Pathan has come of age!

[C_C]

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

He was a master of seam movement but not a big swinger of the ball - he didnt exploit seam movement like many seam bowlers.
how much did his outswingers and inswingers move ?

How often did he cut the ball and how often did it pitch it in the corridor of uncertainty and moved it a small margin.

I never said that Ambrose/McGrath dont mastered seam movement - just said that they were not big seamers of the ball - implying that their balls didnt seam much in most cases.

he is a master of seam movement in the same way Kumble is a master of leg break movement.

 

[Swervy]

He was a master of seam movement but not a big swinger of the ball - he didnt exploit seam movement like many seam bowlers.
how much did his outswingers and inswingers move ?

How often did he cut the ball and how often did it pitch it in the corridor of uncertainty and moved it a small margin.

If he is a master of seam movement, Kumble is a master of leg break movement.

how good a seam bowler someone is not to do with how much a bowler moves it off the seam, that is to do with the pitch. How good a seam bowler is is dependant on how that bowler can exploit areas of the pitch which are conducive to seam movement..and that means accuracy and control..which Ambrose had in abundence...he could bowl tthe ball in the right areas and let the pitch do the rest (much like Hadlee).

No Ambrose wasnt a swinger of the ball, but that was a lot to do with his action

 

[C_C]

how good a seam bowler someone is not to do with how much a bowler moves it off the seam, that is to do with the pitch. How good a seam bowler is is dependant on how that bowler can exploit areas of the pitch which are conducive to seam movement..and that means accuracy and control..which Ambrose had in abundence...he could bowl tthe ball in the right areas and let the pitch do the rest (much like Hadlee).

No Ambrose wasnt a swinger of the ball, but that was a lot to do with his action

Disagree.
What you are describing is one who is a good line and length bowler.
A good seam bowler is someone like Akram or Gillespie or Kapil/Botham of his glory days - ie, excellent seam movement and being heavily reliant on seam movement ( Akram was an exception- he wasnt reliant to anything really and Gillespie had his pace to augument it).

And ambrose definately wasnt a swinger of the ball - swingers ( people who move it in the air) are incredibly rare.

 

[Swervy]

Disagree.
What you are describing is one who is a good line and length bowler.
A good seam bowler is someone like Akram or Gillespie or Kapil/Botham of his glory days - ie, excellent seam movement and being heavily reliant on seam movement ( Akram was an exception- he wasnt reliant to anything really and Gillespie had his pace to augument it).

And ambrose definately wasnt a swinger of the ball - swingers ( people who move it in the air) are incredibly rare.

Botham was a swing bowler by the way..it was his prime weapon

by the way, a good line and length bowler with good seam position will be classed as a good seamer, but will only move the ball of the pitch IF the pitch allows it....but what makes a good seamer is if he can exploit the areas of the pitch which will allow seam movement..its what made Ambrose so good (as well as pace and bounce), he had the control to find those areas on a consistant basis.

 

[C_C]

Botham was a swing bowler by the way..it was his prime weapon

by the way, a good line and length bowler with good seam position will be classed as a good seamer, but will only move the ball of the pitch IF the pitch allows it....but what makes a good seamer is if he can exploit the areas of the pitch which will allow seam movement..its what made Ambrose so good (as well as pace and bounce), he had the control to find those areas on a consistant basis.

Disagree that Botham was a swing bowler.
He got it to swing decently at his peak but always relied on huge seam action- like his trademark huge seaming outswingers.

A good seamer is one ( in my opinion) who exploits seam movements primarily - he can be erratic in line and length ( like Botham) but seam movement plays a big part in his repertoire.
If you pitch it in the perfect spot and get it to move a wee bit you are an excellent line and length bowler - Like McGrath or Pollock and incase of Ambrose, line and length with searing pace.

 

[Swervy]

Disagree that Botham was a swing bowler.
He got it to swing decently at his peak but always relied on huge seam action- like his trademark huge seaming outswingers.

A good seamer is one ( in my opinion) who exploits seam movements primarily - he can be erratic in line and length ( like Botham) but seam movement plays a big part in his repertoire.
If you pitch it in the perfect spot and get it to move a wee bit you are an excellent line and length bowler - Like McGrath or Pollock and incase of Ambrose, line and length with searing pace.

that about Botham is simply not true..he was a genuinely great outswing bowler (ie he swung the ball through the air)..it just so happens that swing bowlers will tend to also hit the seam a lot, but Bothams main weapon was swing.

A good seam bowler will NOT be erratic of line or length.

You have to remember that to gain movemnt off the seam only relies on seam position and how the pitch responds, line and length bowlers with good control will get movement off the pitch from hitting the seam only if the pitch allows it..the key though is knowing where responsive parts of the pitch are and being able to find them consistantly. So any decent line and length bowler with decent seam control will move the ball in those conditions (ie by finding the cracks, or the slightly grassier parts of the pitch)...but no bowler can actually contol the amount of seam movement gained off the pitch solely due to the action of the seam hitting the pitch..if McGrath and Pollock only move the ball a bit off the seam, then that means pretty much everyone will much the ball of the seam that much at a similar pace.The key point is that the good bowlers will move it off the seam consistantly because they have found the parts of the pitch which help them, and that is exactly what Amrose did, and McGrath does

Botham didnt need to rely on that, as he could swing the ball at his peak in pretty much all conditions (but not always, as some conditions are just not conducive to swing)

 

[honestbharani]

While we are on the subject of Pathan, he mentioned that the Kookaburra balls swing a lot more than the SG balls used in India. Can anyone find other players' opinions on this issue? Or have u guys yourself noticed any difference in swing between these two balls? Because, personally, Balaji seems to get the SG balls to swing quite easily.

 

[C_C]

I've seen Botham bowl in videos all the way back to the 70s- but since you have watched him live, i will concede the point that Botham was capable of producing swing at his short peak.
But for the majority of his career, Botham hardly swung it at all and as such, i dont consider that to be a genuine claim towards being a good swing bowler.
He did have excellent seam movement though.

As per a good seam bowler not being erratic in line and length - well a good bowler isnt normally erratic in line and length but a seamer is not the metronome accuracy you find form McGrath-Ambrose-Pollock etc.

The pitch is essentially the same composition ( unless you are literally pitching it very full most of the time into the footholes) and as such, seam movement is dependent on your wrist position along with the torque you put on the ball ( wrist position is even more important in swing bowling).

But a genuine seam bowler is one who relies considerably on substantial seam movement- McGrath does not and Ambrose did not ( their accuracy, bounce and subtle variations are their prime weapons) and as such, they are not big seam bowlers.

Walsh was a bigger seamer than Ambrose ( particularly his inswinger) and that is why you would notice Walsh getting more seam movement from the same spot on the pitch than Ambrose or McGrath did.

 

[Swervy]

I've seen Botham bowl in videos all the way back to the 70s- but since you have watched him live, i will concede the point that Botham was capable of producing swing at his short peak.
But for the majority of his career, Botham hardly swung it at all and as such, i dont consider that to be a genuine claim towards being a good swing bowler.
He did have excellent seam movement though.

well Botham was about as good a conventional swing bowler as you would ever likely see, if he cant stake a claim as being a good swing bowler, then I dont think anyone in the last 50 years could claim to be

 

[C_C]

well Botham was about as good a conventional swing bowler as you would ever likely see, if he cant stake a claim as being a good swing bowler, then I dont think anyone in the last 50 years could claim to be

Akram - he was without peer in terms of swing really.
Would also add deVilliers to that list and Fleming.
Karsan Ghavri and Sarfaraz Nawaz were exponents of swing bowling as well as Imran Khan.
I would consider them to be better swing bowlers than Botham from what i've seen - though not better seam bowlers.

 

[tooextracool]

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..

oh come off it, he swung the ball when he got the conditions to so, much like every other bowler.

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.

they needed highly favourable conditions to move the ball in the air yes, but any half decent bowler who can hold an upright seam position can get seam movement, and theres absolutely nobody in the game who had a better seam positions than mcgrath or ambrose.

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..

please, i'd appreciate if you'd stop insulting akram in this manner. im fairly certain that akram would know that swing is fair more effective than pace without seam movement. and if he couldnt see that there was no seam movement in australia in all of the games in 99, then he'd have to be completely blind, which i doubt. i somehow doubt akram would speak to a random person like you about why he struggled in australia in 99 either.

I watched the one in Pakistan 2003 - he swung it for like a six over spell and then nothing. Zilch, nada, blip..

which clearly explains the inswinger that trapped inzamam in front of the wickets. even the ball before mushtaq ahmad got out swung away and was followed by one that came back in to get him out.
there were also occasions when he swung it in bangalore, but he wasnt quite accurate enough then

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.

what garbage im not pulling off anything, im pointing out a fact.
and the only thing thats blatantly obvious is that you have no idea what you're talking about, and thats been obvious ever since you said craig white couldnt reverse swing the ball and was primarily an outswing bowler. anybody, and i mean absolutely anybody will tell you that ambrose and mcgrath are big time seam bowlers, but then of course since you dont even seem to know what seam movement is, its glaringly obvious why you wont understand this.

 

[Tom Halsey]

and theres absolutely nobody in the game who had a better seam positions than mcgrath.

McGrath's seam comes down scrambled quite often. As far as seam positions go, Caddick is impeccable, and, poor bowler that he is, Kallis's seam is impeccable too.

 

[tooextracool]

McGrath's seam comes down scrambled quite often. As far as seam positions go, Caddick is impeccable, and, poor bowler that he is, Kallis's seam is impeccable too.

not from what ive seen. mcgrath has an excellent seam position and like ambrose, the fact that it comes down from so high up makes him get far more out of it. Simon Jones had an absolute perfect seam position this summer, as does Corey Collymore. But Hoggard, for an 80mph swing bowler has one of the worst seam positions i've ever seen.

 

[honestbharani]

I thought the seam position of Gillespie was exemplary in the 2001 Ashes and Natwest series. Plus, Zaheer has a great seam position as well.

 

[Zinzan]

He was a master of seam movement but not a big swinger of the ball - he didnt exploit seam movement like many seam bowlers.
how much did his outswingers and inswingers move ?

How often did he cut the ball and how often did it pitch it in the corridor of uncertainty and moved it a small margin.

I never said that Ambrose/McGrath dont mastered seam movement - just said that they were not big seamers of the ball - implying that their balls didnt seam much in most cases.

he is a master of seam movement in the same way Kumble is a master of leg break movement.

I think your getting yourself confused now.. ..If Ambrose and Mcgrath weren't seam bowlers i'd like to know who was

 

[honestbharani]

I think your getting yourself confused now.. ..If Ambrose and Mcgrath weren't seam bowlers i'd like to know who was

I think what he is trying to say is that both McGrath and Ambrose were great seam bowlers, but it wasn't necessarily because they moved it off the seam so much. They only moved it as much as it was necessary to get wickets or to keep batsmen guessing. I guess they COULD have moved it around a lot, but perhaps they felt they only had to move it by a little bit to confuse and defeat the batsmen.

 

[tooextracool]

actually when ambrose came to england in 2000, he moved the ball of the seam so much that the batsmen had no chance of playing him whatsoever. but it also meant that they had not chance of getting out to him either.

 

[Sanz]

That's he ended up taking 17 wickets.

 

[tooextracool]

That's he ended up taking 17 wickets.

which is about 3 wickets per game,considering he played on some of the most seamer friendly wickets in that series, i'd say that its not anything brilliant.

 

[C_C]

oh come off it, he swung the ball when he got the conditions to so, much like every other bowler.

If you've actually bothered seeing Akram through the bulk of his career like I have ( watched almost every single game he's played since 1990 onwards), you'd realise that he swung the ball in 9 outta 10 times - which is pretty much far more than any other swinger and which is why Akram is credited as the best swing bowler in the history of cricket.

they needed highly favourable conditions to move the ball in the air yes, but any half decent bowler who can hold an upright seam position can get seam movement, and theres absolutely nobody in the game who had a better seam positions than mcgrath or ambrose.

Just like Kumble isnt a big spinner of the ball ala Warne because he doesnt actually move the ball as much , Ambrose or McGrath arnt big seamers of the ball because they dont move the ball as much.
Which is pretty much what i said in the first place - they are not big seamers or reliant on seam movement.

please, i'd appreciate if you'd stop insulting akram in this manner. im fairly certain that akram would know that swing is fair more effective than pace without seam movement. and if he couldnt see that there was no seam movement in australia in all of the games in 99, then he'd have to be completely blind, which i doubt. i somehow doubt akram would speak to a random person like you about why he struggled in australia in 99 either.

First, i am a random person to you. I am not a 'random person' to Akram. Keep that in mind and do have the common sense or humility to shut up instead of hypothesising despite someone saying to you that the player actually said so n so.
You have no reason to doubt my word anymore than reason to doubt ArchieMac's word that he's played against pros, apart from your inherent caustic attitude towards me.
So i suggest you shut up and if you ever get to meet Akram, ask him about the tour of OZ.
Akram wanted to flat out like he did in the mid 80s against WI against Viv and co. Simple as that.
He didnt wanna do things differently and indeed, didnt swing the ball much till the latter parts of the ODI series.

which clearly explains the inswinger that trapped inzamam in front of the wickets. even the ball before mushtaq ahmad got out swung away and was followed by one that came back in to get him out.
there were also occasions when he swung it in bangalore, but he wasnt quite accurate enough then

The one that trapped Inzy didnt swing one IOTA - it seamed off the pitch and got Inzy.
Simple as that.
I think you are confusing between swing and seam

what garbage im not pulling off anything, im pointing out a fact.
and the only thing thats blatantly obvious is that you have no idea what you're talking about, and thats been obvious ever since you said craig white couldnt reverse swing the ball and was primarily an outswing bowler. anybody, and i mean absolutely anybody will tell you that ambrose and mcgrath are big time seam bowlers, but then of course since you dont even seem to know what seam movement is, its glaringly obvious why you wont understand this.
15-10-2005 04:59 AM

Au contraire.
Swing is movement in the air, seam is movement off the pitch.
Learn to differentiate between the two - the one that Pollock bowled to Inzy was a delivery that did nothing in the air, pitched and swung in - it was SEAM movement.

And no, Craigh White was not a reverse swing bowler of any note. he had late swing and the most common mistake in cricket is confusing reverse swing for late swing. Its not rare to see on tv the commentators talking about the 'one that reversed' when there is no reverse movement on the ball in slow-mo and is just late movement.

Ambrose and McGrath are bigtime line and length bowlers with unnerving bounce and subtle variations.
They are/were neither swingers or seamers of any note.
Just like Kumble is not a big turner of the ball, Ambrose and McGrath arnt big swingers of the ball.
Try and learn the difference.