'Ball of the Century'

[greg]

It seems to me that all the people challenging the "Ball of the Century" status on the grounds of there being "better" or "more unplayable" balls (especially balls delivered by Warne later in his career) are missing the point. The ball's status, and yes one can argue that it is in part an Anglo(/Aussie?) centric view, comes as much from the circumstances which it was delivered as its unplayable qualities (it obviously wasn't unplayable in principle - for a start it ultimately pitched outside leg so could have been kicked away).

Whether you think Gatting was a good player of spin or not, is to some extent not important - at the time he had a reputation for being so (especially against "leg spin"), but he had never faced anyone like Warne. But that is again the point - not only had he never faced anyone like Warne, many people in England (including many of the journalists who reported the event) had simply never seen anything like Warne. We had all heard a little bit of him - someone who turned the ball a bit and had won a couple of tests for Australia, but we hadn't seen him, nor anything like. (it wasn't like today where most foreign test series are routinely broadcast on Sky Sports). All we knew was that he'd turned up in England and Graeme Hick had murdered him in the match against Worcester (we know now that he was deliberately holding most of his variations back in that match, but that wasn't revealed at the time).

And then he came on to bowl at Old Trafford and for many of us our entire view of what was possible on a cricket field changed. Frankly it is not totally ridiculous that it would have been considered by many in England to have been a pretty astonishing ball if it had missed the off-stump!

So better balls? Possibly. More unplayable balls? Definitely. More significant balls? Can't think of many.

 

[akilana]

baaaallll!

Whaaatt

 

[Top_Cat]

It seems to me that all the people challenging the "Ball of the Century" status on the grounds of there being "better" or "more unplayable" balls (especially balls delivered by Warne later in his career) are missing the point. The ball's status, and yes one can argue that it is in part an Anglo(/Aussie?) centric view, comes as much from the circumstances which it was delivered as its unplayable qualities (it obviously wasn't unplayable in principle - for a start it ultimately pitched outside leg so could have been kicked away).

Whether you think Gatting was a good player of spin or not, is to some extent not important - at the time he had a reputation for being so (especially against "leg spin"), but he had never faced anyone like Warne. But that is again the point - not only had he never faced anyone like Warne, many people in England (including many of the journalists who reported the event) had simply never seen anything like Warne. We had all heard a little bit of him - someone who turned the ball a bit and had won a couple of tests for Australia, but we hadn't seen him, nor anything like. (it wasn't like today where most foreign test series are routinely broadcast on Sky Sports). All we knew was that he'd turned up in England and Graeme Hick had murdered him in the match against Worcester (we know now that he was deliberately holding most of his variations back in that match, but that wasn't revealed at the time).

And then he came on to bowl at Old Trafford and for many of us our entire view of what was possible on a cricket field changed. Frankly it is not totally ridiculous that it would have been considered by many in England to have been a pretty astonishing ball if it had missed the off-stump!

So better balls? Possibly. More unplayable balls? Definitely. More significant balls? Can't think of many.

Bam.

 

[Maximas]

It was also the effect it had on legspin bowling, it completely revitalized the art.

 

[The Sean]

Greg's pretty much nailed it with his post there. Spot on.

 

[fredfertang]

It was also the effect it had on legspin bowling, it completely revitalized the art.

Indeed - Pakistan always had a leggie or two, and Qadir never really cut it outside Pakistan anyway, so we just assumed the art was all but dead at the highest level - the Aussies often had a leggie, but with the greatest of respect to them Kerry O'Keeffe, Jim Higgs, Peter Sleep, Trevor Hohns and Bob Holland were as much like Shane Warne as Chris Tavare was like KP

 

[the big bambino]

Jimmy Higgs was actually pretty good but fair enough overall. Personally don't think the Warne ball overrated in the slightest. The swerve, dip and whip of the break plus the distance it went. None better.

 

[Beleg]

growing up as a kid in pakistan in the 90s never really heard of gatting's dismissal. whereas akram's 2 in 2 against England was part of the folklore - in many ways seen as the epitome of the mercurial wizardry that catapulted cricket into the limelight while setting up the basis for its promotion/adoption by the mass media at the expense of other sports as well as imran's subsequent hero-worship

so it deffo's a matter of where you sit (and saying the art was all but dead at the highest level while acknowledging the presence of high quality leg-spinners is kinda disingenuous - at least from a more global, inclusive perspective)

 

[the big bambino]

Yep on reflection those couple from Akram are fair contenders for the title.

 

[kyear2]

I would rate this one as highly as the Warne Gatting delivery....

Muralitharan's Ball Of The Millenium - YouTube

That was a special delivery.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

It seems to me that all the people challenging the "Ball of the Century" status on the grounds of there being "better" or "more unplayable" balls (especially balls delivered by Warne later in his career) are missing the point. The ball's status, and yes one can argue that it is in part an Anglo(/Aussie?) centric view, comes as much from the circumstances which it was delivered as its unplayable qualities (it obviously wasn't unplayable in principle - for a start it ultimately pitched outside leg so could have been kicked away).

Whether you think Gatting was a good player of spin or not, is to some extent not important - at the time he had a reputation for being so (especially against "leg spin"), but he had never faced anyone like Warne. But that is again the point - not only had he never faced anyone like Warne, many people in England (including many of the journalists who reported the event) had simply never seen anything like Warne. We had all heard a little bit of him - someone who turned the ball a bit and had won a couple of tests for Australia, but we hadn't seen him, nor anything like. (it wasn't like today where most foreign test series are routinely broadcast on Sky Sports). All we knew was that he'd turned up in England and Graeme Hick had murdered him in the match against Worcester (we know now that he was deliberately holding most of his variations back in that match, but that wasn't revealed at the time).

And then he came on to bowl at Old Trafford and for many of us our entire view of what was possible on a cricket field changed. Frankly it is not totally ridiculous that it would have been considered by many in England to have been a pretty astonishing ball if it had missed the off-stump!

So better balls? Possibly. More unplayable balls? Definitely. More significant balls? Can't think of many.

Nailed it.

The ball he got Strauss with at Edgbaston in 05 was probably a better one but in terms of significance in cricket/series this is top by a long long way.

 

[karan316]

In terms of significance, the Akram-Lamb delivery was right there, and it came in an even more important situation.

 

[kyear2]

It was Warne's introduction to England and to the world in the oldest and most revered rivalry in the game. Just appreciate it for what it was.

 

[wpdavid]

It was also the effect it had on legspin bowling, it completely revitalized the art.

That's the one bit that I'd question, as I don't think we've seen anything like the rebirth of the art that was expected. If anything, we've reverted to where we were in the decades before Warne emerged: a few leggies from the SC who aren't anything to write home about and one or two from the other countries who are expensive liabilities.

Perhaps that only re-emphasises just how brilliant he was.

And perhaps you could argue that he actually had more influence on off-spin and what could be expected from that, with the development of the doosra et al.

 

[Maximas]

That's the one bit that I'd question, as I don't think we've seen anything like the rebirth of the art that was expected. If anything, we've reverted to where we were in the decades before Warne emerged: a few leggies from the SC who aren't anything to write home about and one or two from the other countries who are expensive liabilities.

Perhaps that only re-emphasises just how brilliant he was.

And perhaps you could argue that he actually had more influence on off-spin and what could be expected from that, with the development of the doosra et al.

It showed how glorious leg spin could be, and made people believe in spinners on the whole again. Suddenly any developing leggie thought if they practiced hard enough they too could get the turn and drift and flight and bamboozle the batsmen. Leg-spinners weren't seen as a liability, but as a potential champion and match-winner. Maybe it was more the perception rather than the art itself that was changed?

 

[Goughy]

growing up as a kid in pakistan in the 90s never really heard of gatting's dismissal. whereas akram's 2 in 2 against England was part of the folklore - in many ways seen as the epitome of the mercurial wizardry that catapulted cricket into the limelight while setting up the basis for its promotion/adoption by the mass media at the expense of other sports as well as imran's subsequent hero-worship

so it deffo's a matter of where you sit (and saying the art was all but dead at the highest level while acknowledging the presence of high quality leg-spinners is kinda disingenuous - at least from a more global, inclusive perspective)

As an English fan who thought he watched all cricket in the 90s. What were Akram's 2 in 2?

 

[wpdavid]

As an English fan who thought he watched all cricket in the 90s. What were Akram's 2 in 2?

Dunno if you're being serious, but he probably means the 1992 WC final when he cleaned up Lamb and Lewis.

 

[Goughy]

Dunno if you're being serious, but he probably means the 1992 WC final when he cleaned up Lamb and Lewis.

I was being serious. I watched the game, obviously wanted England to win and remembered Akram bowling well but don't recall 2 in 2. Possibly because I don't remember anything but the basic details of any ODI game.

 

[Beleg]

I was being serious. I watched the game, obviously wanted England to win and remembered Akram bowling well but don't recall 2 in 2. Possibly because I don't remember anything but the basic details of any ODI game.

well there you go then says a lot about the respective priorities and the folly of making grandiose claims

 

[nightprowler10]

I was being serious. I watched the game, obviously wanted England to win and remembered Akram bowling well but don't recall 2 in 2. Possibly because I don't remember anything but the basic details of any ODI game.

I have to say I am surprised, but I guess that's the whole point. I didn't know there was even something called the 'ball of the century' until I started surfing the web, yet Akram's deliveries have been ingrained in our memories and I imagine it'll be something that flashes in front of my eyes just before I die.