What makes a good bowler?

[JohnnyA]

No thats not it, Mcgrath takes time to adjust his line, if he gets a four from his first delivery than he can never recover in the same over, he might do in the next over. But his line can easily be distracted, few examples are Razzaq(pak) hit him for five fours in one over. He finally managed to bowl a yorker in the last bowl. i have seen Tendulkar and many class batsman do the same thing to him many times. He gets confused when his line is distracted.and i have never seen him bowl good yorkers in the final overs. That doesn't make him a perfect bowler, does it?? In my defination a perfect fast bowler is the one who can be used at any stage of the game. Like Marshall...a good example.

I said he was the perfect 80 mph bowler I'm not saying he's infallable. No bowler is. Any bowler can be got at. But he, and Pollock are proof that it's control, subtle changes in movement line and length, and bounce that matters, not raw pace.

He can reverse the ball. I don't know how many times I've seen McGrath pulverise that line outside off sump, then dart one back in ... ask Graeme Hick and Mike Atherton if he can reverse the ball.

Sure Vaughn got on top of him, as have Tendulkar and Lara. But these are class players. You can't keep them down forever. And McGrath has gotten them all out plenty of times himself ... don't forget that.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Re: Re: Re: What makes a good bowler?

Hinds is given out when hit on the shoulder and the helmet.

I think that that tour possibly prevented Hinds from reaching his full potential in his career. I don't think he will ever be in the kind of good form he was in on that tour. He was on fire and yet he repeatedly got poor decisions (especially LBW if memory serves correctly) in the Tests. Highly unfortunate, escpecially when you hear Botham, Chappell and the like praising his batting in the county games.

 

[esgallindeion]

Apart from the many things people have posted, another important thing is control.

 

[David]

I'd say it would be one who gets wickets quickly and cheaply...

Agreed, Taking wickets is the most important part of being a bowler.

 

[JohnnyA]

Agreed, Taking wickets is the most important part of being a bowler.

Yeah .. but it's how you get them that counts in the long run. Vaughn picked up Tendulkar with an excellent ball last year. Does that mean he's a top class bowler? Is he better than other spinners who have had problems with Sachin?

Quality and ability tells in the long run ... wickets are just the consequence of this attributes.

Skills before results!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Richard]

I'd say it would be one who gets wickets quickly and cheaply...

Far too simple.
You can't judge a bowler on statistics - just because someone's got a good economy-rate and strike-rate doesn't mean they deserve them.

Skills before results

I couldn't agree more with this.

 

[Richard]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What makes a good bowler?

I think that that tour possibly prevented Hinds from reaching his full potential in his career. I don't think he will ever be in the kind of good form he was in on that tour. He was on fire and yet he repeatedly got poor decisions (especially LBW if memory serves correctly) in the Tests. Highly unfortunate, escpecially when you hear Botham, Chappell and the like praising his batting in the county games.

Very, very true - he batted superbly in some county games (if I'm not mistaken he made one career-best) and in the first-innings of that Second Test, he had one spell where he looked quite unstoppable. After a period where Gough and Cork got at him a bit, he came through and played some strokes, off Gough and White especially, that sure took the breath away. The power of the man was something I've never seen the like before or since. One stroke off White was the hardest hit I've ever seen, and I've seen a few (don't know if you remember that).
Then he got a decision that seemed rather dicey (no-one noticed, but Cork seemed to lack conviction in the appeal, and because it was a goodish ball and his 100th Test wicket no-one seemed to take any notice) to continue West Indies' collapse, and that one in the second-innings, then he was made to open in the one-day series, then he got a poor lbw in the next innings at Old Trafford. From then on, though, he was worked-out, and was a big lbw candidate. He can play the short-ball better than some from the Caribbean, but bowl him an inswinger and he didn't have a clue.
I then noticed in Australia that he had practised the Griffith leave. However, after the SCG Test he hasn't been used in Tests as anything but an opener.
A huge shame and, in my view, a big waste of a talented player.

 

[Top_Cat]

What makes a good bowler? The ability to get batsmen out does the trick, usually anyway. Worked for me.

Out of sheer morbid curiosity, what's the overall highest played level here? Call me arrogant, pig-headed or whatever but in my experience, those who have the most to say on this sort of thing have usually played church league cricket or lower. The basics are there for a reason but when you come up against decent batsmen, you need something a little extra to succeed. For most it's heart, for others t's innovation but for very few is it merely good technique.

Let me be blunt; there's no hard-and-fast method to allow you get wickets. Debate after debate can be had on the subject but when it comes time to bowl to a guy set on 80-odd on the flattest pitch you've ever seen, I'm afraid all the schooling and theory in the world won't help you.

Incidentally, I played for South Australian U/15's, 17's, 19's and was in the Australian U/17's and just missed the U/19's squad for reasons I won't bore you with (the general theme in the reasons are 'sustainable career') as an opening bowler.

Interesting - I've never seen McGrath reverse-swing the ball.

Yeah I never saw Syd Barnes do the same but then, I never saw him bowl either. Picking a parallel here?

 

[marc71178]

Yeah .. but it's how you get them that counts in the long run. Vaughn picked up Tendulkar with an excellent ball last year. Does that mean he's a top class bowler? Is he better than other spinners who have had problems with Sachin?

Come off it, he didn't deserve the wicket since the ball could easily have been hit by SRT.

 

[marc71178]

Far too simple.
You can't judge a bowler on statistics - just because someone's got a good economy-rate and strike-rate doesn't mean they deserve them.

Can you please get your story right?

One minute you say the only way you can judge players is on statistics, now you say you can't.

If a bowler has a good economy rate and strike-rate, he must be doing something right.

 

[gibbsnsmith]

Come off it, he didn't deserve the wicket since the ball could easily have been hit by SRT.

ROFL

 

[Richard]

If a bowler has a good economy rate and strike-rate, he must be doing something right.

Usually, but not invariably.

Can you please get your story right?

One minute you say the only way you can judge players is on statistics, now you say you can't.

You can select players on statistics alone. You can't just turn to a player and say "right, you averaged 17 in the last Test-series, with an economy-rate 2.6-an-over and a strike-rate of whatever that equates to (can't be bothered to work it out) but you didn't deserve any of those wickets and it was only poor batting that stopped you going for about 4-an-over, so we're going to drop you".
It just doesn't work like that.
However, the judgement of a bowler's ability is something different altogether. As I say, just because someone has been effective doesn't automatically make them good if you ask me. There is a pure and simple stat (or two) that you can judge batsmen's ability on. It doesn't work like that with bowlers. You can't make an accurate assesment of what an economy-rate "should" be, and the same with a strike-rate, because different deliveries are realistically unplayable to different batsmen. You can only look at the wickets that have been taken and ask "did that ball deserve that wicket?"

 

[Richard]

Worked for me.Yeah I never saw Syd Barnes do the same but then, I never saw him bowl either. Picking a parallel here?

No, because I've seen McGrath bowl. Not as much as some people have, but I've seen him bowl for an entire winter (summer to you Australians), and I'd expect someone who can do something to do it sometime during a season.

What makes a good bowler? The ability to get batsmen out does the trick, usually anyway.

Out of sheer morbid curiosity, what's the overall highest played level here? Call me arrogant, pig-headed or whatever but in my experience, those who have the most to say on this sort of thing have usually played church league cricket or lower. The basics are there for a reason but when you come up against decent batsmen, you need something a little extra to succeed. For most it's heart, for others t's innovation but for very few is it merely good technique.

Let me be blunt; there's no hard-and-fast method to allow you get wickets. Debate after debate can be had on the subject but when it comes time to bowl to a guy set on 80-odd on the flattest pitch you've ever seen, I'm afraid all the schooling and theory in the world won't help you.

Incidentally, I played for South Australian U/15's, 17's, 19's and was in the Australian U/17's and just missed the U/19's squad for reasons I won't bore you with (the general theme in the reasons are 'sustainable career') as an opening bowler.

The highest level I have played is English Club Second XI (and that for 2 games 2 seasons ago), which is sort of about equivalent to Adelaide Third Grade. About.
My regular level is Club Third (and Sunday, and Midweek) XI. I don't even usually do that well there, but I do have a seven-for to my name. And if I judge by my normal standards I deserved five of the wickets.
And it's perfectly true that you need to have done or tried to do something to understand how difficult it is to do it, but it's entirely another thing to advocate what needs to be done. Anyone who knows their cricket (and I consider I do) can do that.
Saying and doing something are entirely different things, and indeed I've often tried to express that; if accuracy was basic, most people who tried bowling would be Test-standard bowlers. However, if you've got the ability to do something all you need is what you describe as "the theory"; knowing what to do, and when.
It's a different thing criticising people for doing and not doing something and saying "I could do that".

 

[Richard]

Come off it, he didn't deserve the wicket since the ball could easily have been hit by SRT.

It mightn't have been a realistically-unplayable delivery but it was a damn good one and certainly deserved the wicket. It couldn't have easily been hit at all. It was a slightly faulty shot but not a terrible one.

 

[marc71178]

You can select players on statistics alone.

So how come the selectors don't do that then? How come they look at the player rather than pickig on stats?

There is a pure and simple stat (or two) that you can judge batsmen's ability on.

Bull - you can see how many runs a person has scored, but that means nothing since there's so many variables (dodgy umpire, freak dismissals, dropped catches etc.) that don't get shown in a number.

Also, how does an average of 60 tell you how good a batsman will be when he faces decent bowling?

 

[marc71178]

It mightn't have been a realistically-unplayable delivery but it was a damn good one and certainly deserved the wicket. It couldn't have easily been hit at all. It was a slightly faulty shot but not a terrible one.

Forward defensive will stop any ball on the stumps.

I think that in future all wickets that are bowled shouldn't be counted because the batsman must have made a mistake in order to be out in such a manner.

 

[Craig]

I disagree, I remember Tudor's ball to Steve Waugh at the WACA last Ashes series and that was a very good one and I remember Tuffey bowling some quality balls from Tuffey in Hamilton last summer (winter you Poms) and they beat some of the better Indian batsmen and they were pitched on the stumps.

And I watched every ball of the Indian 1st innings as well.

 

[Top_Cat]

Sarcasm is so difficult to convey on the 'net, ain't it Marc?

Craig, he wasn't serious, dude.

 

[Craig]

For me bowlers who fall away and have complicated run up and delievery jump wont be a good bowler.

Balaji and Best have actions that when they get close to the stumps, their actions take them away from the stumps.

For me I can never work out to how Best got to the level he has got to with his action. It isnt as though the West Indies have plenty of fast bowling guidence to help him iron out his flaws. If people like Michael Holding isnt working with him, then he should be instead saying what is wrong with his action in the commentaryy box.

 

[Top_Cat]

For me bowlers who fall away and have complicated run up and delievery jump wont be a good bowler.

I'm sure guys like Colin Croft, Jeff Thomson and Geoff Lawson would beg to differ on this one. How about Wes Hall? He fell away but his action was magnificently athletic, he was accurate and he was Q-U-I-C-K.

Injury prone due to their actions they were; bad bowlers they most certainly were not.

Stuff like that should be discouraged only on the basis that injuries result in bowling in that manner but that should certainly be balanced with what works for the bowler. If they're bowling well because of the action, why fix it if it ain't broke? If they're bowling badly because they fall away, well that needs to be pointed out too. There's no hard-and-fast rule.