Did Reverse Swing hamper Pakistan cricket?

[SJS]

I think the point is that young players are focusing on reverse swing as the basis for their arsenal and bowling. Rather than as a great weapon that needs to be built on a solid foundation of orthodox skills.

Waqar and Wasim could still be very dangerous when the ball didnt hoop. Reverse was an additional skill that when combined with the right conditions *cough* made dangerous bowlers even more lethal.

That maybe so but one has to put it down to faulty coaching besides other things. Many young leg-spinners overdo the googly because at the lower levels of the game they find batsmen completely bamboozled by it but most top leg spinners who can bowl it have become much better bowlers because of it and there is no call similar to this.

With the ball being in a condition where it will reverse-swing for at least as long as it will swing normally (in the sub-continent at least), it makes great sense for the bowlers in our part of the world to learn to swing the old ball because unlike, say in England, the ball does not remain in as good a shape for conventional swing for long.

It is possible and I think true, that normal swing is a much lesser prevalent skill today than it was twenty years ago but that is true all over the world and not just in Pakistan. We need to look elsewhere to understand why and see what needs to be done.

There is a strong movement away from the basics of classical swing bowling in the actions of bowlers coming up the system and there is a much wider acceptance of it because of the success of some great bowlers with less than perfectly classical actions. Unfortunately, the coaches are not able to understand/point out that the basics still remain sacrosanct when learning the skills. The few who deviate and still find success do it in-spite of that deviation and not because of it. Copying them is, in the long run, going to harm the skills of future generations.

We need to look very carefully at the standards of coaching at junior and middle levels. I have gone around the major centres in India, particularly Bombay and delhi and find some of the coaching very poor in imparting basics. It is to the credit of our youngsters, and more importantly, the sheer numbers that are coming in that we still have fairly high standards but they ARE falling, particularly in bowling and the effects can be seen in both Indian and Pakistani cricket.

 

[nightprowler10]

Pretty much stopped reading after I realized it was Aamer Sohail. If there's a Pakistani cricketer that I hate or think of as useless (past or present), he's it.

 

[Beleg]

Some people never miss a chance to take shot at a person who took their national cricket team to new heights & successfully performed against sides like the great WI(1974-1994).What Imran did & achieved for Pakistan is matchless even as a layer.But when he retired,the players he prepared successfully served Pakistan for next 10-12 years.

Instead these people keep worshipping such idiots who when made captain gave Pakistan nothing but bad name in the form of match fixing,norcotics & other scandals & left Pakistan cricket in such a situation that a cricket baby became a threat for it.Idols of these people themselves closed the doors of national team fr talented players like Mohammad Zahid,Rashid Latif ec.

Blah. Blah. Blah. Learn to read threads before jumping in with your boring tirades.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

While I don't buy the overall premise, I do think the idea that reverse swing is overrated has some merit. There's a tendancy among some cricket viewers, especially the armchair expert types one finds on an internet forum (not an attitude I'm innocent of myself), to rate the ability to find tangible lateral movement in the air or off the wicket more highly than it deserves, even to the point where it is considered the only relevant quality in determining a bowler's ability. In reality, plenty of bowlers who could and did move the ball around in the air regularly (say, James Anderson, Damien Fleming or any bowler Richard has ever professed to like) were less successful than their contemporary rivals who relied more bounce, accuracy, pace or simply moved the ball around in a more subtle way, or less frequently.

The same thing can be said about express pace. It's an asset, but it's not everything, and there's a reason bowlers like Glenn McGrath are so successful without necessarily ticking all the boxes one might have in a list of ideal characteristics for a seamer. Reverse swing can be devastating, but a five over burst of brilliant reverse swing bowling from time to time doesn't make a bowler on its own.

 

[Richard]

There's a tendancy among some cricket viewers, especially the armchair expert types one finds on an internet forum (not an attitude I'm innocent of myself), to rate the ability to find tangible lateral movement in the air or off the wicket more highly than it deserves, even to the point where it is considered the only relevant quality in determining a bowler's ability. In reality, plenty of bowlers who could and did move the ball around in the air regularly (say, James Anderson, Damien Fleming or any bowler Richard has ever professed to like) were less successful than their contemporary rivals who relied more bounce, accuracy, pace or simply moved the ball around in a more subtle way, or less frequently.

Some were, some weren't. No-one has ever said the ability to move the ball in the air is the only quality of any relevance to making a good bowler. As per usual you're putting words on my keyboard so as to make the point you want to refute easier to refute (a la White is better than McGrath) and I can't say I'm terribly surprised these days.

The ability to move the ball sideways is the most important quality in a bowler, though, and few if any will get very far without it. At least, that's the case in this day-and-age - it might have been different in previous times. It's certainly not a case of the more you move it the more successful you are (though clearly the more you can get it to go the better given other factors remaining constant) and sometimes relatively small amounts of movement are as useful as really big boomeranging deliveries.

But sideways movement > any other skill in bowling, and for mine to suggest otherwise is ignorance. Despite the fact many bowlers of repute do such a thing.

 

[Sanz]

Pretty much stopped reading after I realized it was Aamer Sohail. If there's a Pakistani cricketer that I hate or think of as useless (past or present), he's it.

Ditto.

 

[zaremba]

A little surprised that he nominated Courtney Walsh (alongside Glenn McGrath) as the most difficult bowler to open against. I would have put him a little bit lower down the pecking order, certainly below Curtly Ambrose and I'd have thought Donald and Pollock as well.

He does have the advantage over me of having actually played against these guys, admittedly.

 

[zaremba]

Some were, some weren't. No-one has ever said the ability to move the ball in the air is the only quality of any relevance to making a good bowler. As per usual you're putting words on my keyboard so as to make the point you want to refute easier to refute (a la White is better than McGrath) and I can't say I'm terribly surprised these days.

The ability to move the ball sideways is the most important quality in a bowler, though, and few if any will get very far without it. At least, that's the case in this day-and-age - it might have been different in previous times. It's certainly not a case of the more you move it the more successful you are (though clearly the more you can get it to go the better given other factors remaining constant) and sometimes relatively small amounts of movement are as useful as really big boomeranging deliveries.

But sideways movement > any other skill in bowling, and for mine to suggest otherwise is ignorance. Despite the fact many bowlers of repute do such a thing.

Two words: Joel Garner

 

[zaremba]

sideways movement > any other skill in bowling, and for mine to suggest otherwise is ignorance.

Sorry for being personal, particularly since I'm new to this forum, but why, Richard, do you feel the need to say this kind of thing?

 

[Richard]

Two words: Joel Garner

As I said in another thread, my experience of watching Garner is not extensive. He was a bit unusual, in being even taller than most bowlers (as The WACA is, or maybe was, quicker than even the quickest of "normal" pitches) but that doesn't neccessarily mean he could bounce batsmen out where other bowlers couldn't.

All I can say is that it's been that way in the time I've been watching. It may have been different in the past.

 

[Richard]

Sorry for being personal, particularly since I'm new to this forum, but why, Richard, do you feel the need to say this kind of thing?

Because there's simply no other way of putting it. I could try to sugar-coat it, yes, but that would simply be, well, inaccurate. It'd be saying something I didn't believe was true.

Others are more than free to believe otherwise, but I've seen no evidence to suggest it.

 

[zaremba]

As I said in another thread, my experience of watching Garner is not extensive. He was a bit unusual, in being even taller than most bowlers (as The WACA is, or maybe was, quicker than even the quickest of "normal" pitches) but that doesn't neccessarily mean he could bounce batsmen out where other bowlers couldn't.

All I can say is that it's been that way in the time I've been watching. It may have been different in the past.

I think he would have been a great in the current era just as he was then.

He and Marshall were very contrasting. Marshall was all about pace (sometimes extreme pace) and movement, both ways, the air and off the pitch. Garner was all about awkward angles.

The thought that the Windies had those 2 bowling in the same team (alongside some other fairly decent quicks) sends shudders down the spine.

 

[Richard]

I think he would have been a great in the current era just as he was then.

I don't doubt that for a second. It's just that if all that he got batsmen out with was the fact he got bounce, I don't think that'd work at the current time. He'd either be less effective or he'd find other ways to get wickets. Probably the latter.

 

[zaremba]

Because there's simply no other way of putting it. I could try to sugar-coat it, yes, but that would simply be, well, inaccurate. It'd be saying something I didn't believe was true.

Others are more than free to believe otherwise, but I've seen no evidence to suggest it.

It's not about sugar-coating it, it's just about refraining from being unnecessarily offensive. You should be confident enough in what you're saying (you're always thoughtful and provocative, if sometimes misguided, and you generally know your onions) without telling the person you're addressing that they're ignorant because they happen to hold a different opinion to you.

 

[zaremba]

I don't doubt that for a second. It's just that if all that he got batsmen out with was the fact he got bounce, I don't think that'd work at the current time. He'd either be less effective or he'd find other ways to get wickets. Probably the latter.

Ag. 2 disag.

And no one's suggesting that he got wickets with just bounce. He was more about awkward angles - bounce was an important part of this, but so were his justifiably famous yorkers.

 

[Richard]

It's not about sugar-coating it, it's just about refraining from being unnecessarily offensive. You should be confident enough in what you're saying (you're always thoughtful and provocative, if sometimes misguided, and you generally know your onions) without telling the person you're addressing that they're ignorant because they happen to hold a different opinion to you.

I do try to say "in my opinion that's ignorance", rather than putting it accross as fact.

Basically, if someone holds a poles-opposite opinion to you, and neither is willing to change their opinion, then both think the other is ignorant. Some will say that and some won't. But that's the way it is, whether you're diplomatic about it or not.

Granted I could probably be more diplomatic of times, though. It's something of a personality defect. Sadly not one I can ever see being completely dispelled.

 

[zaremba]

I do try to say "in my opinion that's ignorance", rather than putting it accross as fact.

 

[zaremba]

Basically, if someone holds a poles-opposite opinion to you, and neither is willing to change their opinion, then both think the other is ignorant.

But as reasonable and well-informed people appreciate, reasonable and well-informed people often disagree.

 

[Goughy]

But sideways movement > any other skill in bowling, and for mine to suggest otherwise is ignorance. Despite the fact many bowlers of repute do such a thing.

Obviously that isnt true, but Im not going into this again ( have just deleted a large and excited post).

Sideways movement is one of the easiest things for a good batsman to play, especially if it goes early.

Most wickets are off balls that barely move a hairs width.

In advance of any reply, Ill not respond so we will not go round in circles.

 

[Goughy]

In related news

Trescothick clearly better than Ambrose as he got far greater movement and that is the most important thing.

(lets ignore the fact that the clip sees many trapped on the crease going nowhere as length and bounce are not important )