Most unlikely Test cricketers

[marc71178]

You'll get used to it.

Unfortunately.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I first saw Sanford v India in 2002 or 2003 - bowled okay.
I last saw Sanford v England in 2004 - cue Boycott quotes.

Such a lovely bowling action. Such an utter lack of anything else.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

That's such crap it's almost unbelievable that you are attempting to say it.

What about, say, Daniel Vettori? This is a guy who, playing entirely in the highest scoring era of ODI cricket, on some of the least responsive home surfaces in the world, has an ODI economy rate of 4.22. In tests against Australia, once again on unresponsive surfaces, he's been miles clear of every other New Zealand bowler, and singlehandedly kept them in the contest at times, by at least bowling economically (to everybody but Gilchrist, anyway) and picking up the odd wicket.

I agree with you entirely, but you're missing the point though.

Vettori gets a lot of his wickets when the ball isn't turning because he keeps teasing the batsmen whilst making it difficult for them to score. As a result, they tend to get themselves out trying to score off deliveries that aren't quite there for them. This is the result of a build-up of pressure.

From my experience of communication with Richard, pressure is not a valid factor of a bowler taking deserved wickets.

I re-iterate that I agree with you entirely.

 

[Richard]

He's already described Vettori (and Giles)

Their low ERs are apparently all luck.

Because they're lucky they've not been hammered by batsmen...

Err, what? I've acknowledged Vettori a good ODI bowler several times...
Giles does generally bowl at the right times, and has certainly been far from impressive on plenty enough occasions.

 

[Richard]

could it be that it requires exceptional skill for any spin bowler to be successful(or at least to fit under the 4.5 bracket) in ODI cricket? merely stereotyping fingerspinners is a real lack of common sense.

Well it requires exceptional skill to bowl wristspin to a decent standard at all. Hardly anyone can do it. Therefore, as almost all international-playing spinners are fingerspinners, I mostly refer to them.
Clearly, though, no orthodox fingerspinners have had much success in modern ODIs - Dharmasena and the former Kumble (Kumble who until very recently was as much a fingerspinner as a wristspinner) bowl much quicker and flatter than most; Saqlain and Harbhajan bowl Doosras and are skillful flight bowlers; and Vettori and Lehmann are both very, very clever and sharp-eyed, which you need to be.
Few others are.

 

[Richard]

I agree with you entirely, but you're missing the point though.

Vettori gets a lot of his wickets when the ball isn't turning because he keeps teasing the batsmen whilst making it difficult for them to score. As a result, they tend to get themselves out trying to score off deliveries that aren't quite there for them. This is the result of a build-up of pressure.

From my experience of communication with Richard, pressure is not a valid factor of a bowler taking deserved wickets.

I re-iterate that I agree with you entirely.

When on Earth did I say that bowling economically doesn't cause pressure in the limited-overs game?
In any case - you don't even need to take wickets in the limited-overs game to be a good bowler.
Vettori, incidentally, doesn't usually take a stack of wickets.
We were talking about bowling economically.

 

[tooextracool]

Well it requires exceptional skill to bowl wristspin to a decent standard at all. Hardly anyone can do it. Therefore, as almost all international-playing spinners are fingerspinners, I mostly refer to them.
Clearly, though, no orthodox fingerspinners have had much success in modern ODIs - Dharmasena and the former Kumble (Kumble who until very recently was as much a fingerspinner as a wristspinner) bowl much quicker and flatter than most; Saqlain and Harbhajan bowl Doosras and are skillful flight bowlers; and Vettori and Lehmann are both very, very clever and sharp-eyed, which you need to be.
Few others are.

so basically any quality finger spinner in ODI cricket is considered 'unorthodox' because he is successful. Dang it Holmes, how do you do it?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

When on Earth did I say that bowling economically doesn't cause pressure in the limited-overs game?

Nowhere. Had you said it, it would've been utterly silly.

You have, however, stated that wickets gained from the buildup of pressure aren't deserved wickets by the bowler, because it's the batsman's mistake. Unless you've changed your tune since then...

 

[Jono]

so basically any quality finger spinner in ODI cricket is considered 'unorthodox' because he is successful. Dang it Holmes, how do you do it?

Lol, I love it!

 

[Richard]

so basically any quality finger spinner in ODI cricket is considered 'unorthodox' because he is successful.

Err, no, other way around.
You'd have to be something of a dunce to miss the fact that Dharmasena and the pre-1999\2000 Kumble were somewhat different from most fingerspinners in their speed and trajectory; you'd have to be an unbelievable dunce to miss that Saqlain and Harbhajan can bowl something virtually no other fingerspinner can bowl.
Vettori and Lehmann are the only "orthodox" fingerspinners who've had any real success at all in modern ODI cricket. Yes, I'm aware Hooper and Giles' records aren't too bad, either.

 

[Richard]

Nowhere. Had you said it, it would've been utterly silly.

You have, however, stated that wickets gained from the buildup of pressure aren't deserved wickets by the bowler, because it's the batsman's mistake. Unless you've changed your tune since then...

I've said that build-up of pressure due to slow scoring doesn't really happen in the limitless-over game. Hence, in that form bowlers don't deserve credit if batsmen are stupid enough to feel under pressure due to it. Clearly, though, it does in the limited-overs game any batsman who doesn't feel under pressure due to slow scoring in the limited-over game is unlikely to have much success, ending-up with a strike-rate of 42.34 or whatever - and if wickets fall due to that, clearly the bowler deserves credit for them. However, he also deserves almost as much credit even if wickets don't fall due to it. Economical bowling is credible whether it leads to wickets or not.
10-32-1 is still a good spell, even though 10-32-3 is a better one. And as far as I'm concerned 10-32-1 is a better spell than 10-65-4.

 

[Pothas]

Err, no, other way around.
You'd have to be something of a dunce to miss the fact that Dharmasena and the pre-1999\2000 Kumble were somewhat different from most fingerspinners in their speed and trajectory; you'd have to be an unbelievable dunce to miss that Saqlain and Harbhajan can bowl something virtually no other fingerspinner can bowl.
Vettori and Lehmann are the only "orthodox" fingerspinners who've had any real success at all in modern ODI cricket. Yes, I'm aware Hooper and Giles' records aren't too bad, either.

I might be being stupid here but last time i checked Kumble was a wrist spinner.

 

[Richard]

Kumble has long (until the last couple of years) spun the ball as much with fingers as wrists.
Even now, he's not a big spinner of the ball compared to Mushtaq, Warne, MacGill, Salisbury, etc.
And he's far more like a fingerspinner than a wristspinner so far as sidespin is concerned, and that was even more so in 1999.

 

[vic_orthdox]

former Kumble (Kumble who until very recently was as much a fingerspinner as a wristspinner)

That's a new one to me...

 

[Smudge]

Pffft. What would you know, Jack? It's not like you've played the game to any great level.

 

[ramkumar_gr]

For me, it is Patterson Thompson of WI

 

[tooextracool]

Err, no, other way around.
You'd have to be something of a dunce to miss the fact that Dharmasena and the pre-1999\2000 Kumble were somewhat different from most fingerspinners in their speed and trajectory; you'd have to be an unbelievable dunce to miss that Saqlain and Harbhajan can bowl something virtually no other fingerspinner can bowl.

oh i dont doubt that those 2 were unorthodox, but to call dharmasena unorthodox because he bowled flatter than a rubbish finger spinner is pushing it. fact is that dharmasena was a finger spinner who was competent in ODI cricket by anyones standard, and just because it happens to disprove your theory doesnt make him unorthodox.

Vettori and Lehmann are the only "orthodox" fingerspinners who've had any real success at all in modern ODI cricket. Yes, I'm aware Hooper and Giles' records aren't too bad, either.

so 4 bowlers in the last decade who have disproved your theory. could it be that good finger spinners are extremely useful in ODI cricket? and not long ago you were claiming that there has never ever been a finger spinner who has been successful for a consistent period of time in ODI cricket. you miss the point completely, whether or not you use your fingers to turn the ball in an orthodox or unorthodox manner is not relevant. what is relevant though is that for any spinner to be extremely successful in ODI cricket, he needs to be extremely skilled.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

For me, it is Patterson Thompson of WI

Good choice.
Closely followed by young Rawl Lewis and Adam Sanford.

 

[Craig]

Leon Garrett?

What ever happened to him?

 

[tooextracool]

Leon Garrett?

What ever happened to him?

Leon Garrick? The WI opener who played a solitary test match against SA in 00/01 known better for his 425 run opening stand with chris gayle in domestic cricket. Even despite not getting too many chances cant say he didnt look out of depth at the international level.