most certainly didn't when Australia contrived to lose that ODI to Bangladesh in 2005, despite the fact virtually all my countrymen did so).

 

[Swervy]

Your Zimbo side ousted your Aussie one then?

I didn't enjoy the game, incidentally - just laughed at the result (the way I most certainly didn't when Australia contrived to lose that ODI to Bangladesh in 2005, despite the fact virtually all my countrymen did so).

oh so you admit to watching it then?

 

[Richard]

Haha, nah, have watched about 4 balls of the tournament so far.

Just clicked onto the CricInfo page because there was a chance I might have needed to report it (happily the Zimbabwean guy on the Staff, Daniel, did it as planned ) and saw, to my eternal astonishment, that Zimbabwe had beaten Australia. So I laughed. I laughed because it was a Twenty20 game, so upsets are just funny. I don't take the format seriously.

I did not laugh when someone walked into the shop on the evening of 18 June 2005. I had watched the opening few overs of Bangladesh's innings and thought "blimey, they're batting like batsmen, not Bangladeshis here" but hadn't really entertained thoughts of them chasing the total down. The guy said "well, it seems miracles do happen... they reckon Bangladesh have beaten Australia". My reaction was, simply, No pleasure at all.

 

[JBH001]

Thats an interesting question.

I started answering and it is becoming a full fledged article. I find it difficult to answer this without going into the are of flighting in some detail and that takes some words.

Doubt if we want to do that here do we ? So I have cut and pasted the two pages I had just written and may finish it off and post as an article.

Just post it up here, SJS. No need to start a new thread for it.

Always a pleasure to read your posts.

 

[JBH001]

The 7 match ODI series between England and India was on Sky TV mate

HAHA! Was it?

Ah well, would have had to miss it anyway - was working on a 5, 000 word essay in the 3 week period the ODI's were on.
Tbh, because I have so many uni assignments due, I dont think I will be watching any cricket until summer!

 

[JBH001]

Interesting observations... I once wrote on CW that my favourite Murali ball is the wide one from wide of the crease, thrown up, which the batsman moves to play the cut to and is bamboozled by the ball turning back onto the stumps.

And of times he seemed to neglect that ball in favour of excessive Wrong-'Un use, which is such a shame.

Agreed, he used to do that quite often in the early days. But as a result of devising the doosra he now bowls a lot straighter I think. Though, it is not as bad as it used to be. When he originally devised the doosra he was bowling it almost 2 - 3 times an over, every over (probably fell in love with it lol!). Now, he is more circumspect with the delivery - though, imo, he still tends to overuse the damn thing (but he does seem to have two versions of it). However, he is no longer bowling as straight as he used to, and is reviving some of his old variations in flight and line, which is all to the good (and which he will need against Australia).