Who is better Imran Khan or Glenn Mcgrath?

[Top_Cat]

Hmm, while reverse-swing's most famous exponents (Waqar, Gough, etc.) have indeed shown-off devastatingly late inswing on their Yorkers, I could find people who swung the ball in conventionally every bit as deadlily.

I honestly think it's more a case of the fact that reverse-swing is a rarer art and generally tends to be brilliant \ very good or not at all, whereas you get all sorts of mundane bowlers that bowl inswing with the new-ball and make it look fairly innocuous.

But I've seen some bowlers swing the new-ball in every bit as dangerously as the old one. It's just you generally have to watch far more bowlers who bowl conventional inswing to find them.

Spoken like someone who's never faced someone who can reverse it. Seriously, the swing is a bit later and sometimes a bit more exaggerated, yes, but that's not the toughest part about facing it. Any batsman worth his salt watches the ball as the bowler is delivering it or running up and can see which side the shine is on. You can then see which way the ball is likely to swing. When the ball is going reverse, the counter-intuitive nature of which side it 'should' swing based on what you see out of the bowler's hand delays the processes going on in tracking the ball. I'd hazard that would be why batsmen dismissed by a reverse-swinging ball always look like they didn't 'see' the ball and were rushed into the shot.

 

[subshakerz]

Imran taking the same number of wkts per tests played together as Marshall proves nothing. Clearly Marshall had much more competiton for wkts than did Imran. Overall Marshall > Imran (as a bowler ) but not by much.

Imran also had a better average, but I agree Marshall is better by Imran by a slight slight degree.

 

[Son Of Coco]

JBH is right. Seamers and cutters are different deliveries easy to distinguish in bowling methodology by the terminology itself.

Though this is not the first time that I have come across someone mixing one with the other.

I realise there's a difference between what someone might be trying to do with different deliveries. However they're terms that are readily mixed when a ball 'cuts' off the seam without the bowler rolling his fingers across the ball.

As I said in the post before, it was in response to Richard suggesting McGrath bowled mainly 'cutters' for about 3 years...which I found a little ridiculous. I doubt anyone who naturally cut it in to a batsman with a good seam position would bother rolling their fingers across it to try to cut it in. The same bowler bowls the same ball in instances where they need to roll their fingers across it to make it move one way or the other (for me it was away). McGrath doesn't become a 'cutter' when he bowls his leg cutter and then revert back to being a 'seamer' when he bowls his stock delivery. I think the nonsense of all the different terms was where this started.

 

[Richard]

Spoken like someone who's never faced someone who can reverse it. Seriously, the swing is a bit later and sometimes a bit more exaggerated, yes, but that's not the toughest part about facing it. Any batsman worth his salt watches the ball as the bowler is delivering it or running up and can see which side the shine is on. You can then see which way the ball is likely to swing. When the ball is going reverse, the counter-intuitive nature of which side it 'should' swing based on what you see out of the bowler's hand delays the processes going on in tracking the ball. I'd hazard that would be why batsmen dismissed by a reverse-swinging ball always look like they didn't 'see' the ball and were rushed into the shot.

And any bowler worth his salt spots when a batsman has worked-out how to predict the swing and acts to prevent this.

I myself do this. Be it covering the ball as I run in, or bowling the odd change-up (I can't bowl inswingers, so I bowl straight balls).

I've said it a few times, but I'm not completely stupid y'know Corey.

In any case, with a brand-new ball both sides are shiny.

 

[Top_Cat]

And any bowler worth his salt spots when a batsman has worked-out how to predict the swing and acts to prevent this.

I myself do this. Be it covering the ball as I run in, or bowling the odd change-up (I can't bowl inswingers, so I bowl straight balls).

I've said it a few times, but I'm not completely stupid y'know Corey.

In any case, with a brand-new ball both sides are shiny.

Once you've let go of the ball, the bowler loses control over it. This is more the period of play I was referring to where a batsman will also look for clues as to which side the shine is on and predict which way the ball is going which is further confounded by reverse swing. Anyway, unless you're holding your hand over the ball all the way through your action, you can't prevent a batsman from seeing the shine of the ball on the arm-swing immediately before letting go of the ball. Yes, good batsmen even see that.

 

[Richard]

This period is sufficiently short for the impact to be negligable. It will last perhaps half a second.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Imran Khan definitely!! A more versatile bowler!!

 

[Top_Cat]

This period is sufficiently short for the impact to be negligable. It will last perhaps half a second.

Ask a batsman who plays at a decent level and get back to me because without putting too fine a point on it, that is crap. Bearing in mind that batsmen who face even medium-pace bowlers have less than that amount of time when the ball is let go to judge the speed, movement and pitch of a ball then decide what shot to play so seeing just one aspect (which side the shiny side of the ball is on) presents little difficulty for most decent batsmen. They wouldn't be decent if they couldn't do that.

 

[Burgey]

Reverse swing has been known since the 1990s, but Australia's batting lineup (among others) were completely at sea against it in 2005. All modern batsmen are vulnerable against the reverse-swinging ball delivered at high pace. But there are precious few to deliver such lethal balls.

Reverse swing is not like a mystery ball that looses its effectiveness once you decipher it.



Almost every bowler from Imran's time tampered with the ball. As Richard said, that doesn't affect the skill of the bowler, you still need the skill to deliver the ball in that condition.

That's not an excuse though - "Everyone does it, so I will too", the last excuse of every drunk driver/ cannabis dealer on their way to a just fate.
And to say you still need the skill to deliver it is a bit like someone going out to bat with a bat made out of titanium and wider than allowed, but saying "they still need the skill to wield it".
It's cheating, pure and simple. If through some illicit means the ball is affected and starts doing crazy stuff, why would you marvel at the skill of someone just because they can peel an orange with a bottle top?
Ball tampering is as much cheating as match fixing. It affects the results of games and the scores of players just as much. Thank goodness there isn't that much of it (that we know about).
How supporters of the game could appreciate the "skill" associated with this form of cheating, yet condemn other players for another form of cheating is beyond me.

 

[SJS]

Let ICC allow Mr Gavaskar continue for a few more years as the Cricket Committee chairman and we will surely have new laws defining how deep and at what angle a fielder can make scratches/cuts on the ball surface and beyond what surface it can be termed as ball tampering.

Then we can all go home smiling.

Illegality is purely a function of the law of the day right ?

 

[Richard]

That's not an excuse though - "Everyone does it, so I will too", the last excuse of every drunk driver/ cannabis dealer on their way to a just fate.
And to say you still need the skill to deliver it is a bit like someone going out to bat with a bat made out of titanium and wider than allowed, but saying "they still need the skill to wield it".
It's cheating, pure and simple. If through some illicit means the ball is affected and starts doing crazy stuff, why would you marvel at the skill of someone just because they can peel an orange with a bottle top?
Ball tampering is as much cheating as match fixing. It affects the results of games and the scores of players just as much. Thank goodness there isn't that much of it (that we know about).
How supporters of the game could appreciate the "skill" associated with this form of cheating, yet condemn other players for another form of cheating is beyond me.

There is no way ball-"tampering" is even remotely on the scale of match-fixing. One is minorly reprehensible, one is cricket's equivalent of crime against humanity.

If everyone is doing something, that means everyone is equal. If you can't use swing\seam, tampering with the ball to get it into condition to behave as you want it to is no use. We don't know much about tampering... if we shut our ears. Yet if we open them we know that until very recently ball-"tampering" was far, far more common than not "tampering".

TBH I'd much prefer do away with silly laws than enforce them, but that's for another time.

 

[Son Of Coco]

This period is sufficiently short for the impact to be negligable. It will last perhaps half a second.

Just like the period between when the bowler lets that ball go and the batsman hits it (or otherwise) is always negligible. It doesn't stop someone like Ponting picking up the length of an Akhtar shortball (for example) and depositing it over the fence.

 

[Burgey]

There is no way ball-"tampering" is even remotely on the scale of match-fixing. One is minorly reprehensible, one is cricket's equivalent of crime against humanity.

If everyone is doing something, that means everyone is equal. If you can't use swing\seam, tampering with the ball to get it into condition to behave as you want it to is no use. We don't know much about tampering... if we shut our ears. Yet if we open them we know that until very recently ball-"tampering" was far, far more common than not "tampering".

TBH I'd much prefer do away with silly laws than enforce them, but that's for another time.

I understand your point mate, but I don't see how we can pick and choose which laws we abide by and which we choose to ignore.

 

[Sanz]

Let ICC allow Mr Gavaskar continue for a few more years as the Cricket Committee chairman and we will surely have new laws defining how deep and at what angle a fielder can make scratches/cuts on the ball surface and beyond what surface it can be termed as ball tampering.

Then we can all go home smiling.

Illegality is purely a function of the law of the day right ?

What has Gavaskar got to do with Ball Tampering ? As usual you continue your Diatribe against Gavaskar.

Besides have you been reading the news lately ?

 

[SJS]

I understand your point mate, but I don't see how we can pick and choose which laws we abide by and which we choose to ignore.

I agree with Burgey.

There is no point in making such a big deal about Samuels giving information on who is going to bowl which over etc or Mutrali's action and its legal/moral correctness and ignore the same when coming to ball tampering.

Those who broke the law (read the Pakistani bowlers starting with Sarfaraz) did it with full knowledge that they were breaking the law. The fact that everyone cant break the law and get away with it does not make the breaking of the law any less serious.

Just because someone knows how to break locks and codes better than I do doesn't mean my condemning it is a question of 'sour grapes'.

I must add, I am not writing because of anything one particular poster has written but as a general comment

 

[subshakerz]

Those who broke the law (read the Pakistani bowlers starting with Sarfaraz) did it with full knowledge that they were breaking the law. The fact that everyone cant break the law and get away with it does not make the breaking of the law any less serious.

Just because someone knows how to break locks and codes better than I do doesn't mean my condemning it is a question of 'sour grapes'.

I must add, I am not writing because of anything one particular poster has written but as a general comment

Except nearly every pace bowler from the era indulged in ball-tampering, it's not as if this practice started with reverse swing. It was an accepted part of the game. Are we going to discard all of the greats from that time because tampering was so common?

 

[archie mac]

I must say the bowlers should be given a little bit of leeway in this respect. As the bats become better, the boundaries smaller and the pitches flatter.

Help them!

I say let them pick the seam, with their fingernail, who cares?

 

[Goughy]

Except nearly every pace bowler from the era indulged in ball-tampering, it's not as if this practice started with reverse swing. It was an accepted part of the game. Are we going to discard all of the greats from that time because tampering was so common?

Thats not true.

And also whatever ball tampering that took place (lifting the seam, vaseline etc) was on a less dramatic scale.

Whilst I agree all are wrong, lifting the seam is like stealing $10 whereas gouging chunks out of the ball and using foreign items to damage the ball is like stealing $1000.

Both maybe the same crime but one is far more dramatic and severe than the other. All ball tampering isnt the same, just as all theft isnt the same.

 

[subshakerz]

Thats not true.

And also whatever ball tampering that took place (lifting the seam, vaseline etc) was on a less dramatic scale.

Whilst I agree all are wrong, lifting the seam is like stealing $10 whereas gouging chunks out of the ball and using foreign items to damage the ball is like stealing $1000.

Both maybe the same crime but one is far more dramatic and severe than the other. All ball tampering isnt the same, just as all theft isnt the same.

Do you have any proof that Imran regularly gouged chunks out the ball and used foreign items (which includes vaseline and sunscreen, technically), or are you merely assuming so? From what I remember, Imran mentioned he only once used a foreign object, when playing for Sussex and Hampshire in 1981. He never did it in an international match.

 

[Richard]

Apparently Imran placed a chapter in his book which mentioned ball-tampering. I haven't read it, but that's what I've heard.