What makes a good bowler?

[luckyeddie]

Sorry if I'm wasting bandwidth with a pointless post

You never mentioned statistics once

(sorry - below the belt)

 

[Richard]

No offence taken.

 

[Top_Cat]

'Fraid to say I do. For all we know everything could be a figment of our imagination. I do go in for realism, though, and I don't try to deny what we all consider facts (eg murder is bad, cricket is good )

Ah, but you stated an objective fact (cricket is good; bah, just TRY to deny it, anyone!) and that's at odds to Descartian philosophy. So you can't really count yourself as a true skeptic.

Mind you, neither could Descartes. He had to acknowledge that he 'knew' that he existed at least.

Sometimes I think I agree with you a lot more than I seem to because I phrase things so poorly so often.

Well I wouldn't say that. At least you don't suffer from the verbosity that I do. I mean, why say in 10 words what you can say in 996?

*ducks as another T_C post goes whistling over my head*

Rubbish. I bet you get it but are just too damn cool to admit it.

Look them up if you like. Rand is an Objectivist and Descartes a Skeptic. Good bed-time reading.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Rubbish. I bet you get it but are just too damn cool to admit it.

Nah, I'm fairly sure he didn't get it...

 

[PY]

Neil, you have such a high opinion of my mental ability.

I'm sure I'd get it if I knew who they were but I don't.

(And that isn't an excuse to explain it neither :P)

 

[deeps]

the best bowler in the world..can bowl to the plan set by him,his captain and coaches

That may be to bowl outswingers,inswingers watever.. Whatever the plan is, if he can bowl to it,hes' a good bowler...
Glenn Mcgrath doesn't bowl the best outswinger,inswinger and he doesn't bowl many cutters or reverse swinging deliveries

He uses movement off the seam,and keeps to the plan

That's why he's the best bowler in the world... Don't come along and say "but Shaun Pollock is rated higher than mcgrath" coz that's aload of bull..tis an anomoly in the system

 

[Craig]

There are some good and bad points in there.

I disagree with the notion that because he does what his captain says, it makes him a good bowler. Instead that makes him a good team player.

It involved bowling negative line and length's (ie Ashley Giles), then no it doesnt make him a good bowler. If it were a positive plan with a genuine attempt to get the batsman out then, yes.

One example you can use if New Zealand's plan to Damien Martyn when he bats.

 

[Mr. P]

One example you can use if New Zealand's plan to Damien Martyn when he bats.

Or the whole worlds plan to Steve Waugh when he bats which never works anyway but every team still does it.

 

[Craig]

Actually, Mike Atherton, when he was captain always used to instruct him bowlers to pitch the ball on off stump as Steve Waugh does to have a weakness there, and it did work.

 

[godofcricket]

Actually, Mike Atherton, when he was captain always used to instruct him bowlers to pitch the ball on off stump as Steve Waugh does to have a weakness there, and it did work.

Its doesn't always need to be the captain who tells what a bowler needs to do, if a bowler has enough experience (like wasim, donald or mcgrath) they need to set themselves according to the batsmans form on a particular day, quality bowlers know more than the captain. Thats why i always liked wasim akram he knows how to set the batsman up, he experiments with the ball so the batsman is unable to know the next delivery.

 

[luckyeddie]

Don't come along and say "but Shaun Pollock is rated higher than mcgrath" coz that's aload of bull..tis an anomoly in the system

Thanks for giving me my first laugh of the day.

Not because you rate McGrath above Pollock - I do myself - but to say that Tis an anomaly in the system' smacks of Antipodean arrogance.

 

[Richard]

That's why he's the best bowler in the world... Don't come along and say "but Shaun Pollock is rated higher than mcgrath" coz that's aload of bull..tis an anomoly in the system

An anomaly in the system?
Not bothering to go into whether McGrath or Pollock is the better bowler (for me they're almost identical - equally accurate, both bowl too short most of the time to swing the ball, both rely for movement mostly on seam [not to say they can't bowl anything else] - the one difference is McGrath is a bit taller and Pollock tends to bowl more deliveries on the line of the stumps) any mistake in the Ranking systems is not an anomaly - it's a summing-up!

 

[Richard]

I disagree with the notion that because he does what his captain says, it makes him a good bowler.

No, that's a ridiculous notion - if your captain says "bowl at Mark Waugh's pads" or "bowl short at Aravinda" you're a terrible bowler if you take any notice, because you'll just get murdered. No matter where the fields are set, because neither typically hit the ball in the air on the respective shots.
Similarly, Vaughan may well tell Harmison and co. to pitch it short in Sri Lanka, me can't help feeling. If the bowlers take notice that makes them bad bowlers and Vaughan a bad captain for taking a succesful tactic against a load of batsmen who're proven hapless cases against the short-ball and assuming it must work against batsmen who are proven at Test level.
Very rarely does a captain remember a batsman better than a bowler who has bowled at him. There are exceptions but generally those doing the bowling and going for the runs are the ones who remember best, because this sort of thing sticks more in their memory than someone watching from a comparatively removed position.

 

[Richard]

Or the whole worlds plan to Steve Waugh when he bats which never works anyway but every team still does it.

Where the "Stephen Waugh has a weakness against the short-ball" brigade come from I haven't the slightest clue, but you're sure right they keep it up. It's quite amazing that someone can go for nigh on 20 years proving a faulty theory wrong and still people don't notice. I lost count of the "Simon Jones - bang it in at Steve Waugh's ribs - he doesn't like it there" comments this time last year.
I honestly haven't got the slightest clue where the above idea came from - maybe a slight misinterpretation of his bowling - Stephen Waugh has a weakness with the short-ball - ie he bowls it too much (they say in his early career he sent down Bouncers at Vivian Richards and flailed at Marshall and co. - the second part unthinkable now but the first still creeps in occasionally, if at different batsmen).

 

[Top_Cat]

Where the "Stephen Waugh has a weakness against the short-ball" brigade come from I haven't the slightest clue, but you're sure right they keep it up. It's quite amazing that someone can go for nigh on 20 years proving a faulty theory wrong and still people don't notice. I lost count of the "Simon Jones - bang it in at Steve Waugh's ribs - he doesn't like it there" comments this time last year.

I think it came from early in his career when he showed that he tends to 'wince' at the short ball and had a bit of a problem with popping the ball up to short-leg too. To his eternal credit, he decided to just ignore any short balls from then on, even if he looked ugly doing it and appeared to still have the weakness. Eventually teams would get tired of bowling short stuff to him, he'd be on 30-40 and he'd cash in.

honestly haven't got the slightest clue where the above idea came from - maybe a slight misinterpretation of his bowling - Stephen Waugh has a weakness with the short-ball - ie he bowls it too much (they say in his early career he sent down Bouncers at Vivian Richards and flailed at Marshall and co. - the second part unthinkable now but the first still creeps in occasionally, if at different batsmen).

The thing is, it used to work. He rattled Viv on a few occasions and I guess he figured that Marshall would give it to him anyway. Steve Waugh in his early career could, on occasions, bowl bouncers which would shock the life out of batsmen. They were quick enough but they were such a shock from a guy with a medium-pacer's run-up when, in his early days, he was a bit quicker than medium.

 

[gibbsnsmith]

No, that's a ridiculous notion - if your captain says "bowl at Mark Waugh's pads" or "bowl short at Aravinda" you're a terrible bowler if you take any notice, because you'll just get murdered. No matter where the fields are set, because neither typically hit the ball in the air on the respective shots.
.

wtf????

what kind of a buffon of a captain will tell the bowler to bowl to the batsmans strengths!!!

 

[Craig]

Au Contraire Jay, bowling at a batsman's strength's can and haved worked.

Cricket is one hell of a hard game to work out.

 

[deeps]

yes,that's true...Gilchrist comes to mind...he flashes outside offstump and scores plenty of runs..but he also gets out in that region alot!

But the thing there is...He gets himself out...not the bowler getting him out! i could bowl to gilly and he could flash away,and eventually h'll get caught!

tis not a reflection on the skill of the bowler


And the nut who says that a captain might tell the bowler to bowl to mark waughs pads,or short to aravind...wtF??? I guess that could b classed as 'throwing' the game

While we're at it,let's bowl short outside off-stump to steve Waugh, or Half Volleys to Tendulkar or Hayden

Better still, perhaps the captain should tell the bowler and keeper NEVER to appeal...and all the fielders should drop all the catches...

 

[PY]

And the nut who says that a captain might tell the bowler to bowl to mark waughs pads,or short to aravind...wtF???

Think there's been a mis-understanding, you actually all agree.

Bowlers should be able to bowl to a plan that is set them by their captain but they should always be able to spot something that might work better and implement that instead.

 

[Eclipse]

I must say Gilly more often than not will make you pay for bowling with width outside off but yeah it's worth a try once or twice early in his innings if you are brave enough.

And why in the hell do some bowlers always bowl short to Gilly I mean Andrew Caddick for example that moron trys to bounce him every time he plays against him and never has any success.