Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
But he's clearly a much less talented bowler and will in all likelihood go the way most fingerspinners have in the modern ODI era.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Kumble announces ODI retirement
- Thread starter James
- Start date
Pup Clarke
Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah he might not be terribly consistent but I'd take a leg spin bowler who gets wickets anyday.He might have had a few poor games but 198 wickets in 40 games is still a terrific achievement considering he's been in and out of the team all the time.
Pup Clarke
Cricketer Of The Year
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Part of the reason for that record is that he was picked only for the absolute turners (otherwise they dont play two spinners) so a few wickets were assured.
adharcric
International Coach
More uneven bounce than spin, no?
EDIT: Actually, I think we've been through this one. Not again.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Yup, I ignored that on purpose.More uneven bounce than spin, no?
EDIT: Actually, I think we've been through this one. Not again.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Receptive to spin in all directions - top and side.More uneven bounce than spin, no?
EDIT: Actually, I think we've been through this one. Not again.
Unevenness helps, yes, but unevennes helps all bowlers.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I'd say that has little effect, TBH. MacGill has bowled crap on spin-receptive pitches plenty of times, but has proven he can take wickets - occasionally - on very flat surfaces.
He just tends to bowl crap often and well occasionally, showing no bias towards the surface the match is played on.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Harbhajan is much more skilled in use of flight, and has more deliveries that he can bowl.
Powar is nothing but a straightforward fingerspinner. I'll be very surprised if, in time, teams don't start playing him without difficulty.
adharcric
International Coach
Really? Powar relies on flight far more than Bhajji does; Bhajji relies on variation and bounce.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
That's 154 in 34 (at an average of over 30).
Seriously look at MacGill's game-by-game breakdown:
36-134-5 - looks good, but really it was just getting gifted 3 second-innings wickets when SA were going for a declaration - which we'll come across again...
43-113-9 -superb
42-168-2 - abysmal
42.4-130-4 - pretty poor
46-121-4 - reasonable enough
53-108-4 - pretty good
46-142-7 - superb
40.2-107-12 - magnificent
16-41-3 - excellent
22.3-84-3 - reasonable enough
41-95-1 - abysmal
40-132-5 - pretty good
21-52-3 - excellent
32-84-4 - excellent
36-172-2 - abysmal
67-192-7 - reasonable enough
65.2-174-7 - looks reasonable, but twice boosted by Claude Henderson's wicket
84-260-7 - very poor
85-226-5 - abysmal
43-189-5 - poor
47-151-4 - very poor
75.5-182-9 - superb
38.2-156-2 - abysmal
30.1-118-4 - reasonable enough
68.4-244-4 - abysmal
41.5-138-5 - looks reasonable, but twice boosted by Ashish Nehra's wicket
54-211-1 - as woeful as you could wish to see
38.2-143-5 - looks good enough, but boosted by 3 tail-end wickets
17-89-0 - abysmal
47-170-8 - superb
37-87-5 - excellent
29-102-2 - abysmal
31-69-2 - poor
35-135-4 - doesn't look too bad, but as with debut was boosted by 3 wickets when SA were going for a declaration
So you can see the picture: the odd really good game here and there, but those number just 10 out of 34. He's not really done that well. And he's incredibly lucky Bangladesh and ICC World XI games are considered Tests, because they massively inflate his average.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Variation in flight, yes?
Really, no bowler relies on bounce. It's a myth. And more than ever for a fingerspinner.
C_C
International Captain
Richard, i can't believe you said that no bowler relies on bounce.
Infact, bounce (especially if you are a paceman) is the singular biggest asset a bowler has outside of line and length.
And i agree Powar is a straightforward finger spinner but he does have his bag of tricks.
Particularly in ODIs, Powar is a much much better flighter of the ball than Harbhajan is. Powar may not have the doosra in his armoury but he varies the spin and pace of his deliveries a lot more than Harbhajan does. He isnt a big turner of the ball either but i do not see how it is a given that he'd be figured out and then clobbered. I dunno if you've ever heard of this Indian bowler called Bapu Nadkarni - he was a slow left arm bowler who only had one delivery in his arsenal. He didnt have the chinaman or the arm-ball. He was never much of a wicket-taker either but he had such magnificient control and varied his line ever so subtly that he'd end up with ridiculous figures like 30-25-5-0 or 52-38-43-4. He had an overall economy somewhere around 1.50 (!!!) in tests.
Granted, those figures would be more expensive these days but the more freestyle batting of today would've meant more wickets. His type of bowler would be worth gold in one-dayers.
I can see Gayle or Powar ending up as a modern Bapu Nadkarni if they worked hard on their bowling.
Infact, bounce (especially if you are a paceman) is the singular biggest asset a bowler has outside of line and length.
And i agree Powar is a straightforward finger spinner but he does have his bag of tricks.
Particularly in ODIs, Powar is a much much better flighter of the ball than Harbhajan is. Powar may not have the doosra in his armoury but he varies the spin and pace of his deliveries a lot more than Harbhajan does. He isnt a big turner of the ball either but i do not see how it is a given that he'd be figured out and then clobbered. I dunno if you've ever heard of this Indian bowler called Bapu Nadkarni - he was a slow left arm bowler who only had one delivery in his arsenal. He didnt have the chinaman or the arm-ball. He was never much of a wicket-taker either but he had such magnificient control and varied his line ever so subtly that he'd end up with ridiculous figures like 30-25-5-0 or 52-38-43-4. He had an overall economy somewhere around 1.50 (!!!) in tests.
Granted, those figures would be more expensive these days but the more freestyle batting of today would've meant more wickets. His type of bowler would be worth gold in one-dayers.
I can see Gayle or Powar ending up as a modern Bapu Nadkarni if they worked hard on their bowling.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Nadkarni was a freak. There has never been anyone quite like him. I doubt any of the current bowlers will be able to, batting is done differently at the current time as you say, never mind possess the (as I say - possibly unique) skill Nadkarni did.
As for bounce - it's rarely a great wicket-taking weapon on it's own at the current time. It can make batsmen look uncomfortable, but batsmen rarely get out just because the bounce is high. There needs to either be some inconsistency in the bounce or some sideways-movement.
As for bounce - it's rarely a great wicket-taking weapon on it's own at the current time. It can make batsmen look uncomfortable, but batsmen rarely get out just because the bounce is high. There needs to either be some inconsistency in the bounce or some sideways-movement.
C_C
International Captain
i think the reason bounce is rarely a factor today is because pitches are really a lot slower. So often, for most pacers, when you bowl it short, the ball tends to sit up much more than skidding through as in the past. But on true neutral wickets, bounce = deadly.
As per Nadkarni- i think his type of bowler wouldn't be able to maintain that kind of super-stingy economy rate but his economy was because he was so bloody accurate and back then batsmen didnt mind playing the ball according to its merit- ie, they'd block all day if needed. In today's low-patience kind of environment, i think a Nadkarni-type bowler would be a bit more expensive but would take more wickets due to indescreet shots from the batsmen's part.
I am interested to know why you think Nadkarni was that unique- ie, sure, his figures are one of a kind but really, all he had was accuracy. Ie, long hard days in the net.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
jeez........ plz dont tell me that Hogg > Kumble!!!!!
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
It's a shame that can never be but conjecture. There have only very recently been measurements of pace on and off wickets.
Bounce could be done a bit more accurately as long as there are side-on cameras, but even that'd be a hell of a lot of work.
Because, simply, there are unique players. Most people could bowl all day in the nets and not come close to Nadkarni's accuracy. He had something a bit special - a talent to hit the spot he was aiming at so incredibly often. That's not the sole preserve of hard-work, otherwise all bowlers who wanted to could be Shaun Pollock \ Curtley Ambrose \ Glenn McGrath.
He might well take a few more wickets were he to play today, yes.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Haha, well... it's a pretty crazy suggestion for the most part, but still... there has been a time when it's been true.
Hogg in ODIs only was a better bowler 11\1\2003-current day than Kumble was in said time.
chris.hinton
International Captain
Kumble is the second greatest leg spinner ever after warne
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I think I've had this argument with you before, but I think I'm up for it again.
Kumble relies very much on bounce. He relies in the variation in bounce he gets with the different deliveries he has at his disposal, and the fact that he generally gets more bounce than batsmen in the first place.