Saker rates attack as good as great Australians

[Ruckus]

He may not be up there with the ATGs that have been mentioned in this thread but in terms of the aesthetic value he brings to a game of cricket he's near the top right?

Yeah, think that's a pretty good summary really. Awesome to watch, but not as effective as other 'great' bowlers.

That being said, I'd still be putting someone like Steyn up there with Anderson on an aesthetic level too. Even though Steyn perhaps lacks some of Anderson's more intricate skills, he makes up for it with the fact he is a far more aggressive bowler and can really ramp up his pace if he chooses to. When Steyn is fired up, I definately don't want to be going anywhere.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Steyn would beat the crap out of Anderson in a back alley brawl

 

[BackFootPunch]

Yeah, think that's a pretty good summary really. Awesome to watch, but not as effective as other 'great' bowlers.

That being said, I'd still be putting someone like Steyn up there with Anderson on an aesthetic level too. Even though Steyn perhaps lacks some of Anderson's more intricate skills, he makes up for it with the fact he is a far more aggressive bowler and can really ramp up his pace if he chooses to. When Steyn is fired up, I definately don't want to be going anywhere.

Definitely agree on Steyn being up there. Having watched him bowl in the nets from about 2 metres away, he's a pretty impressive and intimidating sight. There's just something special about bowlers that can generate genuine pace and bounce without looking like they're really straining for it.

 

[SteveNZ]

I think it's more the opposite. Getting a decent amount of swing is dependent on weather conditions etc. and you often see bowlers who pretty much only have swing as their main weapon really struggle when the conditions don't suit or the ball gets older (Anderson isn't really in this category any more though, because he can rely on his consistent line and length). Good seam bowlers have always come off to me as being more useful and adaptable on the whole than swing bowlers. As you implied in your previous post as well, movement off the seam is usually a more dangerous thing because the time to react to the ball changing direction is as short as possible, and often the ball moves just that tiny amount, but enough to take the edge etc. Where as swing is often temperamental, sometimes moving too much, sometimes not enough. There is no doubt it looks more spectacular though when it comes off right.

Fair points, can't argue with that. And that is something I like about Anderson, he's not one of those bowlers where if it's not swinging on any given day then he's absolutely un-usuable. Been quite a few of those, a lot being left-armers.

 

[Ruckus]

Two (probably elementary) questions for people who know stuff about swing bowling:

- Why is controlled inswing/outswing bowling like Anderson displays such a rare art...e.g. why can't Steyn consistently bowl an inswinger, despite obviously having mastered outswing? What more is there to it technically than just changing where the rough side of the ball is facing?
-Why, despite bowling with excellent seam presentation and often a full length, didn't McGrath get more swing?

 

[Spark]

1. Wrist position
2. Didn't need to

 

[Arachnodouche]

the wrist's range of motion is far more limited while attempting an inswinger.

Anderson reminds me far more of Damien Fleming than anybody else. Similar approach, similar wind-up action, similar modus operandi too w.r.t bi-directional swing. I wonder how Fleming would've gone with more opportunities, a fitter body or playing today.

 

[Ruckus]

2. Didn't need to

I don't mean why he didn't choose to, I mean whats the difference technically between how he bowled seaming balls that didn't swing and say an outswinger by Steyn? Something to do with the seam pointing towards the slips as opposed to straight on?

 

[uvelocity]

i would suggest revs on the ball and the arc formed by the bowling arm

 

[Spark]

I don't mean why he didn't choose to, I mean whats the difference technically between how he bowled seaming balls that didn't swing and say an outswinger by Steyn? Something to do with the seam pointing towards the slips as opposed to straight on?

Probably just had the seam pointing in a completely neutral position to extract maximum seam. Anyone who saw enough McGrath (esp. in England) knew that he could swing it both ways at will if he wanted to.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

It's not just the wrist position but also the action. Waqar swung it miles because of his slingy action.

 

[Ruckus]

The ball on the left is what a standard Anderson outswinger looks like. So the seam points towards the slips. But is it possible to get outswing when the seam is perfectly vertical and perpendicular to the stumps like the ball on the right?

 

[uvelocity]

no, the seam is like a rudder

but part of the reason I think outswing is often natural is just the action of the shoulder and as you rotate and bring the arm down it follows from leg to off

I think if you didn't have a head, or if bowling was performed by rotating at the elbow control of swing direction would be easier. move your arm over it naturally moves in an arc like so )

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Yeah I guess as long as your wrist is towards the off-side.

 

[BoyBrumby]

In that case Waqar is the greatest fast bowler ever and not Marshall.

In his youthful pomp Waqar had a very good case, IMHO. His late, in-swinging toe-crusher was as close to unplayable as any delivery aimed at the stumps can ever be.

His career should be exhibit one in any case for suggesting stats only show so much. His overall figures are impressive enough, but before his back injury I think one could legitimately claim he might just have been the best ever. Happily he played his career in the televisual age so one can see just how very special he was.

& that's no slight on MM either.

Be interesting to see if, as he gets into his 30s and the pace winds down a bit, whether England will stick with him, or if they'll go the Hoggard route especially with their depth in bowling.

Very good point, actually. I'd say in his favour is perhaps that Onions is probably the closest like-for-like England currently has for him and he's of similar vintage to Angry. & way more injury prone.

Be interesting to see if he maybe gives the shorter formats away in a year or two to prolong his test career. He's never made the white ball talk quite so fluently as he has the red anyway.

Anyway, whether or not one thinks Saker has a point, you'd back England's incumbent 8-11 to score more runs down the order, wouldn't you?

 

[Ruckus]

no, the seam is like a rudder

but part of the reason I think outswing is often natural is just the action of the shoulder and as you rotate and bring the arm down it follows from leg to off

I think if you didn't have a head, or if bowling was performed by rotating at the elbow control of swing direction would be easier. move your arm over it naturally moves in an arc like so )

hmm that makes sense then, because most of McGrath's deliveries come out closer to the ball on the right in the picture above. So maybe a reason they come out that way is because his overall bowling action works with very straight angles; bowls very close to the stumps and his arm is close to vertical at release, probably 'avoiding' much of that natural arc you describe above.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Always appreciate another Waqar fan.

Batting wise:

Broad>McGrath
Bresnan>Lee
Anderson<Gillespie
Swann=Warne

 

[uvelocity]

e: @ ruckus
a bit different but it's also possible, with a pronounced seam especially, to land the ball on one side of the seam with a tilted wrist and have it deviate. I find a much slower release speed is beneficial for that kind of movement.

 

[uvelocity]

Always appreciate another Waqar fan.

Batting wise:

Broad>McGrath
Bresnan>Lee
Anderson<Gillespie
Swann=Warne

dizzy trumps all

 

[Debris]

In his youthful pomp Waqar had a very good case, IMHO. His late, in-swinging toe-crusher was as close to unplayable as any delivery aimed at the stumps can ever be.

His career should be exhibit one in any case for suggesting stats only show so much. His overall figures are impressive enough, but before his back injury I think one could legitimately claim he might just have been the best ever. Happily he played his career in the televisual age so one can see just how very special he was.

& that's no slight on MM either.



Very good point, actually. I'd say in his favour is perhaps that Onions is probably the closest like-for-like England currently has for him and he's of similar vintage to Angry. & way more injury prone.

Be interesting to see if he maybe gives the shorter formats away in a year or two to prolong his test career. He's never made the white ball talk quite so fluently as he has the red anyway.

Anyway, whether or not one thinks Saker has a point, you'd back England's incumbent 8-11 to score more runs down the order, wouldn't you?

There was concerns over Waqar even before his back injury though. His record in Australia was poor, for instance. He was the perfect example of a bowler who needed conditions to favour him to excel. He could look pretty pedestrian at times in unfavourable conditions.