Kudos cheerfully accepted, buddy.
That oft-quoted post to Kaiser was pretty good, though.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** India in Sri Lanka
- Thread starter Arjun
- Start date
Kudos cheerfully accepted, buddy.
That oft-quoted post to Kaiser was pretty good, though.
krishneelz
U19 Debutant
Murali extremely unorthodox??? 3 major variations constitutes being extremely unorthodox??? Unless you have qualms with his action I would not classify him as extremely unorthodox...unorthodox maybe but not as extreme as MendisDid you actually read what I wrote? I said that he risked becoming spin bowling's answer to a flash-in-the-pan. I never said that he had already reached that dubious status.
At any rate, Murali is, for an off-spinner, extremely unorthodox. However, he has a stock delivery (his off-break). Mendis, does not, as of yet. There's a difference between being unorthodox and lacking a stock delivery.
He has more chance of becoming one if he develops a stock delivery than if he doesn't. That way, the batsmen would take a longer amount of time to pick all of his variations. He'd be a formidable bowler, indeed, if he developed a stock delivery and built his multiude of variations around it.
Besides, for all of the variation that Shane Warne had to develop in order to compensate for his injuries, his age and the relative diminishing of his flipper's effectiveness, the leg-break (his stock delivery), rightfully remained the essence of his individual art. He didn't have a bad test career, now, did he?
A few points:
1) The concept of an opening 'pinch-hitter' can be traced back to the 1992 World Cup, when Ian Botham opened the batting. Putting Kaluwitharana and Jayasuriya upfront was brave, but not as revolutionary as many seem to think.
2) Sri Lanka won the 1996 World Cup (specifically, the final) on the back of a classic Aravinda De Silva knock and their legion of slow bowlers, more than they did due to the input of Romesh Kaluwitharana and Sanath Jayasuriya (Kalu, in particular, was often dismissed too quickly to have a substantial impact).
3) WTF does this have to do with Mendis, anyway?
You too, mate. You too.
So you are the pessimistic type I see saying that Mendis LACKS a stock delivery...An optimist on the other hand would say that he has such great control over his varying deliveries that he can afford to bowl 4 to 5 variations an over...Eventually he will develop a stock delivery or maybe he has one and players are now beginning to identify it!
As for batsmen taking a longer time to pick his variations just because a bowler has a stock delivery does not make sense...If someone bowled 3 stock deliveries and then a variation followed by 2 stock deliveries I would be less daunted than facing 4-5 different variations in that over.
I did not mention anything about Shane Warne having a bad test career??? Nor did I say anything about bowlers having stock deliveries being poor test bowlers
Kaluwitharana and Jayasuriya reinvented the one day form of cricket and I stand by the statement...From that moment teams adopted the approach of attacking in the first 15 overs as a frequent tactic....I did not say they 'invented pinch hitting'
In trying to dispute the effectiveness of Kaluwitharana and Jayasuriya helping Sri Lanka win the 1996 World Cup is futile as they played various significant knocks throughout the tournament...I did not say anything about the final
Last edited:
krishneelz
U19 Debutant
Oh and if you did not pick up the relation between Kalu Jay and Mendis...That approach at the time was considered unauthordox you see (this was because the tactic of pinch hitting in the first fifteen overs was not used frequently) and various pundits agree that this unorthodox approach was a critical factor in Sri Lanka reaching the world cup final of 1996...This shows that the unorthodox approach can be integrated into cricket with successful results hence mendis unorthodox approach could also have a chance to successfully be applied and personally I am sick of coaches over coaching players and making a big deal out of technique
krishneelz
U19 Debutant
At the end of the day why would you want to force Mendis to bowl a stock delivery and throw in one variation an over... Personally I think it is sensational how he can control his variances and I hope that nobody would coach that out of him...If he wants to bowl 4 to 5 different deliveries an over than why not!!!
sanga1337
U19 Captain
Agreed. The reason he's so good at the moment is because he doesn't have a stock delivery.
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I hope when the review & technology system are more established that batsmen as a whole would walk for the bat/pad catches. It's really just dragging it out when they just stand there when they've middled it onto their pad.
Would also have been nice if the first time the system was used it didn't involve probably the worst umpire in international cricket looking at replays.
Would also have been nice if the first time the system was used it didn't involve probably the worst umpire in international cricket looking at replays.
I explicitly stated that he was extremely unorthodox, for an off-spinner. Tell me, what off-spinners have even come close to emulating the action of Murali's? What percentage of budding off-spinners would actually succeed in doing so? Not very many, I would say (his action is an important factor, whether you like it or not).
I would also say that Murali has more than three major variations, if you include flighted deliveries. He has his doosra, his orthodox legbreak, his arm ball, a kind of topspinner and according to Wikipedia, a variation on Shane Warne's slider. Many off-spinners would have no more than two variations - the arm ball and the flighted delivery. It adds to his unorthodox manner, IMO.
Granted, he is not quite as unorthodox as Mendis. However, he is unorthodox. There's no obfuscating that fact.
That is true (about me being pessimistic).
Nah, IMO, an optimist would say that he will develop a good stock delivery soon.
Just because you can bowl 4-5 variations an over, it does not mean that you should.
If he has a stock delivery, there'd not be a lot of debate in cricketing circles as to what it actually is. Do you know? I don't.
Yes, it does. If you see less of a certain variation, there's obviously less chance that you'd pick it quickly. Remember, practice makes perfect. If you are constantly exposed to a certain type of variation from a certain bowler, you'd play it better over the longer term than if you were only exposed to it occassionally.
If you want an example of that theory being played out in practice, look at Saqlain Mushtaq. He used his variations too often, to the detriment of his stock delivery and actually shortened his Test career in the process, as batsmen began to pick his variations. If he did not OD on his variations, he'd probably still be playing Test cricket.
That may be true in the short-term, but over the longer run, I'd be more daunted by the first approach, particularly with the amount of variation that Mendis has displayed. Mendis could also mix up when he bowls his stock deliveries and when he throws in a variation (although bowling many more stock deliveries than variations).
I reckon the approach that you prefer would be more daunting in ODI cricket, though, as you don't have as much time to grow accustomed to his variations. By right, Mendis ought to have a long and fruitful ODI career, being like a super version of Brad Hogg (who relied on variation much more than his stock delivery).
No, you didn't. However, the point that I was trying to make was that Shane Warne worked his variations around his stock delivery, the legbreak. The legbreak comprised the essential core of his art from the first day until the last, even as his variations changed (and arguably increased) over time, due to injury and whatever.
True, but that's not what I was accusing you of. Here is what you wrote:
"How about we just coach him to drop this horrible habit and make sure that he bowls 5 or 6 stock leg breaks per over...He will definitely be the greatest test bowler of all time without doubt..."
From this statement, it could be implied that developing a stock delivery could hinder his tilt at being the 'greatest bowler of all time', as you so subtly put it, which I disagree with. I used Shane Warne as an example of why I disagreed with said statement.
I agree with most of this. Put simply, the Sri Lankan's should be lauded for using a relatively untested formula on cricket's biggest stage (attacking in the first 15 overs). They were emulated by many teams, including Australia.
However, to state that they 're-invented' the one day form of cricket implies that they introduced the tactic of attacking during the first 15 overs. They didn't. England did, through the likes of Ian Botham.
Sri Lanka popularised the tactic. As such, many people credit them - erroneously - for inventing the tactic.
No, but putting Romesh Kaluwitharana up to open is a clear example of utilising a 'pinch-hitter', particularly when you take into consideration that his strike rate during the World Cup was over 100 and that he averaged a whopping 15-16 during that time.
Actually, Kaluwitharana hardly did anything of the sort.
M:6
I:6
NO:0
Runs:73
HS:33
Avg.12.16
BF:52
SR:140.38
50's:0
100's:0
0's:2
Ct's12
St:2
I've said it once; I'll say it again. The likes of Aravinda De Silva and the legion of Sri Lanka's slow bowlers contributed more towards SL's eventual World Cup win than the Jayasuriya/Kaluwitharana combo (although Jayasuriya did have a good World Cup). The initial forefeits helped, too.
No, but without the final, you don't get a World Cup, do you? Besides, the slow bowler suffocation tactic and de Silva's contributions were recurring themes, anyway.
Last edited:
Those pundits were wrong, then. It was a factor, but not nearly as crucial to their ascent through the tournament as De Silva, their slow bowlers and the forfeits were.
The approach was undeniably an unorthodox one and they should be lauded for trying the said formula, when it was relatively untested, as I admitted before. Their use of the formula also had a substantial impact after the World Cup.
However, as you admit, they did not re-invent the concept of opening; they merely took an existing concept and made it popular.
I'm not sure where I gave you the impression that an unorthodox approach was necessarily the wrong one. Even if he develops a stock delivery and uses his variations around that, Mendis will still be a somewhat unorthodox bowler, due to the multitude of variations that he has.
Hey look, Murali himself is an example of the benefits that an unorthodox approach may reap.
Last edited:
No, the reason why he's so good at the moment is because of the multitude of variations at his disposal. There's a difference. If he doesn't develop a stock delivery soon, though, he will eventually lose effectiveness at Test level. I hope that he does develop a stock delivery, myself.
He will, if all goes well, always be a very good ODI bowler because of his variation.
Last edited:
krishneelz
U19 Debutant
I have always said the Sri Lankans re-invented not invented so your argument is not relevent. I never said that they invented pinch hitting...Good on Botham but again your missing the whole point and there is no reason to continue in circles.
Again you said
"I would also say that Murali has more than three major variations, if you include flighted deliveries." I would consider a doosra and a flighted doosra as one major variation............Look at it this way a doosra is potato a flighted doosra is a bigger potato...Still a potato??? Again this is opinion based so if you think a flighted doosra is a tomato then go ahead but I would classify his top spinner as a tomato and his arm ball as pizza...A flighted arm ball would be pizza with extra cheese...hmmm getting hungry here
As for Saqlain Mushtaq, he did not in anyway have the same amount of variations than Mendis...Simply Saqlain overused the doosra...You cannot compare Saqlain to Mendis and even if you do take a look at Saqlains stats he still can be considered as a successful test bowler....As a matter of fact take a look at Warnes stats he started using a number of variations as you pointed out....Fact is you still cannot compare any of these bowlers to Mendis....Warne, Saqlain etc developed variations after mastering their stock delivery.....Mendis has mastered variations which he can use any as stock deliveries....
At the end of the day Mendis can apply different variations accurately...To tell him to stop using his variations and develop a stock delivery to use for the majority of an over is foolish....I am sure though he has a go to delivery which he feels most comfortable with and believes that he gains the greatest accuracy from...This can be classified as his stock delivery...But to force him to have a definite stock delivery to apply for the majority of an over and then throw in little variations every now and again will not make him a better bowler...
I would say Mendis should be allowed to bowl variations as he is doing so right now...He should be given the opportunity to think outside the box...I would say he doesnt need to develop a stock delivery and apply it for the majority of an over...
BTW really really good entertaining discussion with valid points
And I do agree with your point that Mendis will be a good one day bowler
Again you said
"I would also say that Murali has more than three major variations, if you include flighted deliveries." I would consider a doosra and a flighted doosra as one major variation............Look at it this way a doosra is potato a flighted doosra is a bigger potato...Still a potato??? Again this is opinion based so if you think a flighted doosra is a tomato then go ahead but I would classify his top spinner as a tomato and his arm ball as pizza...A flighted arm ball would be pizza with extra cheese...hmmm getting hungry here
As for Saqlain Mushtaq, he did not in anyway have the same amount of variations than Mendis...Simply Saqlain overused the doosra...You cannot compare Saqlain to Mendis and even if you do take a look at Saqlains stats he still can be considered as a successful test bowler....As a matter of fact take a look at Warnes stats he started using a number of variations as you pointed out....Fact is you still cannot compare any of these bowlers to Mendis....Warne, Saqlain etc developed variations after mastering their stock delivery.....Mendis has mastered variations which he can use any as stock deliveries....
At the end of the day Mendis can apply different variations accurately...To tell him to stop using his variations and develop a stock delivery to use for the majority of an over is foolish....I am sure though he has a go to delivery which he feels most comfortable with and believes that he gains the greatest accuracy from...This can be classified as his stock delivery...But to force him to have a definite stock delivery to apply for the majority of an over and then throw in little variations every now and again will not make him a better bowler...
I would say Mendis should be allowed to bowl variations as he is doing so right now...He should be given the opportunity to think outside the box...I would say he doesnt need to develop a stock delivery and apply it for the majority of an over...
BTW really really good entertaining discussion with valid points
And I do agree with your point that Mendis will be a good one day bowler
Last edited:
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Good quality post with light-hearted banter to counter some invalid points raised by many recently...These guys don't know the importance of a test match...They don't know one is not given chances in test matches, one has to earn it...They don't know the importance of playing your best XI in a test match...Good post, mate...
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I can't really agree that Mendis lacks much. If anything, you don't really talk about a bloke like Mendis in terms of what he lacks because he seems to have everything other than orthodoxy.
As for not having a stock ball, I think this isn't going to be a problem for him as such. Warnie (and other leg-spinners) developed his stock leg-spinner because he was no good at turning the ball the other way and being able to bowl leg-spin with an orthodox grip is tough enough so requires practice. Off-spinners generally have that stock offie because it's far too difficult to turn the ball consistently the other way so, again, to get good at it, repetition is the order of the day. Those rules don't really apply to Mendis; he seems to be able to turn the ball either way without one or the other being his more dominant delivery. I can't really see how this would be a disadvantage unless all his deliveries were crap which, so far, hasn't been the case.
Anyway, I've seen Mendis a bit and for mine, the thing which has struck me hasn't been all the tricks in his bag but the obvious thought behind them. He's not just ripping balls in randomly but is definitely planning his bowling. He seems pretty adaptable and his style of bowling challenges othodoxy. I'd say batsmen can already pick his variations so his success will hinge on his brains and he seems to have those as well as the tricks. Even knowing what he's sending down won't help the batsmen much if there's as much thought as seems to be apparent in Mendis' bowling.
As for not having a stock ball, I think this isn't going to be a problem for him as such. Warnie (and other leg-spinners) developed his stock leg-spinner because he was no good at turning the ball the other way and being able to bowl leg-spin with an orthodox grip is tough enough so requires practice. Off-spinners generally have that stock offie because it's far too difficult to turn the ball consistently the other way so, again, to get good at it, repetition is the order of the day. Those rules don't really apply to Mendis; he seems to be able to turn the ball either way without one or the other being his more dominant delivery. I can't really see how this would be a disadvantage unless all his deliveries were crap which, so far, hasn't been the case.
Anyway, I've seen Mendis a bit and for mine, the thing which has struck me hasn't been all the tricks in his bag but the obvious thought behind them. He's not just ripping balls in randomly but is definitely planning his bowling. He seems pretty adaptable and his style of bowling challenges othodoxy. I'd say batsmen can already pick his variations so his success will hinge on his brains and he seems to have those as well as the tricks. Even knowing what he's sending down won't help the batsmen much if there's as much thought as seems to be apparent in Mendis' bowling.
adharcric
International Coach
Disagree with that. Laxman has always been eager to bat at 3 but Dravid's been so superb that nobody has even considered it. Dravid's finally in a slump and Laxman's in good touch but I'm sure both are more than willing to bat at 3. India's had at least two quality options at 3 for a while now.
Last edited:
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'm sure he's willing but aside from one big knock at 3, he's been nothing more than solid there. Mind you, he's been shuffled around so much by the selectors, I'm not surprised he averages what he does when he really should be a good 10 runs better. He's been one of the more poorly-treated cricketers by India.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
What a pathetic display by India.
That said, it was such a glorious thing watching two wonderful spinners in tandem tie up in knots perhaps the best middle order against spin.. Was amazing.
Mendis certainly seems like the real deal. If he can bowl well on tracks that don't assist him (and I see no reason why he cannot), I am sure he will be another great in the making.. Of course, fitness and God permitting..
Also, this match shows up why it is so important to have another attacking bowler from the other end for any bowler. Just see how much better Murali seems to be now that he has another guy attacking the batsman from the other end. Quality support from the other end for bowlers is extremely under-rated, these days... And this game Murali picked up real top order guys too for most of his wickets.. So the idiots who sprout Murali takes only tailenders can finally shut up for once...
That said, it was such a glorious thing watching two wonderful spinners in tandem tie up in knots perhaps the best middle order against spin.. Was amazing.
Mendis certainly seems like the real deal. If he can bowl well on tracks that don't assist him (and I see no reason why he cannot), I am sure he will be another great in the making.. Of course, fitness and God permitting..
Also, this match shows up why it is so important to have another attacking bowler from the other end for any bowler. Just see how much better Murali seems to be now that he has another guy attacking the batsman from the other end. Quality support from the other end for bowlers is extremely under-rated, these days... And this game Murali picked up real top order guys too for most of his wickets.. So the idiots who sprout Murali takes only tailenders can finally shut up for once...
Definition by the Free Online Dictionary:
re·in·vent (rn-vnt)
tr.v. re·in·vent·ed, re·in·vent·ing, re·in·vents
1. To make over completely: "She reinvented Indian cooking to fit a Western kitchen and a Western larder" Irene Sax.
2. To bring back into existence or use: reinvented the concept of neighborliness.
Come to think of it, this definition validates both your argument and my argument, for they certainly popularised the tactic of the opening 'pinch-hitter', but they also re-introduced it when it was tried and then mothballed by the English cricket team, through Ian Botham. My argument doesn't contradict yours then; it merely adds to it.
Nice analogy.
That being said, even if you don't include flighted deliveries (I've never heard of a flighted arm ball, BTW), Murali has more than three major variations, regardless. Flight, IMO, is a variation on your normal deliveries, but Murali has a top-spinner, slider, doosra, orthodox legbreak and arm ball. That's five variations alone. If you exclude flight, most off-spinners would only have one major variation.
True, it was a pretty broad comparison, although Saqlain Mushtaq would be the next most innovative bowler behind Mendis.
Well, until he OD'd on his doosra, he was excellent. After that, he was poor.
True, but he still needs a stock delivery.
I'm not encouraging him to stop using his variations. I'm encouraging him to use them more moderately than he is at the moment. We want to prolong his career, rather than have him consigned to 'flash-in-the-pan' status in Test cricket as a result of having batsmen read all of his variations.
His current approach will probably work well in ODI's and over the shorter term in Test cricket.
If he had a stock delivery, we would probably be able to tell what it was. I hope that he does have (or develop quickly) a go-to delivery which he uses most of the time (not all of the time).
...and I disagree. He only has so many variations. If he has no stock delivery to fall back on once these variations are revealed, his Test career may sink.
You too, I guess.
Last edited:
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
The SL's didn't pioneer the idea of a pinch-hitter to open but certainly did where both openers go for broke. Mind you, it still takes the right player; as many teams have found to the peril, just putting sloggers at the top of the order isnt enough. Blokes like Jayasuriya are good batsmen too. The SL special was a total where the first 100 came up inside 15 overs, if they were still out there they'd keep going, if they were out then guys like De Silva had plenty of time and runs on the board to play themselves in for the final 10-over push to 300+.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Also, they were perhaps the first team, at least the first ones that I remember, playing a specialist bat at no.7.. It was either Mahanama or Tillekaratne depending on the situation but this gave them the luxury of allowing both openers go for broke at the top.. And the approach worked brilliantly in the flat tracks + small grounds of the subcontinent. The bowlers were simply not used to such an attack up at the top from both men. There was simply no respite and it took them time to get used to it and develop counters for it.