Battle of the Test Bowling

[Sanz]

Also, if the pitch was turning square in the first innings of WI batting, how come not a single WI spinner (there were 3, Hooper, Richards & Butts) took a single Indian wicket in our second Inning batting?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Also, if the pitch was turning square in the first innings of WI batting, how come not a single WI spinner (there were 3, Hooper, Richards & Butts) took a single Indian wicket in our second Inning batting?

Presumably because they were crap. I didn't write the article though.

As a counter-point, if it wasn't a square turner, why were 75% of the overs in the match bowled by spinners? Even the West Indies, who picked only one specialist spin bowler for the match, bowled half their overs from spin options, mostly part-timers. Kapil and Amarnath bowled 16 overs between them for the whole game.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Duh !! Where does it say that Chennai pitch was a dust bowl ? It just gives a huge exaggeration by referring to Indian pitches during that as dustbowls of India, which is simply untrue. I watched each and every game of the series and the pitches were anything but dustbowls.

And if it was really a square turner how did the crappy Indian batting lineup set up a target for 400+ runs ? And hirwani's second innings bowling was more of WI gifting their wicket rather then him taking it. Almost every WI batsmen threw his wicket in the second inning, it had nothing to do with the pitch turning square which itwasn't anyway.

It refers to the pitches in the series as "dustbowls" and that pitch in particular as a "square turner". Surely that indicates that the author thought the pitches were very helpful to Hirwani's bowling?

Incidentally, a quick google found another cricinfo article about the match, which says:

India, when they took the field in the fourth and final Test of the 1987-88 series against the West Indies , knew that they had to win the match if they were to level the series. Their cause was helped a great deal when they found the pitch to be woefully under-prepared. Stand-in skipper Ravi Shastri, deputising for Dilip Vengarkar, consequently had not hesitation in batting first after winning the toss.

Kapil Dev made a quick-fire hundred, Arun Lal 69 and Mohammad Azharuddin 47 as India posted an impressive 382 in their first innings. With the pitch beginning to turn prodigiously, the West Indies had their task cut out from there on. After losing both their openers with just 47 on the board, the visitors recovered through a 51-run third wicket partnership between Viv Richards (68) and Richardson (36). But, then, 19-year-old debutant Narender Hirwani began to wreak havoc. Extracting menacing bounce and turn from a responsive pitch, the mop-haired, bespectacled leg-spinner claimed eight West Indies wickets for just 61 runs to restrict them to just 184.

and...

Another Test debutant WV Raman made 83 on his home ground as India declared after scoring 217-8 in their second essay. By now the wicket was a veritable dust bowl, and the West Indies certainly did not dare to make the mistake of fancying their chances when they began the fourth innings, needing 316 in a little under two days.

 

[Sanz]

It refers to the pitches in the series as "dustbowls" and that pitch in particular as a "square turner". Surely that indicates that the author thought the pitches were very helpful to Hirwani's bowling?

Do you realize that Hirwani played only one test, so the 'pitches' being very helpful to Hirwani's bowling is little overstating (IMO ofcourse).

Another Test debutant WV Raman made 83 on his home ground as India declared after scoring 217-8 in their second essay. By now the wicket was a veritable dust bowl, and the West Indies certainly did not dare to make the mistake of fancying their chances when they began the fourth innings, needing 316 in a little under two days.

Even If I accept that, What part of that post suggests that pitch was a dustbowl in the first WI inning (The inning in question here) ? Under-prepared isn't same as square turner.

 

[Sanz]

Presumably because they were crap. I didn't write the article though.

Before you call them crap, Just check how many test wickets those spinners have.

As a counter-point, if it wasn't a square turner, why were 75% of the overs in the match bowled by spinners? Even the West Indies, who picked only one specialist spin bowler for the match, bowled half their overs from spin options, mostly part-timers. Kapil and Amarnath bowled 16 overs between them for the whole game.

Erm..because it was a spin friendly wicket but not to the extent you are insinuating, atleast not in the first innings. Besides WI first inning fast bowlers bowled more than the spinners. He bowled less because probably looked least likely to take the wicket.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Even If I accept that, What part of that post suggests that pitch was a dustbowl in the first WI inning (The inning in question here) ? Under-prepared isn't same as square turner.

This part is about the first innings:

With the pitch beginning to turn prodigiously, the West Indies had their task cut out from there on. After losing both their openers with just 47 on the board, the visitors recovered through a 51-run third wicket partnership between Viv Richards (68) and Richardson (36). But, then, 19-year-old debutant Narender Hirwani began to wreak havoc. Extracting menacing bounce and turn from a responsive pitch, the mop-haired, bespectacled leg-spinner claimed eight West Indies wickets for just 61 runs to restrict them to just 184.

Regardless, the point is simply that people say the pitch was a big turner. I didn't see the game, so obviously I don't know what the pitch was like, but judging from the location, the number of overs bowled by spinners, and the decriptions of the surface in articles about game, one can assume that the pitch turned a great deal, and that part of Hirwani's success came from that. It doesn't mean that Hirwani didn't bowl well by any stretch, but if the pitch was a square turner (which obviously you don't think it was) it definitely warrants consideration when comparing his performance to another great bowling display.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Before you call them crap, Just check how many test wickets those spinners have.

I must be missing something here. Butts had 10 test wickets and Richards had 32. Hooper is the only one of the three with a decent number of test wickets (114 in 102 tests), and he bowled the least of the three in the match, and was certainly nothing particularly special as a spin bowler. He was decent, but still just a part-timer who took a wicket per test on average, and he was never going to run through a side.

 

[silentstriker]

11-0 to Lance

GD McKenzie 8 for 71 Aus WI Melbourne 1968-69
http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1960S/1968-69/WI_IN_AUS/WI_AUS_T2_26-30DEC1968.html


vs.


IT Botham 7 for 48 Eng Ind Bombay 1979-80
http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1970S/1979-80/ENG_IN_IND/ENG_IND_T_15-19FEB1980.html

 

[GIMH]

Botham

 

[Dasa]

McKenzie.

 

[oz_fan]

McKenzie

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

This is a really tough one. Neither are particularly strong batting lineups but there are great batsmen in both. India's is possibly slightly stronger. McKenzie got more wickets, but Botham got them cheaper. McKenzie also didn't dismiss Sobers, while Botham got Gavaskar.

I'll go Botham, marginally. It's certainly one of the best all-round performances ever in a test match, so it'll be good if one of the bowling spells in it makes the second round.

 

[alternative]

Botham

 

[Sanz]

I must be missing something here. Butts had 10 test wickets and Richards had 32. Hooper is the only one of the three with a decent number of test wickets (114 in 102 tests), and he bowled the least of the three in the match, and was certainly nothing particularly special as a spin bowler. He was decent, but still just a part-timer who took a wicket per test on average, and he was never going to run through a side.

That's still more than what Michael Clark has after 22 tests and we all saw what he did in Mumbai.

 

[Matteh]

Botham

 

[a massive zebra]

Botham without a doubt.

 

[Matteh]

Botham

 

[Jono]

Botham.

What a Godly test performance.

 

[Sanz]

Botham.

 

[aussie]

Botham, one man demolition act..