Bowling Strikerates in test matches - how important are they?

[bagapath]

I've always said that in my experience bowling short, sustainedly, is just about never a good idea. The odd short delivery is fine to mix things up, but more than one every couple of overs or so is just a waste of deliveries - good batsmen almost never get out to them (except on super-fast pitches like the old WACA, old Kensington Oval and old Kennington Oval) and even moderate ones only relatively rarely do.

There are times when wasting deliveries is fine, like when the ball isn't doing a lot and you're waiting for it to start doing some more. But when it's new and you should be looking to swing it, wasting deliveries by bowling short is very bad bowling.

As I say - for me, the new ball is useful because it swings (conventionally), properly, more than at any other stage in the innings. If you cannot swing or seam the ball, or choose not to, you have no right bowling with the new cherry IMO as you're wasting it while others could be doing what a new-ball bowler should be.

I don't disagree with this at all, defence and attack are not two polar-opposite things where bowling is concerned. A good line is essential to both. I'm talking purely about length.

If the swing is getting the better of you, you've got options to reduce it (use a slightly different grip or wrist position) or to make more use of what swing there is (eg, use the crease, go wider and closer, aim for a slightly straighter or wider line). A good swing-bowler should always be happy to see the batsman (opener or otherwise) playing shots, as if the ball is swinging your chances as a batsman are always reduced the harder you go at the ball. In any case, swing isn't all about swinging it onto the stumps - you're aiming as much if not more for the edge of the bat.

As for the pitch, swing is irrelevant to that, because it takes the pitch out of the equation. Swing is all about the ball (with atmospherics also playing a part, though the best swingers can swing a good ball regardless of atmospherics).

He certainly had more success with old ball than new but he did try to use the new ball and succeeded on no shortage of occasions. I can't remember Wasim ever taking that many wickets in his opening spell because he rarely even seemed to try, he was just interested in bouncing the batsmen.

richard. out of 181 innings akram took the new ball 177 times under many different skippers. not all of them can be dumb to trust wasim with the new ball if they didnt think he was taking wickets with it.

 

[Richard]

Not so. Wasim was one of the best bowlers the game has seen, and was far from useless with the new-ball.

Think about it more this way: but for first Andy Roberts then Malcolm Marshall, Michael Holding and Joel Garner would've opened West Indies' attack for 9 years. Yet they never did. Not once. Sometimes Holding did, sometimes Garner did. But never was an opening partnership of Holding-Garner sighted in a Test match.

A similar principle here is being applied by me to Imran and Waqar. I am not saying that it was wrong for Wasim to open the bowling, not in every single Test he played all career. It was absolutely the right decision, every time. I am simply saying that if I had Imran, Waqar and Wasim, all bowling as they bowled best, in my Pakistan team, I'd give the new-ball to Imran and Waqar. As it was, this never happened (although they did play together, it was after Imran had ceased to be a fine bowler and before Waqar became such a thing). The only Pakistani bowlers who would take the new-ball over Wasim would be Imran and Waqar. Clearly, I'd have all three in my all-time Pakistan XI.

The best bowler and the bowler most suited to bowling with the new cherry are not the same thing, though there is often a correlation.

 

[bagapath]

Not so. Wasim was one of the best bowlers the game has seen, and was far from useless with the new-ball.

Think about it more this way: but for first Andy Roberts then Malcolm Marshall, Michael Holding and Joel Garner would've opened West Indies' attack for 9 years. Yet they never did. Not once. Sometimes Holding did, sometimes Garner did. But never was an opening partnership of Holding-Garner sighted in a Test match.

A similar principle here is being applied by me to Imran and Waqar. I am not saying that it was wrong for Wasim to open the bowling, not in every single Test he played all career. It was absolutely the right decision, every time. I am simply saying that if I had Imran, Waqar and Wasim, all bowling as they bowled best, in my Pakistan team, I'd give the new-ball to Imran and Waqar. As it was, this never happened (although they did play together, it was after Imran had ceased to be a fine bowler and before Waqar became such a thing). The only Pakistani bowlers who would take the new-ball over Wasim would be Imran and Waqar. Clearly, I'd have all three in my all-time Pakistan XI.

The best bowler and the bowler most suited to bowling with the new cherry are not the same thing, though there is often a correlation.

silly... akram always opened which means he was the best choice for the new ball... it is as simple as that... dont think too much and confuse yourself richard. your whole argument is based on a couple of series you had seen and you are assuming akram was better with the old ball. he might very well have been great witth an old cherry; but with the new ball there was no one better than him in his team. he was a better than waqar. thats all.

 

[funnygirl]

Waqar was essentially bowling short stuffs in the Leeds match 1992 with the new ball and started reversing when the ball is some what 40 overs old and did the remaining work.

In one spell of new ball Aquib replaced Waqar after 3 overs or so ,do u remember that Rich?

 

[funnygirl]

The best bowler and the bowler most suited to bowling with the new cherry are not the same thing, though there is often a correlation

.[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily true .I said how Waqar looked ordinary in 95 series in Aus with the new ball.Then he was unfit was your reason .He did well with the old ball in that series(better than what he did with the new ball) .

 

[Richard]

silly... akram always opened which means he was the best choice for the new ball... it is as simple as that... dont think too much and confuse yourself richard.

Akram always opened because he was the best choice in the team he played in. As I say, Holding and Garner never opened West Indies' attack together in the 9 years they played together. Yet are you really telling me that had first Roberts then Marshall not been around at the same time, that they wouldn't?

If I had Imran, Wasim and Waqar, bowling as they bowled at their best, in the same team, I'd have Wasim as first-change.

your whole argument is based on a couple of series you had seen and you are assuming akram was better with the old ball. he might very well have been great witth an old cherry; but with the new ball there was no one better than him in his team. he was a better than waqar. thats all.

As I say - in the cricket I've watched, Waqar was a better new-ball bowler than Wasim. Maybe some day I'll find some other stuff that shows how at other times Wasim was better than Waqar. Until then, though, I'll take Waqar as the first one to give the new nut to.

If others think Wasim was the better new-ball bowler based on what they saw, that's fair enough. But how often did Waqar not take the new ball either? To use the "he always took it when he played so therefore he's the best choice under any circumstance" line simply brings up irrelevant subject matter. The point of eclectic teams is that circumstances which did not happen are hypothesised about.

Darren Gough virtually always took the new-ball in the games he played too. Are you really telling me you'd have him opening if you also had the Botham of 1977-1981 and the Alec Bedser of 1950/51-1954 in your team? I wouldn't.

Likewise to use the "Wasim was better than Waqar overall so therefore he gets the new-ball" is fallacious as well. Same as the "the best batsmen should bat highest in the order" thing. The batting and bowling order should be organised to make maximum use of the talents of everyone within it, not just the best.

 

[Richard]

Waqar was essentially bowling short stuffs in the Leeds match 1992 with the new ball and started reversing when the ball is some what 40 overs old and did the remaining work.

In one spell of new ball Aquib replaced Waqar after 3 overs or so ,do u remember that Rich?

Nope. As I say, I don't remember close to every detail of 1992, I was only 6. I only remember vague patterns, which have been re-emphasised by autobiographies.

 

[Richard]

Not necessarily true .I said how Waqar looked ordinary in 95 series in Aus with the new ball.Then he was unfit was your reason .He did well with the old ball in that series(better than what he did with the new ball) .

I've never said he was always good with new-ball, and certainly not that he was often better with new ball than old. Merely that, out of him and Wasim, he used the new-ball better in the cricket that I saw.

 

[funnygirl]

Nope. As I say, I don't remember close to every detail of 1992, I was only 6. I only remember vague patterns, which have been re-emphasised by autobiographies.

Please quote the autobiographies which says ''Waqar was not bowling short stuffs in Leeds test match or he was pitching up ''.Yeah a bit strange .I am asking because u r so cut and dry in your answer that u knew specifically about that test match or such a thing never happened.

 

[bagapath]

Akram always opened because he was the best choice in the team he played in. As I say, Holding and Garner never opened West Indies' attack together in the 9 years they played together. Yet are you really telling me that had first Roberts then Marshall not been around at the same time, that they wouldn't?

to use your own examples, akram is the andy roberts of his team. he would have opened the attack whoever else was available. he is the 77-81 botham and the early 50s' alec bedser. if imran, akram and waqar were in prime form and available for selection imran and akram would open the bowling attack and waqar would come in next. that is why i said you are confusing yourself by conjuring up these exmples. it is plain and simple. akram was a superior new ball bowler compared to waqar; that he was better overall is a different issue. just as a new ball bowler waqar lacked akram's controlled swing and discipline. the reverse swing, pace changes and mixing up of deliveries would come in later with the old ball. for sheer conventional swing bowling with controlled line and length akram was the best in his team.

 

[subshakerz]

to use your own examples, akram is the andy roberts of his team. he would have opened the attack whoever else was available. he is the 77-81 botham and the early 50s' alec bedser. if imran, akram and waqar were in prime form and available for selection imran and akram would open the bowling attack and waqar would come in next. that is why i said you are confusing yourself by conjuring up these exmples. it is plain and simple. akram was a superior new ball bowler compared to waqar; that he was better overall is a different issue. just as a new ball bowler waqar lacked akram's controlled swing and discipline. the reverse swing, pace changes and mixing up of deliveries would come in later with the old ball. for sheer conventional swing bowling with controlled line and length akram was the best in his team.

bingo. anyone who has watched Waqar and Akram consistently in the 90s would reach the same conclusion pretty easily...

 

[Richard]

Please quote the autobiographies which says ''Waqar was not bowling short stuffs in Leeds test match or he was pitching up ''.Yeah a bit strange .I am asking because u r so cut and dry in your answer that u knew specifically about that test match or such a thing never happened.

I've never claimed I know everything about every Test Pakistan featuring Waqar played against England. Not once.

 

[Richard]

to use your own examples, akram is the andy roberts of his team. he would have opened the attack whoever else was available. he is the 77-81 botham and the early 50s' alec bedser. if imran, akram and waqar were in prime form and available for selection imran and akram would open the bowling attack and waqar would come in next. that is why i said you are confusing yourself by conjuring up these exmples. it is plain and simple. akram was a superior new ball bowler compared to waqar; that he was better overall is a different issue. just as a new ball bowler waqar lacked akram's controlled swing and discipline. the reverse swing, pace changes and mixing up of deliveries would come in later with the old ball. for sheer conventional swing bowling with controlled line and length akram was the best in his team.

As I say - if other people have watched more Wasim cricket than I have and come to this conclusion, that's fair enough.

But you're surely not telling me he was a better new-ball swinger than Imran?

 

[bagapath]

As I say - if other people have watched more Wasim cricket than I have and come to this conclusion, that's fair enough.

But you're surely not telling me he was a better new-ball swinger than Imran?

i am more inclined to go 50.5 - 49.5 in imran's favor at their peaks. but since 84-85, when akram started, he was more or less imran's equal with the new ball, first as the next big thing and then as the spearhead. and towards the end of the great khan's career wasim did manage to overtake his mentor. but if we are taking their overall careers into consideration my assessment in the first sentence would hold true.

 

[Uppercut]

I think Wasim's superiority over Waqar in tests is a bit overstated sometimes because he was a much better ODI bowler. I'd be with Dicko here, not that it makes any great difference who opens when you've got Imran, Wasim and Waqar all in the team.