The Best Ball Ever Bowled......

[open365]

I'm not sure who to agreew with now.

on one hand,balls that are hitting the stumps require the batsman to make contact otherwise he's out,while balls no hitting the stumps require the batsman to get himself out in a way.

but most balls don't hit the stumps because they would be hit for runs a lot of the time,so a bowler only really bowls on the stumps if he's not very accurate,or he's trying to get a wicket.

so a batsman nicking outside off IMO still has every chance to be the best ball ever bowled because everything's worked for the bowler,he's aimed to get it there,maybe with a bit of swing or seam,and he's made the batsman nick.In some ways,that is even better than bowling someone because you've sort of conned them into playing at a ball they could have left.

Balls pitching on the stumps by great bowlers are usually designed to get a batsman out,but i don't see how this makes them any better than balls that are outside off stump.

 

[Dasa]

Of course you're going to get more wickets, I don't dispute that, but any respectable batsman is just going to work you for runs. It is no coincidence that the best bowlers (unless they're reversing it) bowl in the corridor.

But you totally miss the point. This thread is not about the best bowler, but the best BALL. The best ball is not going to be one in the corridor because a ball bowled there is not guaranteed to take a wicket - the best balls are those that the bowler knows WILL take a wicket barring something unusual.

 

[Jono]

but most balls don't hit the stumps because they would be hit for runs a lot of the time,so a bowler only really bowls on the stumps if he's not very accurate,or he's trying to get a wicket.

Exactly... MOST BALLS. But balls like Waqar's inswinging yorkers and Akram, Bond etc. beauts that are near unplayable and on the stumps is pretty much a guaranteed wicket. Hence why it is better. Because it doesn't matter what that batsman did, whether it be leave it or play a shot, he was stuffed anyway because he was never going to keep the ball from hitting the stumps.

Hence why those balls are the best ever, the batsman could have done nothing! Whereas a ball outside off stump could have been left alone.

 

[Top_Cat]

Wasim Akram's ball to Alan Lamb I think it was, in the 1992 World Cup final. A mesmeric inswinger - absolute gold, which ripped the heart out of the Poms.

That one was when Wasim came around the wicket and it pitched middle-and-leg and took off-stump. It was a really nasty away-swinger. Now, the next ball to Chris Lewis, on the other hand, was an in-swinger and I maintain, having watched the footage a few times, that I ain't never seen a ball move in that much, that late. I remember being stunned at the time and watching it again, it was one incredible ball. Chris Lewis actually did well to hit it and drag it on.

Trust Beefy to tarnish it by effectively accusing Wasim of cheating in his autobiography when talking about these two balls.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes but no brilliant bowler (particularly seam) is ever going to aim at the stumps (apart from maybe at tailenders) because they wouldn't be brilliant if they did. They wouldn't be great otherwise.

why on earth not? the only reason why a bowler would want to bowl just outside the off stump is because he would want to give himself a chance to get an edge if the ball goes away while also give himself a chance of getting someone bowled if it came back in. fact is that if you dont bowl balls that threaten the stumps the batsman can just let every ball go all day long. the reason for example as to why mcgrath outbowled all the england bowlers at Lords was because he threatened the stumps far more often.

 

[tooextracool]

Of course you're going to get more wickets, I don't dispute that, but any respectable batsman is just going to work you for runs. It is no coincidence that the best bowlers (unless they're reversing it) bowl in the corridor.

which is why the reversing ball on the stumps is better than any ball thats outside the stumps.

 

[tooextracool]

That one was when Wasim came around the wicket and it pitched middle-and-leg and took off-stump. It was a really nasty away-swinger. Now, the next ball to Chris Lewis, on the other hand, was an in-swinger and I maintain, having watched the footage a few times, that I ain't never seen a ball move in that much, that late. I remember being stunned at the time and watching it again, it was one incredible ball. Chris Lewis actually did well to hit it and drag it on.

the ball to lamb seamed away actually. the lewis ball however was indeed an inswinger that seamed in.

 

[Top_Cat]

the ball to lamb seamed away actually

If you want to be finnicky, it started to tail away and then cut, not seamed, away. But who gives a crap?

 

[Tom Halsey]

Akhtar to Giles?

 

[Natman20]

Akhtar to Giles?

That was an awesome delivery but I don't think it deserves the title of best delivery. Did Shoiab produce a lot of deliveries like that yesterday?

 

[Tom Halsey]

It was tounge-in-cheek.

 

[Dasa]

Akhtar to Giles?

Shoaib produces those regularly.

 

[Tom Halsey]

That doesn't stop it being a brilliant ball though - and as for 'Best Ball Ever' that was tounge-in-cheek, as I said earlier.

 

[hindsy]

"The Lara Ball" - 99 world cup, WI and Aus both have to win to get through, McGrath produces a beauty, pitches just on or outside leg and hit the top of off with Lara playing the perfect defensive shot and looking completely shocked..

Another gun ball was Greg Blewett (yes Greg Blewett) to Sherwin Campbell in 1996. HUGE reverse swinging yorker, at least a metre of inswing knocks middle stump and makes Campbell look kinda foolish.

 

[Son Of Coco]

^very true.

My favourties are the one where a batsman gets set up then looks clueless when he gets out,the most recent one i can remember is Collymore getting Clarke out in the first AUS-WIN test.

Anderson's inswinging yorker in the 03 world cup was pretty special but i cant remember many atm.

Brett Lee's slower ball that got Strauss looked great but i think that had more to do with Straus completely missing it.

Which...would have been the point of bowling it I'd imagine.

 

[Son Of Coco]

no the best ball ever bowled should have gotten a wicket, otherwise it defeats the purpose. if you keep making the batsmen play and miss, then you're obviously doing something wrong, because your team isnt going to win until you take wickets. and yes its hard to hit the stumps, but thats precisely why its the best ball ever, because its hard to produce it. the reason why warnes ball is rated so highly is because it actually hit the stumps. ideally the best ball by a pace bowler would be one that pitched on leg stump and hit the top of off stump. i'd think the ball that key got off collymore last year was pretty close to that sort of delivery.

You could just be playing a level or so below where you should be. I took less wickets in thirds than in firsts.

 

[Dasa]

You could just be playing a level or so below where you should be. I took less wickets in thirds than in firsts.

I knew Srinath was too good for mere Test matches.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I knew Srinath was too good for mere Test matches.

Yes, and it explains Scott Muller too!