The balls of the century

[vcs]

I guess there is some truth to the adage "get just enough movement to take the edge". Extravagant hooping swing looks awesome but doesn't always seem to deliver the results you'd expect.

 

[Burgey]

21st century BTW. Otherwise we will be discussing Gatting delivery

Yeah but the post I was responding to was referring to what the poster had seen while watching test cricket, not just to this centuury, so unless you doing so started on 1.1.2001, you should probably put this failed attempt at snark in the bin.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Why is it weird when the best ever bowler pretty much did the same

Yeah true. Just seems counterintuitive. When you see a Jimmy Anderson or Shane Bond swinging the ball metres both ways it's hard to imagine that a guy that bowls straight up and down could be better

Yeah but the post I was responding to was referring to what the poster had seen while watching test cricket, not just to this centuury, so unless you doing so started on 1.1.2001, you should probably put this failed attempt at snark in the bin.

you sure it was snark? looked to me like the bloke was just helping out an old fella with a patchy memory.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

If you want slower balls, Chris Cairns to Chris Read was the best (unfortunately it was in 1999).

 

[Burgey]

If you want slower balls, Chris Cairns to Chris Read was the best (unfortunately it was in 1999).

Remember that. Was gold.

 

[Flem274*]

not fair though since chris read couldn't have played it more hilariously if he tried

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah true. Just seems counterintuitive. When you see a Jimmy Anderson or Shane Bond swinging the ball metres both ways it's hard to imagine that a guy that bowls straight up and down could be better

i think mcgrath is just a lesson that accuracy and plan execution at test standard pace is the hardest skill there is.

there's the corridor, and then within it there's the true corridor of uncertainty. mcgrath just never went away from the true corridor.

 

[Burgey]

you sure it was snark?

It always is. The Warne reference gives it away as it always does with that poster

Edit: On reflection, you may well be right. Apologies to Migara

 

[OverratedSanity]

i think mcgrath is just a lesson that accuracy and plan execution at test standard pace is the hardest skill there is.

there's the corridor, and then within it there's the true corridor of uncertainty. mcgrath just never went away from the true corridor.

It'd also be far less useful without mcgrath's height. The awkward bounce is what made the accuracy truly deadly.

 

[Burgey]

It'd also be far less useful without mcgrath's height. The awkward bounce is what made the accuracy truly deadly.

Decked it both ways too. Pretty hard combination to come up against

 

[DriveClub]

What's the difference between mcgrath and ambrose? They just seem to be the exact same bowlers, accurate metronomes who can seam it both ways with awkward bounce

 

[Burgey]

Ambrose a little bit quicker when he wanted to be I think, and tbh didn't always crank it up as much as he could, though he did it often enough when it mattered. Great bowler.

 

[stephen]

What's the difference between mcgrath and ambrose? They just seem to be the exact same bowlers, accurate metronomes who can seam it both ways with awkward bounce

Very little. Ambrose was a bit more venomous, McGrath a bit more cunning. I think McGrath's true strength was setting the batsman up. With his immaculate accuracy and slight variations you could never be certain in your defense and you'd look even more stupid if you tried to attack.

Ambrose was almost as accurate and nastier to face. I don't think he was quite as skilled at setting up the batsman as McGrath (Though he was pretty bloody good at it).

 

[vcs]

I don't think even McGrath rivals Ambrose for sheer destructiveness. No bowler I can think of does, actually. Kind of like Broad actually, with McGrath's accuracy and consistency.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah if he had a day and nothing could be done about it really.

 

[honestbharani]

You can get after McGrath a bit more than you can off Ambrose but he also could get you out more for the same reason.

 

[trundler]

I don't think even McGrath rivals Ambrose for sheer destructiveness. No bowler I can think of does, actually. Kind of like Broad actually, with McGrath's accuracy and consistency.

McGrath has a better strike rate despite not having the 7-1 kind of spells though

 

[honestbharani]

why I posted what I did in my earlier post

 

[SteveNZ]

If you want slower balls, Chris Cairns to Chris Read was the best (unfortunately it was in 1999).

He bowled one to Thorpe in the same Test and innings (?) I think. It was equally as good, just Thorpe didn't look as ridiculous as Read.

This might be a Test thread, but Kemar Roach's ball to Shane Watson, first ball of the 2009 Champs Trophy match, is worth a mention. Just all levels of epic. It's first ball of the game, for a start. Roach false starts his first run up, then bowls a wickedly rapid in ducking yorker that knocks Watson's off pole out, and Watson stands there like it's not fair and he may even be considering reviewing it.

 

[a massive zebra]

Ambrose had a very slightly short of a length stock delivery; an ability to hit the seam ball after ball; unbeatable precision in line; the stock-ball being an off-cutter; the unplayable legcutter always just round the corner; the steepling bounce one would expect of a 6ft 7ins giant. This amazing accuracy, seam movement and bounce meant he almost never needed to swing the ball, although very occasionally he would outswing it on the rare occasion he pitched the ball up. All these assets combined to make Ambrose a truly frightening prospect to face.

Curtly Ambrose essentially equates to Glenn McGrath with far more venom and marginally more accuracy (although McGrath was also super accurate), if a little less consistency. I think McGrath was probably slightly better at identifying and exploiting the batsmens weaknesses and targeting the opponents star batsman (although Ambrose was really good at this as well). Ambrose was much better to watch but overall they would typically end up having pretty much the same impact on the series.