'Ball of the Century'

[Top_Cat]

Well, I'm a fan of Pakistan so maybe this is why but I definitely remember the two balls Akram bowled to knock over Lamb and Lewis. I remember wondering how it was physically possible to move a cricket ball that much, the Lewis ball was just monstrous swing. I doubt Lewis saw anything like it before or since (doubt he even saw that one). Mind you, Mushie's wrong'un to Hick is just as much ingrained in my brain as that one. I remember just about every ball of the set-up as well as the ball itself, which was brilliant.

Still put Warnie's ball higher in terms of sheer what-the-****ery, though.

 

[Cabinet96]

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.

Leg spin has become massive amongst kids in England though, so I wouldn't say that there's no interest in it. I guess it's just a hard art to master to test level.

 

[akilana]

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.

Couldn't have said it better.

 

[karan316]

I don't see a proper reasoning for why Warne's delivery is rated above Akram's,

towards the start of the thread people said that it was the perfect delivery, it had everything in it. Then it was said that it was the significance of the delivery and the situation in which it was bowled that made it so special,
then a guy said "It doesn't matter if it was literally the 'ball of the century' though, the fact is that it instantly became part of cricket folklore" I would agree with him to an extent.

But looking at it from all the different angles, its hard to digest that it was actually better than Akram's delivery, if you compare the two as standalone deliveries, if you look at the situation, or if you look at what impact the delivery had, in all cases, Akram's delivery was much better.

The only thing is that Akram doesn't have that kind of media after him who would glorify him and create hype about him..

Utmost respect for Warne, and that delivery was extremely special and there aren't many better deliveries, but sorry, it wasn't the ball of the century...

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I don't know about anyone else but to me a spinning delivery can never be 'the ball of the century'.

 

[the big bambino]

What an unusual comment.

 

[Top_Cat]

But looking at it from all the different angles, its hard to digest that it was actually better than Akram's delivery, if you compare the two as standalone deliveries, if you look at the situation, or if you look at what impact the delivery had, in all cases, Akram's delivery was much better.

Could easily argue the opposite were one so inclined, tbh.

As standalone deliveries: Both superb and virtually unplayable. But in the Pakistan team alone you had at least three guys (Wasim, Waqar and Aaqib) who could potentially have pulled something like that off, all three bowled plenty of unplayable deliveries in their time and at the time. Warne's delivery, at any time, no-one was doing anything like that on a regular basis. Historically, it's entirely arguable whether any of Benords, Chandra, etc. were even capable of bowling a ball like that at all let alone a couple of overs later again to get Smith. That's why it shocked the life out of guys who'd played at the top level.

Situation: Wasim's probably put the nail in the coffin of England's chances of winning the World Cup, Warne's was in the context of a Test so it's hard to compare. At the time, though, more people overall gave a **** about Tests, especially Ashes Tests, than Pakistan winning the World Cup. I would argue that the fan perception at the time was that winning the World Cup was great and all but Pakistan won because, after getting quite lucky with a wash-out in Adelaide, they got on a roll. Winning Tests was still the only game in town and their series win the following year in England did more to convince both Pakistan fans and others that they were legit, I reckon. Didn't last, though.....

Impact: Pakistan winning the World Cup had, in my view, no significant impact on their fortunes as either a ODI or Test outfit nor did it change others' perceptions of how good or bad a team they were/are nor did, I'd guess, anyone change their perception of what Wasim himself was capable of. Warne's delivery scared the piss out of a generation of English bats which contributed to over a decade of Ashes dominance. Even when he was bowling rubbish, against England, looked a millionaire.

The point is that it's all arguable. Like I said, I'm a Pakistan fan so you can bet I sure took notice of anything like Wasim, Waqar, etc. and whatever they did. But outside of Pakistan fans, I question whether Wasim's delivery impacted much at all. Sure you can argue that Warne's had media/hype support but any rating of 'ball of the century' is, by its nature, a measure of hyperbole as much as how much it turned/swung/swerved/dipped/etc. So a large component of rating it is going to be the amount of attention it got. Warne's, by far, wins on that count even if a lot of it is coincidence (access to TV's in Pakistan vs Australia at the time, blanket media coverage at the time and since, etc.)

 

[Jono]

Sachin Tendulkar would have hit both Warne and Akram's deliveries for 6 #twistofthetale

 

[akilana]

Thank God it's not Kholi.

 

[Dan]

Thank God it's not Kholi.

Kohli would have hit them for 12

 

[Migara]

inb4 you can't spin it that much as an offie unless you chuck it.

There is flat earth society for you.

 

[Migara]

Really? Really! It swerved at pace to pitch on or just outside leg, squared up Gatt and ripped across him to KO his off stump. I've not seen a better ball bowled by a spinner and neither have you.

It CLEARLY shows that you have not been watching cricket. Gatting was the walking wicket against Kumble and Murali. And mind you, both were in their first dozen of matches in their career. Gatt was ****ting in the pants against Warnaweera when he came here for 92/93 series. And Warnaweera averages 30+ with the ball.

 

[Migara]

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

Naendra Hirwani says Hi. if any one took a world by storm, that has to be this man, 16 wickets in a match against #1 ranked team. No one even bother to talk on the effects he had on leg spin.

 

[Migara]

Historically, it's entirely arguable whether any of Benords, Chandra, etc. were even capable of bowling a ball like that

Was Warne able to bowl a flipper that could make stumps cartwheel? Only Chandra did it. Warne, Mushy or any other leggie on,y could dream of such things.

 

[the big bambino]

There is flat earth society for you.

This coming from a credulist.

 

[GIMH]

Look Migara these bowlers you mention are all well and good but could they do it on a cold Tuesday night in Stoke?

 

[the big bambino]

It CLEARLY shows that you have not been watching cricket. Gatting was the walking wicket against Kumble and Murali. And mind you, both were in their first dozen of matches in their career. Gatt was ****ting in the pants against Warnaweera when he came here for 92/93 series. And Warnaweera averages 30+ with the ball.

Yes yes, and I know that Richards was pantsed by Sarfraz, Altaf and Masood in the mid to late 70s. Clearly proves he can't play pace, right?

 

[Top_Cat]

Was Warne able to bowl a flipper that could make stumps cartwheel? Only Chandra did it. Warne, Mushy or any other leggie on,y could dream of such things.

Who gives a **** whether it knocks the poles out of the ground? What matters is if it gets the **** out and Warne's flipper did that plenty often. So often, in fact, he was accused of over-using it in the early days. This doesn't change that his big-turning leggie took the majority of his wickets and he knocked over enough blokes with deliveries as good as the Gatting ball to put to rest any notions it was a fluke.

Naendra Hirwani says Hi. if any one took a world by storm, that has to be this man, 16 wickets in a match against #1 ranked team. No one even bother to talk on the effects he had on leg spin.

That's because he had no effect. He had one great match then faded which just shows to go you that the hype isn't enough, you need to have the subsequent performance to back it up. Want proof? Look at how many players the Aussie press has hyped over the years only for them to fall in a hole because they weren't up to it. Hype, without performance, is weightless pap.

I'm just old enough to remember the days pre-Warne and Hirwani's name was brought up every time a new leggie would come onto bowl in matches I watched but only in relation to that one Test. It was basically treated in the same way as AB's 7-fer against the same team i.e. a fluke on a roraring turner (albeit, a glorious one). Warne got more press for his deeds because he did them more than once. That is why Warne is lauded for it.

 

[Migara]

This coming from a credulist.

So Nevillus Cardus wrote to the Sun?

 

[Migara]

Who gives a **** whether it knocks the poles out of the ground? What matters is if it gets the **** out and Warne's flipper did that plenty often. So often, in fact, he was accused of over-using it in the early days. This doesn't change that his big-turning leggie took the majority of his wickets and he knocked over enough blokes with deliveries as good as the Gatting ball to put to rest any notions it was a fluke.

Exactly the case. No one cares the leg break spins two feet or six inches if it takes wickets. Warne was good at spinning it square, but that was what he was good at. There were other leggies who were better at other things. Kumble and Chandra were great leggies, and they did deliver some spectacular deliveries that no leggie in the history (perhaps O'Riely) has delivered. Hyping up a big spinning leg break to a piss poor batsman in playing spin as the ball of the century is the joke here.

That's because he had no effect. He had one great match then faded which just shows to go you that the hype isn't enough, you need to have the subsequent performance to back it up. Want proof? Look at how many players the Aussie press has hyped over the years only for them to fall in a hole because they weren't up to it. Hype, without performance, is weightless pap.

Agreed. But I was referring to the impact of the performance.

I'm just old enough to remember the days pre-Warne and Hirwani's name was brought up every time a new leggie would come onto bowl in matches I watched but only in relation to that one Test. It was basically treated in the same way as AB's 7-fer against the same team i.e. a fluke on a roraring turner (albeit, a glorious one). Warne got more press for his deeds because he did them more than once. That is why Warne is lauded for it.

No one says Warne was trash. Warne him self delivered many better leg breaks than this overhyphed ball of the century. When the same bowler has better performances, why laud him for an inferior one?