Harmison - underachiever or overrated ?

[Top_Cat]

Errrr, Glenn McGrath is most definitely a front-on bowler. You just have to check out his injury history to be sure of that; almost all side injuries, the bits of the body which get hit the hardest with a front-on action. I'd hazard that Lee is more front-on these days too.

 

[Richard]

Yet you talk about McGrath bowling largely nothing balls for an extended period of time? Why did he go from working a batsman over, to getting them out off nothing balls, and then coming through that to work them over again? Did he turn his brain off for the middle period and decide not to move it either way and simply put it outside off and hope for the best? I can't remember ever watching a whole spell from McGrath where every ball he bowled was outside off stump doing nothing.

No, of course not. That's not what I was suggesting at all. However, he also bowled straight balls at the stumps, which are not terribly difficult to keep out either.

Why did he go from bowling well on flatties to not to doing so again? I honestly can't begin to know. However, it's not a question of losing the skill to work batsmen over, not at all. I will maintain all my life that most of McGrath's wicket-taking spells between 2001/02 and 2004 were not the result of particularly good bowling. I'd only ever seen him bowl occasionally before then, mostly on seaming pitches, so I've no way of knowing much about the pre-2001 stuff.

I mean, let's just have a basic (this is very simplistic) look. There's 101 wickets (26 Tests) in the period in question) so I really can't be going through all of them. 4 of these Tests (19 wickets) are irrelevant as they were pitches that helped seamers (those FTR are The WACA 2002/03, Darwin 2004, Nagpur 2004/05 and Mumbai 2004/05). So 22 games, 82 wickets.

We'll assume that the 15 tail-enders (Tufnell, Ormond, Nel, Shoaib Akhtar, Murali Kartik, Hoggard, Henderson, Donald, Dawson, Ntini, Waqar Younis x2 and Saqlain Mushtaq x2) don't really need working-over and are "easy" wickets, so that leaves us with 67 to look at. I don't have time to do them all now, and may never do. But I'll put those from The Oval 2001 here for starters as examples:
Usman Afzaal - caught fine-leg, very poor stroke
Mark Ramprakash - caught behind for 133, cutting at an innocuous delivery as he had to try and up the run-rate with wickets falling
Michael Atherton - caught slip, I seem to recall this being a decent ball as so often between these two
Marcus Trescothick - caught and bowled, ball that spat off the pitch (a freak on that pitch as it almost exclusively played beautifully), obviously no credit to the bowler
Usman Afzaal - caught slip, not a good ball at all, far too wide, driven erroneously

 

[SJS]

Errrr, Glenn McGrath is most definitely a front-on bowler. You just have to check out his injury history to be sure of that; almost all side injuries, the bits of the body which get hit the hardest with a front-on action. I'd hazard that Lee is more front-on these days too.

Very few bowlers are completely side on because most of them also bowl inswing even where outswing is the main delivery. The action for in swing makes it impossible to remain completely side on anyway. So its the question of degree of 'squaring up really.

Both McGrath and Pollock for example squarer than, say, kapil and Lillee. That is like the grip in batting. There is the absolutely orthodox like Jack Hobbs and there are slight deviations going upto Sachin's or even Bradman's grips.

The complete side on (as in complete top hand dominant grip) is an ideal starting point and then some deviations will come. But to have a completely squared up chest negates the possibility of swinging the ball away in the air since propelling the ball in the direction desired keeping the seam position intact while the body is falling away in the process becomes a near impossibility. Thats why Marshall was such a phenomenal oddity. His outswing with that action is not something that you can ask a youngster to copy and expect him to swing the ball. Marshall swung it but those copying it cant swing because it is not natural.

On the other hand ask, inculcate an action like Kapil's, hold the new ball with the seam between the first two fingers and chances are the ball will swing.

Thats the whole point of orthodoxy. Its a template. Most will deviate but it is the degree of deviation from the template that will determine the chance of there succeeding.

The fact that coaches have started taking the easy way out doesn't make it correct to have a completely side on action. Not if you want to swing the ball in the air. And that still remains the most potent weapon in a fast bowlers armoury not least since it is not linked to the surface.

 

[Top_Cat]

The fact that coaches have started taking the easy way out doesn't make it correct to have a completely side on action. Not if you want to swing the ball in the air. And that still remains the most potent weapon in a fast bowlers armoury not least since it is not linked to the surface.

But it's pretty heavily linked to atmospheric conditions, hence why we've seen a dearth of guys who swing the ball at pace with the medium-paced swinger all but disappearing at international level.

 

[SJS]

But it's pretty heavily linked to atmospheric conditions, hence why we've seen a dearth of guys who swing the ball at pace with the medium-paced swinger all but disappearing at international level.

u mean atmospheric conditions have changed world wide preventing swing ?

 

[SJS]

Ask an old timer, fifty, sixty years old who is fit and used to swing the new ball. Chances are he will still make it wobble with a new ball.

I culd still do it till three years back (I was 55 and had not played proper cricket for 20 years) in almost all conditions - a slow medium paced inswing yes- but pronounced in swing for sure.

My shoulder problem (not related to cricket) has made it impossible for me to bowl at all now.

 

[Top_Cat]

u mean atmospheric conditions have changed world wide preventing swing ?

We're definitely seeing more dry conditions in places like Australia.

Anyway, I also think swing bowlers are looked upon as riskier these days too. With batsmen scoring more freely, I think it's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to that to not pick the bloke who is trying for swing and might bowl a few wide ones trying.

 

[SJS]

Lectures are banned hence no response

 

[social]

Here are some famous side on actions.

I havent put here how long their careers lasted but long enough to be the world record holders for most wickets in one form of the game or the other.

]

And square on you have Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh, Croft, Clarke, Willis, Fraser, Proctor, Imran - pre '78/9, McGrath, Hughes, Srinath, Lillee/Bishop/Bond/Reid (post injuries), Clark, Ntini, Ishant, Flintoff etc etc etc

They all have one thing in common, they took a stack of wickets

Bottom line is that there is no one way to get the ball from one end to the other effectively

Square on refers to the position of the hips at delivery

In the old days, coaches would have you believe that you had to be side on to swing the ball.

Guys like Marshall and Imran disproved that myth and proved that it was largely due to wrist position rather than trunk rotation

 

[Richard]

We're definitely seeing more dry conditions in places like Australia.

Interesting you should think that - in recent years, I've seen so many bowlers struggle to swing the ball, completely, in Australia. Only The SCG and The WACA have ever seen the ball do much at all since I've been watching in 2001/02. Whereas old-time success stories like (most notably) Marshall were swing bowlers par-excellence. McDermott too was a strong swing-bowler was he not? As well as lesser lights like Fleming and Walker.

Of course, swing was incredibly hard to attain in England between 2001 and 2006 too - that had to do with the poor quality of the cricket-balls rather than atmospherics, good bowlers have always been more than capable of clear-air turbulence over here - so such bowlers have struggled in both countries. But it's interesting that you too seem to think swing has become harder to attain in Australia in recent years.

Anyway, I also think swing bowlers are looked upon as riskier these days too. With batsmen scoring more freely, I think it's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to that to not pick the bloke who is trying for swing and might bowl a few wide ones trying.

Kinda ironic since the lack of swing of late is the single biggest reason for the recent quick-scoring spree.

 

[Richard]

And square on you have Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh, Croft, Clarke, Willis, Fraser, Proctor, Imran - pre '78/9, McGrath, Hughes, Srinath, Lillee/Bishop/Bond/Reid (post injuries), Clark, Ntini, Ishant, Flintoff etc etc etc

They all have one thing in common, they took a stack of wickets

Bottom line is that there is no one way to get the ball from one end to the other effectively

Square on refers to the position of the hips at delivery

In the old days, coaches would have you believe that you had to be side on to swing the ball.

Guys like Marshall and Imran disproved that myth and proved that it was largely due to wrist position rather than trunk rotation

While it's obviously a myth that side-on is the only way to get outswing, and has been obvious for years, you'd also be pretty silly if you denied that side-on was a huge advantage to the outswinger.

My Dad has always professed his huge jealousy at my ability to bowl the outswinger to order, when pretty much every delivery he bowled in his seam-bowling career (bowls fingerspin these days and has for a couple of decades) went in. The fact that my action is side-on and his principally front-on can simply not be ignored here, as well as in so many other cases. I, of course, have tried many times to bowl an inswinger and have only ever done so on one occasion, which was a complete freak and for which I had no idea what was happening and did not have a prayer of controlling the ball.

 

[social]

While it's obviously a myth that side-on is the only way to get outswing, and has been obvious for years, you'd also be pretty silly if you denied that side-on was a huge advantage to the outswinger.

My Dad has always professed his huge jealousy at my ability to bowl the outswinger to order, when pretty much every delivery he bowled in his seam-bowling career (bowls fingerspin these days and has for a couple of decades) went in. The fact that my action is side-on and his principally front-on can simply not be ignored here, as well as in so many other cases. I, of course, have tried many times to bowl an inswinger and have only ever done so on one occasion, which was a complete freak and for which I had no idea what was happening and did not have a prayer of controlling the ball.

Richard, you bowl at 10 mph.

Anyone can swing a two piece ball at that pace irrespective of whether they're side on or not

Swinging a 4 piece ball when bowling on a pitch the equivalent of baked mud is another matter altogether

 

[Richard]

Richard, you bowl at 10 mph.

Anyone can swing a two piece ball at that pace irrespective of whether they're side on or not

Swinging a 4 piece ball when bowling on a pitch the equivalent of baked mud is another matter altogether

No-one bowls at 10mph. I generally average around about 60-65. I also bowl with four-piece balls (hardly ever use the two-piece) and have bowled on bone-dry pitches several times. Never has it stopped me swinging a good-quality cricket-ball.

 

[Burgey]

The lack of swing in Australia in recent years, I suspect, also has a fait bit to do with th equality of the cricket balls. The Kooka just doesn't seem to swing anymore. Dunno why.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No, of course not. That's not what I was suggesting at all. However, he also bowled straight balls at the stumps, which are not terribly difficult to keep out either.

Why did he go from bowling well on flatties to not to doing so again? I honestly can't begin to know. However, it's not a question of losing the skill to work batsmen over, not at all. I will maintain all my life that most of McGrath's wicket-taking spells between 2001/02 and 2004 were not the result of particularly good bowling. I'd only ever seen him bowl occasionally before then, mostly on seaming pitches, so I've no way of knowing much about the pre-2001 stuff.

I mean, let's just have a basic (this is very simplistic) look. There's 101 wickets (26 Tests) in the period in question) so I really can't be going through all of them. 4 of these Tests (19 wickets) are irrelevant as they were pitches that helped seamers (those FTR are The WACA 2002/03, Darwin 2004, Nagpur 2004/05 and Mumbai 2004/05). So 22 games, 82 wickets.

We'll assume that the 15 tail-enders (Tufnell, Ormond, Nel, Shoaib Akhtar, Murali Kartik, Hoggard, Henderson, Donald, Dawson, Ntini, Waqar Younis x2 and Saqlain Mushtaq x2) don't really need working-over and are "easy" wickets, so that leaves us with 67 to look at. I don't have time to do them all now, and may never do. But I'll put those from The Oval 2001 here for starters as examples:
Usman Afzaal - caught fine-leg, very poor stroke
Mark Ramprakash - caught behind for 133, cutting at an innocuous delivery as he had to try and up the run-rate with wickets falling
Michael Atherton - caught slip, I seem to recall this being a decent ball as so often between these two
Marcus Trescothick - caught and bowled, ball that spat off the pitch (a freak on that pitch as it almost exclusively played beautifully), obviously no credit to the bowlerUsman Afzaal - caught slip, not a good ball at all, far too wide, driven erroneously

So despite saying you take notice of what happens leading up to these deliveries you've taken no notice of what happened before these deliveries!?

The part in bold isn't serious surely.

So McGrath bowled for a period between 2001 and 2004 where his average, strike rate, and economy rate were all lower than his career average, and took his innings best figures of 8/24 (Not to mention 7/76; 5/21; 5/37 etc) whilst barely bowling a good ball? He really was amazing.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No-one bowls at 10mph. I generally average around about 60-65. I also bowl with four-piece balls (hardly ever use the two-piece) and have bowled on bone-dry pitches several times. Never has it stopped me swinging a good-quality cricket-ball.

I love how this has to be said in the UK.

 

[Richard]

Even the UK has dry periods sometimes y'know.

 

[Richard]

So despite saying you take notice of what happens leading up to these deliveries you've taken no notice of what happened before these deliveries!?

Of course I have. I'll only mention it if I think it's significant, however, and I don't in any of these cases.

The part in bold isn't serious surely.

Yes.

So McGrath bowled for a period between 2001 and 2004 where his average, strike rate, and economy rate were all lower than his career average, and took his innings best figures of 8/24 (Not to mention 7/76; 5/21; 5/37 etc) whilst barely bowling a good ball? He really was amazing.

The 8-24 came after the period in question; the 7-76 was before (and on a seaming pitch anyway - I've only ever talked about non-seaming pitches; the 5-37 was on a seamer too), and that 5-21 was during possibly the worst batting performance I've seen in my life.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Of course I have. I'll only mention it if I think it's significant, however, and I don't in any of these cases.

Yes.

The 8-24 came after the period in question; the 7-76 was before (and on a seaming pitch anyway - I've only ever talked about non-seaming pitches; the 5-37 was on a seamer too), and that 5-21 was during possibly the worst batting performance I've seen in my life.

Really, that's weird as I put in the period from 2001 to 2004/05 and they appeared in the stats.

I find it remarkably difficult to believe that McGrath went through any spell without moving at least one delivery.

Whether you think it's significant or not is the point where your conclusions open up into a yawning gap full of inconsistency and conjecture.

 

[Richard]

Really, that's weird as I put in the period from 2001 to 2004/05 and they appeared in the stats.

I gave you the period I was referring to - here it is again.

I find it remarkably difficult to believe that McGrath went through any spell without moving at least one delivery.

Oh, I'm sure he did. But he did not move it enough to get large numbers of wickets with such balls (or bowl lots of them before then get wickets with balls that did not move, as he did quite often later on).

Whether you think it's significant or not is the point where your conclusions open up into a yawning gap full of inconsistency and conjecture.

I find there to be no inconsistency there. Conjecture, yes, fair enough.

Anyway, I think we'd best leave this until I can find time to assess every single McGrath wicket on the non-seaming pitches. Might be a while, however. I'm rather busy at the current time.