Wasim Akram and Glenn Mcgrath: An analytical comparison

[fredfertang]

stricken punk

 

[Dawood Ahmad]

I meant when Wasim was young, not right now

He used to swing it more than others and both ways. And yea, I played cricket at decent level as a fast bowler but you don't need to be a fast bowler to say, Wasim could swing both ways. Even Boycott's grandma could see that.

1. Swinging more doesn't catch an outside edge, however a sudden swing which is not understandable does.
2. Where did you get that there is a need of being a fast bowler to say he could swing it both ways?I meant to say that you need to be fast bowler to understand the complex tricks which confuse the batsman.

 

[simonlee48]

1. Swinging more doesn't catch an outside edge, however a sudden swing which is not understandable does.
2. Where did you get that there is a need of being a fast bowler to say he could swing it both ways?I meant to say that you need to be fast bowler to understand the complex tricks which confuse the batsman.

And you think Wasim didn't use to get late swing?

You don't need to be a fast bowler to understand fast bowling. You simply have to be a fan of fast bowling and you will understand it. I know plenty of such fans who have never bowled fast but they understand it pretty well.

 

[Dawood Ahmad]

And you think Wasim didn't use to get late swing?

You don't need to be a fast bowler to understand fast bowling. You simply have to be a fan of fast bowling and you will understand it. I know plenty of such fans who have never bowled fast but they understand it pretty well.

Someone who isn't a fast bowler:
1. He cant explain whqts happening on the field with a tast bowler. For exakple, if a non-fast bowler looks at steyn vs Ab Devilliers, Steyn vs Yousaf Pathan, Steyn vs Dhoni and Steyn vs Bailey, (all in ipl) I dont see him admiring Steyn until he watches him again bowling at his best.
2. He cant predict what the bowler is going to do.
3. He cant even figure out most of the tricks used to trouble the batsman.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

 

[G.I.Joe]

Someone who isn't a fast bowler:
1. He cant explain whqts happening on the field with a tast bowler. For exakple, if a non-fast bowler looks at steyn vs Ab Devilliers, Steyn vs Yousaf Pathan, Steyn vs Dhoni and Steyn vs Bailey, (all in ipl) I dont see him admiring Steyn until he watches him again bowling at his best.
2. He cant predict what the bowler is going to do.
3. He cant even figure out most of the tricks used to trouble the batsman.

How does a bowler figure out the tricks to trouble a batsman if he can't think like a batsman?

 

[uvelocity]

he must see him bat at his best (not in ipl) and he can admire him and decide on new tricks

 

[Dawood Ahmad]

How does a bowler figure out the tricks to trouble a batsman if he can't think like a batsman?

Where did I say he can?

 

[Dawood Ahmad]

he must see him bat at his best (not in ipl) and he can admire him and decide on new tricks

But if he is himself a skilled fast bowler, he will easily understand how good he is.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Where did I say he can?

You implied it.

 

[Dawood Ahmad]

You implied it.

Explain where did I imply that?
Saying that you need to do one thing doesn't imply that you don't need to do another thing.

 

[cnerd123]

Would you consider Boycott and Gavaskar to be good judges of fast bowling?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Explain where did I imply that?
Saying that you need to do one thing doesn't imply that you don't need to do another thing.

You said that someone who isn't a fast bowler is not capable of figuring out how to trick a batsman, which is supposedly an advantage that the fast bowler has over the batsman as an analyst of fast bowlers, thereby implying that a fast bowler is capable of analysing a batsman in order to trick him. If you now claim that you did not mean to imply that a fast bowler is capable of analysing a batsman (without which there is no trickery possible), then it follows that the fast bowler holds no natural advantage over the batsman as an analyst of fast bowlers. The cake cannot be had and eaten too.

 

[Dawood Ahmad]

You said that someone who isn't a fast bowler is not capable of figuring out how to trick a batsman, which isk supposedly an advantage that the fast bowler has over the batsman as an analyst of fast bowlers, thereby implying that a fast bowler is capable of analysing a batsman in order to trick him. If you now claim that you did not mean to imply that a fast bowler is capable of analysing a batsman (without which there is no trickery possible), then it follows that the fast bowler holds no natural advantage over the batsman as an analyst of fast bowlers. The cake cannot be had and eaten too.

Firstly, I said that in most cases he isn't capable of understanding the tricks "in most cases". Secondly, a fast bowler is capable of analysing a batsman, what is wrong with that. That doesn't hurt me. I never said he cant analyze a batsman. and that doesnt mean that a fast bowler has no advantage over a batsman as an analyst. I think you have mistaken, that isnt a natural advantage.
Well it is very difficult for me to use simple english.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Firstly, I said that in most cases he isn't capable of understanding the tricks "in most cases". Secondly, a fast bowler is capable of analysing a batsman, what is wrong with that. That doesn't hurt me. I never said he cant analyze a batsman. and that doesnt mean that a fast bowler has no advantage over a batsman as an analyst.
Well it is very difficult for me to use simple english.

So what you're saying is that batsmen are capable of analysing bowlers and bowlers are capable of analysing batsmen and all that talk about batsmen being incapable of figuring out the tricks employed by fast bowlers was hooey.

 

[Dawood Ahmad]

So what you're saying is that batsmen are capable of analysing bowlers.

I am not saying that.

 

[Dawood Ahmad]

Would you consider Boycott and Gavaskar to be good judges of fast bowling?

In commentary, they dont express their thoughts but keep filling time with different lines. So I can say nothing.

Plus I want qn advice that should Ibuse complex or.simple ebglish on this forum since I have been considered as a great entertainer and have been given attension?

 

[simonlee48]

Plus I want qn advice that should Ibuse complex or.simple ebglish on this forum since I have been considered as a great entertainer and have been given attension?

Simple English is only for simple guys/gals. You should exclusively use complex English.

 

[Dan]

So bowlers can work out batsmen, but batsmen can't work out bowlers?

For an "analytical comparison" this has little analysis and some seriously large holes in the underpinning logic. I mean, Wasim Akram apparently didn't take wickets with swing. FMD.

 

[Burgey]

Hey Dawood,

Great to have you back again. Been ages since you posted. What have you been up to?