What makes a good bowler?

[Top_Cat]

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.

Michael Holding has been nothing short of generous to West Indian fast bowling since he retired. Maybe he's sick of being ignored. If there's one guy they should be listening to when it comes to technique, it's him. He was just supreme.

 

[royGilchrist]

Yeah I think thats true action does not determine if the bowler is good. How about Mike Proctor, would any coach recommend to model a youngsters action on Proctor's, certainly not, but still he was one heck of a bowler.

And falling away actions, I have not seen much of Andy Roberts, but did he not fall away while delivering the ball. He was a pretty good bowler too

....And I can just see it...we are heading towards another best bowling action thread

 

[Richard]

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

They don't - if David Graveney hasn't watched a ball of a Test (it's not going to happen, but just hypothetically speaking) and he sees that someone has got match-figures of 7 for 69 from 30 overs, do you really think he's going to consider dropping him for the next match?

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?

That's all based on the notion that county bowling isn't "decent". Complete nonsense. It's of a lesser standard than international bowling, but the simple fact of the matter is that the rules of the game are the same.
Hence, logic suggests that someone who fails against "indecent" bowling is more likely to fail against "decent" bowling than someone who succeds against "indecent" bowling.
The argument that averages are likely to be inversed because the standard is raised is simply a logic-baffling one.
And for a batsman averaging 60 in First-Class-cricket, in this country - if only!
Incidentaly, tell me: how are viewers of the game better judges of the game than the game itself?

 

[Richard]

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.

And that ball was on the stumps?
No, it was about two feet outside. It moved back onto the stumps on pitching. A similar ball dismissed your king at The Oval. He couldn't really be faulted either.
Still trying the overdone sarcasm?

 

[Richard]

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

Craig, he wasn't serious, dude.

Corey, dude - the best way to treat sarcasm with the contempt it deserves is to pretend to take it seriously.
Craig has taken a leaf out of my book and good on him.

 

[Richard]

Regarding bowling actions - quite true that a good action won't neccesarily result in a good bowler, but a better action will usually improve a good bowler.
The best bowlers have mostly had classical actions: Marshall is an exception, but Lillee and Hadlee to name probably the two second-best; case made?
Michael Holding's action was just about as classical as they come and it's no coincidence that he was a better bowler than Croft, Roberts, Daniel, even Garner. Doesn't change the fact that the aforementioned were all very, very good indeed too, but Holding was just that little bit better.
Sometimes an unusual action will hinder a bowler (Flintoff) sometimes it will benefit untoldly (Walsh). It's swings and roundabouts to a degree, but if someone is clearly being hindered by their action they would surely do well to change it.

 

[marc71178]

And that ball was on the stumps?
No, it was about two feet outside. It moved back onto the stumps on pitching. A similar ball dismissed your king at The Oval. He couldn't really be faulted either.
Still trying the overdone sarcasm?

Who is "my King" then - because I haven't a clue.

 

[gibbsnsmith]

at first guess..id have thought It was AA, but im pretty sure he means SRT

 

[Richard]

No, gibbsnsmith, your first guess was quite right.

 

[CricketGuru]

Hi everyone after a very long time.

In my view a good bowler is the one who :

- Has a lot of control, who can throw the ball exactly where he wants to almost every time and do a lot with the ball (e.g. Swing)

- Can use the ball according to the conditions (i.e pitch, ground, weather, etc.)

- Bowls according to the batsman facing him, and not every ball on his defined conventions.

- Explores the weaknesses and strengths of a particular batsman on a particular day and balls accordingly.

- Makes up a mind set of a batsman and then surprises him with something different.

- Keep the batsman guessing on every ball.

What bowler come to your mind keeping into mind my definition of a good bowler?

 

[luckyeddie]

Hi everyone after a very long time.



What bowler come to your mind keeping into mind my definition of a good bowler?

CORKY:P

Welcome back, CricketGuru

 

[Richard]

Hi everyone after a very long time.

In my view a good bowler is the one who :

- Has a lot of control, who can throw the ball exactly where he wants to almost every time and do a lot with the ball (e.g. Swing)

- Can use the ball according to the conditions (i.e pitch, ground, weather, etc.)

- Bowls according to the batsman facing him, and not every ball on his defined conventions.

- Explores the weaknesses and strengths of a particular batsman on a particular day and balls accordingly.

- Makes up a mind set of a batsman and then surprises him with something different.

- Keep the batsman guessing on every ball.

What bowler come to your mind keeping into mind my definition of a good bowler?

First thought - Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis (though Waqar has sometimes been found wanting related to the control)
Second thought - one Dominic Cork. When he's doing what he does best, he's everything you could possibly want from a bowler.
You make some very good points, there - control with variation is a great skill, perhaps the greatest of them all. Malcolm Marshall and Richard Hadlee were the two greatest masters of this of all, in my view.
Never can there possibly be a perfect bowler, but for me those two are the closest anyone's ever come to it.

 

[CricketGuru]

Thanx Richard

Well unfortunately i havent really seen much of Malcolm Marshall and/or Richard Hadlee, i have grown up watching the likes of Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis.

The sad and/or realistic part is that you cant see the real class of a player by looking at the statistics and/or highlights. In my view if u want to see the real class of a player u have to see him live and see him a lot of times.

Thats why I have no doubt in my mind that Wasim Akram fits to my definition quite well .. actually it wouldnt be wrong to say that i defined BOWLER keeping wasim in my mind.

 

[godofcricket]

I have seen alot of wasim/waqar and in my point there hasn't been a better opening pair then the two...EVER!! Wasim akram to me was the best bowler of the era, the way he used to control the bowl with different variations.... When you hear batsman like viv richards, sachin tendulkar, steve waugh and many other great batsman saying he is the most dangerous bowler in the world,it proves it all. He comes in my list of greats with Marshall and Hadlee.

 

[Richard]

I quite agree that there hasn't been a better bowling combination than the Ws, but there have been quite a few as good. Donald and Pollock, Marshall and Holding, Lindwall and Miller, Statham and Trueman, Bedser and Statham, Larwood and Voce, McGrath and Gillespie, Ambrose and Walsh, Laker and Lock, O'Reilly and Grimmett, Alf and Ram, I could go on...
All brilliant combos and nothing, in my view, to overtly seperate them.
It's quite true that the best way to judge someone is to watch them, live, lots of times, but you can judge by asking (or reading) someone who has. It's not quite the same, but it is accurate too.
Statistics usually (and I emphasise usually) give a reasonably accurate impression of a player's ability.

 

[godofcricket]

I quite agree that there hasn't been a better bowling combination than the Ws, but there have been quite a few as good. Donald and Pollock, Marshall and Holding, Lindwall and Miller, Statham and Trueman, Bedser and Statham, Larwood and Voce, McGrath and Gillespie, Ambrose and Walsh, Laker and Lock, O'Reilly and Grimmett, Alf and Ram, I could go on...
All brilliant combos and nothing, in my view, to overtly seperate them.
It's quite true that the best way to judge someone is to watch them, live, lots of times, but you can judge by asking (or reading) someone who has. It's not quite the same, but it is accurate too.
Statistics usually (and I emphasise usually) give a reasonably accurate impression of a player's ability.

Yeah i do agree with most of the pairs you have put in ur list, but i can't figure out how you can write Mcgrath and Gillespie there. i thought they possesed no real threat to most oppositions, i know they are very good bowlers but when your talking about the worlds best pair ever, Mcgrath and especially Gillespie don't really match upto the quality. They might be very accurate and tough to play at times but in the end i think they never posses any threat.

 

[Top_Cat]

They might be very accurate and tough to play at times but in the end i think they never posses any threat.

Yet the Aussie side keeping on winning and they both keep taking wickets. Funny that. But of course, they don't pose any threat. Yes, it's the batsmen getting themselves out.

 

[gibbsnsmith]

OK! that is enough.

This sarcasm and me laughing is getting out of hand!

Richard- Can you please refrain yourself from making such ludicrous comments, i eman, i know its your opinion, but thse PEOPLE :!( are just killing me....

 

[Richard]

OK! that is enough.

This sarcasm and me laughing is getting out of hand!

Richard- Can you please refrain yourself from making such ludicrous comments, i eman, i know its your opinion, but thse PEOPLE :!( are just killing me....

Well... if you're going to laugh yourself silly at a bit of pointless sarcasm, it's not really anyone's fault but yours if you're being killed.:rolleyes:

 

[Richard]

Yet the Aussie side keeping on winning and they both keep taking wickets. Funny that. But of course, they don't pose any threat. Yes, it's the batsmen getting themselves out.

Look, Corey, I appreciate that you've had (and taken) far more opportunity to watch McGrath and Gillespie bowling on non-seaming wickets than I have, and that you take notice of what many supposedly knowledgable pundits don't, but you treat the situation as if I've never seen either of them bowl a single delivery, and make completely uneducated comment.
I have already said I'll review my perception of McGrath and Gillespie by watching them this winter, against Indian batting which will hopefully be up to scratch (ie they won't keep getting themselves out cheaply).
However, do you, in all honesty, deny that most of McGrath and Gillespie's wickets in the last 3 series (those before the Bangladesh one, as I heard there was some grass on both the wickets at Marra and Cairns) have come through batting fault more than bowling skill? Whether or not McGrath and Gillespie "deserve" these poor strokes due to their accuracy, count out for a minute, and just think - how many batsmen (or tail-enders) have recently gotten themselves out to those two?
From what I have read it is quite a few.
Obviously I don't expect you to go through every wicket of every series and write them all down here, but just think through them in your mind's eye, if you remember them all.