Pathan has come of age!

[GladiatrsInBlue]

Nope, Lillee struggled in Pak because he didn't bowl at his best. It happens.
.

NO. He struggled in Pak because the conditions were not suited for fast bowlers.Any fast bowler would have struggled then!

 

[Richard]

Craig White and Chaminda Vaas.

Rubbish, good-Chaminda Vaas only - poor Vaas doesn't even register.
Craig White was merely an underachiever.

 

[Richard]

even a little bit of moisture in the air or a slight wind in one direction can help a bowler swing the ball. fact though is that when the conditions arent in your favor no one can swing a cricket ball, well at least not enough to cause any problems.

Nope, cricket balls swing unless the conditions are utterly impossible (ie very hot and very dry - as you sometimes get in West Indies).
Some bowlers can get it to swing better than others.
But obviously it's impossible to swing a ball that is not in the right condition.

i didnt get to watch that series so i shall reserve judgement on that. either way caddick couldnt swing the ball many many times when the conditions didnt favour him.

Blimey, games you didn't watch. A rare breed...
Let me assure you Caddick did swing the ball in both games (having not done so at Galle or in Pakistan, about the only time he didn't manage to do so between 1999 and May 2001).

 

[Richard]

and most bowlers do look after the ball properly, and have still struggled to get the ball to swing.

Really? You honestly think that?
Sometimes I'm amazed at how poor some fielding sides are at ball-shining.
Maybe that's why swing hasn't been such a big weapon recently.

no, the right condition is only 1 factor which determines swing, moisture, overhead conditions,bowling actions etc all come into play. in general you have to have overcast conditions, moisture or at least a light wind, to be able to get some swing irrespective of the state of the ball.

Wind and cloud cover just exaggerate it. If you bowl well with a new or nearly-new ball you can swing it, even if less, no matter whether there's no wind and totally clear skies.
Indeed, some bowlers can even swing it against the wind.

 

[Richard]

NO. He struggled in Pak because the conditions were not suited for fast bowlers.Any fast bowler would have struggled then!

Nope, great bowlers are suited to all conditions.
Chaminda Vaas when he bowls well proves that.

 

[C_C]

hoggard maybe mediocre, but how does that change the fact that he swings the ball almost always when the conditions allow him to do so and is extremely efffective in those conditions?




which changes the fact that he could swing the ball how?



have you ever watched pollock bowl? or are you making generalisations based on the fact that so many people compared him to mcgrath and therefore he must be exactly like him?

Hoggard is NOT a swinger simply because he doesnt swing it often enough - a swing bowler swings it more often than not ( unlike hoggard) and a swing bowler moves the ball in the air, like Akram/deVillers/Fleming etc.
Same with Caddick

And yes, i've watched Pollock bowl - he is NOT a swing bowler - he relies on accuracy, extra bounce and cutting/seaming the ball around.

 

[Richard]

If Pollock could bowl cutters he wouldn't be so generally ineffective on flat pitches.

 

[C_C]

If Pollock could bowl cutters he wouldn't be so generally ineffective on flat pitches.

He is no great shakes at cutting but is definately a better cutter than a swinger, considering that his deliveries hardly move in the air.

 

[Richard]

I really do wish you would watch more closely.
Pollock rarely bowls any cutters at all, but he does almost invariably swing the new-ball.

 

[tooextracool]

Nope, cricket balls swing unless the conditions are utterly impossible (ie very hot and very dry - as you sometimes get in West Indies).

and its happened plenty of times in the subcontinent, and also in the recent ashes series, the latter of which would suggest that hot and dry is not the only thing that influences swing.

Blimey, games you didn't watch. A rare breed...
Let me assure you Caddick did swing the ball in both games (having not done so at Galle or in Pakistan, about the only time he didn't manage to do so between 1999 and May 2001).

there are plenty of test matches that i havent watched. there are however very very few test matches in which england have played in that i havent watched(either live or replay) in the last 13 years and the SL-England series was simply not broadcasted on any channel in india.
and dont you find it at all surprising that almost all the test matches caddick played from 99-01 all came at home and a few in SA, both of which are generally conducive for swing bowler? when caddick went to australia in 2003, he couldnt swing the ball an iota, not because he was past it, but because the conditions were unfavourable. its not particularly surprising either that hoggard, and pollock both of whom have got the ball to swing plenty in SA have struggled to do so in australia in the recent past either.

 

[tooextracool]

Hoggard is NOT a swinger simply because he doesnt swing it often enough - a swing bowler swings it more often than not ( unlike hoggard) and a swing bowler moves the ball in the air, like Akram/deVillers/Fleming etc.
Same with Caddick.

and none of the bowlers you've mentioned managed to swing the ball conventionally when the conditions did not favour them.

And yes, i've watched Pollock bowl - he is NOT a swing bowler - he relies on accuracy, extra bounce and cutting/seaming the ball around.

are you serious?
do you want me to quote you games in which pollock most certainly swung the ball? because i most certainly can.

 

[tooextracool]

Really? You honestly think that?
Sometimes I'm amazed at how poor some fielding sides are at ball-shining.
Maybe that's why swing hasn't been such a big weapon recently.

i dont see how players could have gotten worse at shining the ball.

Wind and cloud cover just exaggerate it. If you bowl well with a new or nearly-new ball you can swing it, even if less, no matter whether there's no wind and totally clear skies.
Indeed, some bowlers can even swing it against the wind.

and marginal swing is the same as marginal seam movement, both of which are too small to actually be considered helpful to the bowlers. there are plenty of games when even the best swing bowlers in the world have struggled to swing a ball, and thats not because they suddenly forgot how to shine the ball, or that it wasnt coming out of the hand perfectly enough, it has to do with getting the right bowling conditions.

 

[C_C]

and none of the bowlers you've mentioned managed to swing the ball conventionally when the conditions did not favour them.



are you serious?
do you want me to quote you games in which pollock most certainly swung the ball? because i most certainly can.

Akram was not a swinger ? DeVillers was not a swinger ?
What conditions do you speak of ? A swinger swings the ball all the time unless the ball is old. A great swinger swings it regardless of how old the ball is.
A regular bowler swings it rarely when he is hitting the groove well.

Swing is movement in the air .
As such, it is NOT dependent on 'conditions' ala Pitch etc. It all depends on your action.

Akram swung it in the air every frickin game.
And yes, Pollock has swung the ball once in a blue moon but that doesnt make him a swinger - Kumble has turned the ball considerably once in a blue moon as well but that doesnt make him a big ripper.

 

[tooextracool]

Akram was not a swinger ? DeVillers was not a swinger ?
What conditions do you speak of ? A swinger swings the ball all the time unless the ball is old. A great swinger swings it regardless of how old the ball is.
A regular bowler swings it rarely when he is hitting the groove well.

err who said that were not swingers? to be a swing bowler you dont have to swing it in every condition, because no one can swing the ball in every condition, you can only swing the ball when you get enough assistance(i.e moisture in the air, light wind, overcast etc).

Swing is movement in the air .
As such, it is NOT dependent on 'conditions' ala Pitch etc. It all depends on your action..

and by conditions i was referring to weather conditions, as mentioned above, not the pitch or anything about it.

Akram swung it in the air every frickin game.

akram barely swung a ball on his tour to australia in 99, in much the same way that he struggled to swing the ball at Lords in both 96 or 01, not to mention several series at home. the thing with akram though which made him great was that even when he wasnt getting the ball to swing, he was more than capable of getting it to reverse which is why made him effective almost everywhere he played.

And yes, Pollock has swung the ball once in a blue moon but that doesnt make him a swinger - Kumble has turned the ball considerably once in a blue moon as well but that doesnt make him a big ripper.

pollock swings the ball more often than not, and its not a once in a blue moon thing. almost every time he plays in SA he gets the ball to swing considerably, and hes also got the ball to swing in the subcontinent on plenty of occasions- notably galle 2004

 

[C_C]

err who said that were not swingers? to be a swing bowler you dont have to swing it in every condition, because no one can swing the ball in every condition, you can only swing the ball when you get enough assistance(i.e moisture in the air, light wind, overcast etc).

Which is, in short, BS.
Scientifically ( i think it was Bath University that did the research - i will try to find it for you) there is no connection between humidity and overcast stuff etc. Well, there is a connection but the difference between 90% humidity and 10% humidity in the air is like 1-2 mm of deviation.
As per wind, wind either assists you or in the worst case scenario, you switch ends.
Akram, deVilliers, Fleming etc. swung the ball almost every single time they wanted to.

akram barely swung a ball on his tour to australia in 99, in much the same way that he struggled to swing the ball at Lords in both 96 or 01, not to mention several series at home. the thing with akram though which made him great was that even when he wasnt getting the ball to swing, he was more than capable of getting it to reverse which is why made him effective almost everywhere he played.

Akram also had excellent seam movement which helped him out quite a lot too - but as far the tour of OZ, he was out of form and was not trying to swing it ( but seam it and bowl fast - which he did rather well that series).

pollock swings the ball more often than not, and its not a once in a blue moon thing. almost every time he plays in SA he gets the ball to swing considerably, and hes also got the ball to swing in the subcontinent on plenty of occasions- notably galle 2004

Out of 40-45 odd tests i've seen Pollock bowl, he swung it in maybe 3-4 and that too, in the first few days. Thats about it.
If Pollock is a swinger, so is McGrath and Kumble is a big ripper of the ball.

 

[tooextracool]

Which is, in short, BS.
Scientifically ( i think it was Bath University that did the research - i will try to find it for you) there is no connection between humidity and overcast stuff etc. Well, there is a connection but the difference between 90% humidity and 10% humidity in the air is like 1-2 mm of deviation.
As per wind, wind either assists you or in the worst case scenario, you switch ends.
Akram, deVilliers, Fleming etc. swung the ball almost every single time they wanted to.

and yet there are so many games which i can point out to you where they couldnt swing the ball one iota. i couldnt care less what the research from the university of bath came out with, because no one has been able to come up with a conclusive reason as to why swing happens, but its glaringly obvious that it doesnt happen all the time, no matter who the bowler.

Akram also had excellent seam movement which helped him out quite a lot too -

and the relevance of this is?
almsot every quality bowler in the history of cricket has been excellent in terms of getting seam movement.

but as far the tour of OZ, he was out of form and was not trying to swing it ( but seam it and bowl fast - which he did rather well that series).

what rubbish, he didnt swing a ball because he couldnt, and its a trend we see with many many swing bowlers when they go to australia these days.

out of 40-45 odd tests i've seen Pollock bowl, he swung it in maybe 3-4 and that too, in the first few days. Thats about it.
If Pollock is a swinger, so is McGrath and Kumble is a big ripper of the ball.

obviously you havent watched much of pollock then. given that hes swung the ball more often than not in games in SA and also swung the ball in the subcontinent and NZ.

 

[C_C]

and yet there are so many games which i can point out to you where they couldnt swing the ball one iota. i couldnt care less what the research from the university of bath came out with, because no one has been able to come up with a conclusive reason as to why swing happens, but its glaringly obvious that it doesnt happen all the time, no matter who the bowler.

You can quote examples but the fact remains that swing isnt affected by condition but rather by other factors.
It may be due to wrist positioning, ball shine, ball hardness, etc.
Suffice to say, pure swing bowlers like Akram, deVilliers, etc. have swung it 9/10 times they've bowled for swing.

and the relevance of this is?
almsot every quality bowler in the history of cricket has been excellent in terms of getting seam movement.

Not really. Ambrose wasnt big for seam movement and McGrath rarely is big for seam movement. Same with Pollock, Marshall, etc.

what rubbish, he didnt swing a ball because he couldnt, and its a trend we see with many many swing bowlers when they go to australia these days.

Next time you talk to Akram, like i have, ask him what exactly he was trying to do in OZ 99. Then maybe you can shut up.

obviously you havent watched much of pollock then. given that hes swung the ball more often than not in games in SA and also swung the ball in the subcontinent and NZ.

I am fairly certain that i've watched Pollock more than most people, possibly you - i've watched him for over half the tests he's played and he rarely swung it in those.
He is not a swing bowler - both in terms of propensity of swing he gets ( which is no more than highly ordinary and every tom **** and harry pacers) and the amount of swing ( which is negligible most of the times among the rare times he actually does manage swing).

 

[tooextracool]

You can quote examples but the fact remains that swing isnt affected by condition but rather by other factors.
It may be due to wrist positioning, ball shine, ball hardness, etc.
Suffice to say, pure swing bowlers like Akram, deVilliers, etc. have swung it 9/10 times they've bowled for swing.

nope they swung it about half the times. the fac that akram reversed it more often than not made it look like he 'swung' it every game, because he didnt.

Not really. Ambrose wasnt big for seam movement and McGrath rarely is big for seam movement. Same with Pollock, Marshall, etc.

what have you been watching? ambrose and mcgrath are 2 of the best bowlers to exploit seam movement, and you think that they didnt do that?

Next time you talk to Akram, like i have, ask him what exactly he was trying to do in OZ 99. Then maybe you can shut up.

well then akram obviously has no clue what hes talking about, because looking for seam movement when there wasnt anything available and not realising that and trying to swing it is something i'd hardly expect of someone like him. it certainly sounds like you're trying to make this up.

I am fairly certain that i've watched Pollock more than most people, possibly you - i've watched him for over half the tests he's played and he rarely swung it in those.
He is not a swing bowler - both in terms of propensity of swing he gets ( which is no more than highly ordinary and every tom **** and harry pacers) and the amount of swing ( which is negligible most of the times among the rare times he actually does manage swing).

did you watch the game at galle in 2004? eden park 2004?wanderers 2003? wanderers 2005? the 2nd test in pakistan in 2003? newlands 2003? goodyear park 2001? newlands 2001? bangalore 2000?
because i can guarantee you that he swung it in all of these games and several others.

 

[C_C]

nope they swung it about half the times. the fac that akram reversed it more often than not made it look like he 'swung' it every game, because he didnt.

You now are going into the twilight zone.
Come back to earth.
Akram swung 9 outta 10 balls he pitched up and most of the short off good length deliveries quite a lot.

what have you been watching? ambrose and mcgrath are 2 of the best bowlers to exploit seam movement, and you think that they didnt do that?

Being a seamer and a cutter are two totally different things and McGrath as well as Amrbose have/had excellent cutters. But both rely on highly favourable conditions to move the ball and dont do it nearly consistently enough.

well then akram obviously has no clue what hes talking about, because looking for seam movement when there wasnt anything available and not realising that and trying to swing it is something i'd hardly expect of someone like him. it certainly sounds like you're trying to make this up.

Look - i dont care what you think or will allege inorder to try and jutsify your nonexistant point.
I've talked to Akram numerous times. I am sure when he says that he wasnt really looking to swing the ball but trying to bowl fast and/or accurate, he didnt know what he was talking about but you sitting from your tv know with all your clarevoyance.

did you watch the game at galle in 2004? eden park 2004?wanderers 2003? wanderers 2005? the 2nd test in pakistan in 2003? newlands 2003? goodyear park 2001? newlands 2001? bangalore 2000?
because i can guarantee you that he swung it in all of these games and several others.

I watched the one in Pakistan 2003 - he swung it for like a six over spell and then nothing. Zilch, nada, blip.
Bangalore 2000 he swung it both times with the newball for about 5-6 overs and thats about it.
Dont try to pull a fast one here.
Your garantee means zilch because it is blatently obvious that you dont understand the game much at all and while who is better or who is worse can be subjective, the fact that Ambrose was not a big seam bowler and neither is McGrath but you contend that they are shows your lack of understanding of the game and very little viewership.

 

[Swervy]

I cant beleive anyone would ever say Ambrose wasnt a master of seam movement