Who has a better test bowling attack ?

[Scarface]

Pakistan has a better attack. I would rather have a bowling squad of Akhtar, Sami, Shabbir, Gul, Kaneria, and Saqlain than Pollock, Ntini, Nel, Kallis, Adams and Klusner. Pollock is the best of the lot (very closely followed by Akhtar). But apart from that i don't rate and of the other SA bowlers. Kallis is more of a batsmen than bowler and doesn't have too much pace, Ntini is overated and hasn't done much against quality sides. Adams is one of the worst spinners i've seen and has the strangest action. Klusner is past his best while Nel has good potential. He is over aggressive at times and he needs to let his bowling do the talking.

However Pakistan have some fantastic young bowlers. Sami has great potential, but is stuggling at the moment. Under Woolmer's guidance he could turn out to be a star. Shabbir is a good steady bowler with decent pace as well. At times he can be wayward. Gul is a great prospect. He bowls in the McGrath mould and if he turns out to be half the player McGrath is, Pakistan have a future star. He showed what he is capable of by destryoing one of the best batting line ups in the world a few months ago. Kaneria is a good young leg spinner who has a good future. He has shown a lot of promise against Bangladesh and SA (both weak players of spin) and now needs to prove himself against bigger opposition. Plenty of talent and is still very young. Remember leg spinners don't usually mature until late 20's.

I also saw some bowlers in the u-19 world cup. Riaz Afridi caught my eye as one for the future. He ended up as the top wicket taker in the tourement and he swings the ball a long way. His opening partner Ali Imran was also a very good prospect. There were also 2 spinners: Tariq Mahmood and Mansoor Amjad. They both look like fine young players. Tariq is a carbon copy of Murali.

So although Pakistan's attack isn't as good as it was in the days of Was and Waq, it is heading in the right direction.

 

[hyounis786]

id have to go for SA on current form but no doubt when the pak bowlers are at their best , they are twice as destructable than the sa bowlers

 

[hyounis786]

scarface, i agree tariq mahmood looks a fine player and is a carbon copy of murali after seeing him play in the u19 world cup.the only concern is that i am about 80% sure that he will be called up by the icc reagrding his action and therefore he will have to change his action and that will affect his bowling a lot! he also has a great doosra like murali! fingers crossed he wont get picked upon by the icc

 

[Richard]

total tripe....how about a poll then to see how many people believe that there has been any other wrist spinner in the history of the game that has been able to turn it as much as murali can on the same type of wicket?
any fool can see that murali can turn it far more on even the flattest of tracks.

You really do like this idea of polls to try and prove me wrong, don't you?
The sooner you get the idea that polls on these sort of thing don't change the fact that you are wrong the better.
I have analysed the amount of revolution Murali puts on the ball, relative to Warne, Mushtaq Ahmed, Ashley Giles and Robert Croft, in comparable conditions with regards sunlight. Croft and Giles put just about exactly the same amount on, and Mushtaq spins it everso slightly more than Murali and Warne, who are again almost without seperation.
I keep failing to get around to comparing MacGill to the rest of them, because I suspect he gives it even more rip than the whole lot of them.

 

[Swervy]

You really do like this idea of polls to try and prove me wrong, don't you?
The sooner you get the idea that polls on these sort of thing don't change the fact that you are wrong the better.
I have analysed the amount of revolution Murali puts on the ball, relative to Warne, Mushtaq Ahmed, Ashley Giles and Robert Croft, in comparable conditions with regards sunlight. Croft and Giles put just about exactly the same amount on, and Mushtaq spins it everso slightly more than Murali and Warne, who are again almost without seperation.
I keep failing to get around to comparing MacGill to the rest of them, because I suspect he gives it even more rip than the whole lot of them.

what..Giles has the same number of revolutions on the ball as Murali...NO WAY

By what method are you actually getting this data.

Please dont say from footage videoed off TV!!!!!

 

[Richard]

and if you analyze murali you will see that he clearly spins it far more and hence cant be put in the same category.

I have. And I've found that there's at least one spinner who spins it a bit more, and I highly suspect another (MacGill)

no he cant turn it significantly on any surface and neither can warne. and how many times must it be said, success for spinners outside the sub continent doesnt have to do with turn, it has to do with drift, flight and accuracy....all 3 of which a quality wrist spinner is more than capable off.

And a quality fingerspinner is equally capable of it. In fact far more fingerspinners are capable of accuracy than wristspinners, so there are far more quality fingerspinners than wristspinners.
However, flight with the things that it allows (loop and drift) and accuracy don't in themselves trouble good batsmen, you need to turn it. Because wristspiners can turn it on any pitch, that makes a quality wristspinner a better bowler than a quality fingerspinner.
And nor does every subcontinent wicket help fingerspinners (for example The SSC last England tour), nor is there no ground outside the subcontinent that regularly produces turners (The SCG, Wantage Road Northampton and Sophia Gardens are three examples of non-subcontinental grounds whose typical wicket is a turner).

the fact that the buildup to the wickets had to do with good bowling

Rubbish. Because, as I've said, good batsmen don't worry about that.

and if you watched that series in england you would realise that he actually bowled far better despite going for runs

Ntini was very poor in the first 5 innings, he made some improvement in the next 3 but again lost it in the final 2.
If you had watched properly you'd not find it hard to notice that.

 

[Richard]

what..Giles has the same number of revolutions on the ball as Murali...NO WAY

Now where on Earth did I say that?
I said Giles and Croft put the same amount of revolution on the ball. Not Giles and Murali.

By what method are you actually getting this data.

Please dont say from footage videoed off TV!!!!!

Yes, video-footage, most of which has either presumably or definately been on TV.
What's wrong with that, then?

 

[Swervy]

You really do like this idea of polls to try and prove me wrong, don't you?
The sooner you get the idea that polls on these sort of thing don't change the fact that you are wrong the better.
I have analysed the amount of revolution Murali puts on the ball, relative to Warne, Mushtaq Ahmed, Ashley Giles and Robert Croft, in comparable conditions with regards sunlight. Croft and Giles put just about exactly the same amount on, and Mushtaq spins it everso slightly more than Murali and Warne, who are again almost without seperation.
I keep failing to get around to comparing MacGill to the rest of them, because I suspect he gives it even more rip than the whole lot of them.

ok ..but it wasnt very clear from what you said...my mistake

You cant accuratly measure the number of revolutions on the ball just from normmal footage of a bowler bowling, due to the number of frames per second and the clarity of the footage.....a very unscientific method i would say,given that the margin of error in such a measurement would be huge

 

[Richard]

You'd be surprised.
As soon as I can get some footage of all of them in 1000-frames-per-second from the right angle I'll try it again on that but you'd be surprised how close you can see even with the standard f-p-s.
You can pick-out a spot on the ball, and work out a complete-revolution:frames ratio, then clearly you can see how much spin they put on relative to each other.
Of couse, you need to check that the f-p-s ratio is the same on all the cameras.

 

[Swervy]

You'd be surprised.
As soon as I can get some footage of all of them in 1000-frames-per-second from the right angle I'll try it again on that but you'd be surprised how close you can see even with the standard f-p-s.
You can pick-out a spot on the ball, and work out a complete-revolution:frames ratio, then clearly you can see how much spin they put on relative to each other.
Of couse, you need to check that the f-p-s ratio is the same on all the cameras.

but you still dont know the accuracy of the info you are getting from that..and I would say there would be at least an error of say 30% either side of the correct amount.....also you need to take into account where in the flight the measuremnt is being taken,weather conditions etc....to be honest Richard, you looking at this footage still amounts to guesswork

 

[Richard]

F-p-s is known, exactly, there's no error there.
As I say, I've made sure that all the footage is of sunny days where visibility is at it's best.
Check-out some slow-mo TV footage of a wristspinner sometime - you'll see how much rev you can actually make-out.

 

[Swervy]

F-p-s is known, exactly, there's no error there.
As I say, I've made sure that all the footage is of sunny days where visibility is at it's best.
Check-out some slow-mo TV footage of a wristspinner sometime - you'll see how much rev you can actually make-out.

the error is made in your interpetation of a revolution...also the angle of the axis of revolution needs to be taken into consideration compared to the angle of the camera.

As a matter of interest, roughly how many revolutions per second are there for Murali or Giles.

How many frames per second are there???

 

[marc71178]

scarface, i agree tariq mahmood looks a fine player and is a carbon copy of murali after seeing him play in the u19 world cup.the only concern is that i am about 80% sure that he will be called up by the icc reagrding his action and therefore he will have to change his action and that will affect his bowling a lot! he also has a great doosra like murali! fingers crossed he wont get picked upon by the icc

If he's copying Murali, then he must be called immediately and have his action reviewed.

 

[marc71178]

F-p-s is known, exactly, there's no error there.

How do you know that for certain?

 

[tooextracool]

I have. And I've found that there's at least one spinner who spins it a bit more, and I highly suspect another (MacGill).

so you think warne and macgill turn it more than murali? rubbish.

And a quality fingerspinner is equally capable of it. In fact far more fingerspinners are capable of accuracy than wristspinners, so there are far more quality fingerspinners than wristspinners.
However, flight with the things that it allows (loop and drift) and accuracy don't in themselves trouble good batsmen, you need to turn it. Because wristspiners can turn it on any pitch, that makes a quality wristspinner a better bowler than a quality fingerspinner.
And nor does every subcontinent wicket help fingerspinners (for example The SSC last England tour), nor is there no ground outside the subcontinent that regularly produces turners (The SCG, Wantage Road Northampton and Sophia Gardens are three examples of non-subcontinental grounds whose typical wicket is a turner).

and as i've said time and time again, wrist spinner only turn the ball marginally more than a finger spinner on a non turner. there have been several wrist spinners who have performed well on non turners, either by using footholds or by using flight,drift,accuracy and the little bit of turn that they get.

Rubbish. Because, as I've said, good batsmen don't worry about that.

yet apparently sangakkara was....so hes obviously not a good batsman.

Ntini was very poor in the first 5 innings, he made some improvement in the next 3 but again lost it in the final 2.
If you had watched properly you'd not find it hard to notice that.

err he took a 4fer in the first test and then 2 5fers in the next one at lords. in that entire series he really only had 3 poor innings.

 

[tooextracool]

You really do like this idea of polls to try and prove me wrong, don't you?
The sooner you get the idea that polls on these sort of thing don't change the fact that you are wrong the better.

no its conceivable that if more people disagree with you, that you might actually be wrong!

I have analysed the amount of revolution Murali puts on the ball, relative to Warne, Mushtaq Ahmed, Ashley Giles and Robert Croft, in comparable conditions with regards sunlight. Croft and Giles put just about exactly the same amount on, and Mushtaq spins it everso slightly more than Murali and Warne, who are again almost without seperation.
I keep failing to get around to comparing MacGill to the rest of them, because I suspect he gives it even more rip than the whole lot of them.

and you can prove this?

 

[Richard]

the error is made in your interpetation of a revolution...also the angle of the axis of revolution needs to be taken into consideration compared to the angle of the camera.

I know, and it's possible to mark them all, believe me. I did think carefully before doing this. No spinner has an identical angle-of-axis, Giles is much more of a sidespinner than Croft, while Croft bowls with more topspin than Giles (which is why he typically gets a bit more loop and drift).

As a matter of interest, roughly how many revolutions per second are there for Murali or Giles.

Giles is typically 38 (Croft 36) and Murali, believe it or not, is 84. Mushtaq is 95, Warne 82. I would suspect that MacGill will be over 100.
And I've just watched Dave Mohammad again for the first time in 6 months and I'll be surprised if he's not in the 80s at least.
Remember, though, I've only done this on an average of 6 deliveries, there could be many hidden secrets to discover yet.

How many frames per second are there???

A standard camera is 25 (1\40th of UltraMotion\4Sight!), the super-slo-mo ones in this footage I used are 75.

 

[Richard]

How do you know that for certain?

Err, because all cameras have it known all too well, it's a figure quoted on the information and instructions-booklets that come with every electrical appliance ever made.

 

[Richard]

so you think warne and macgill turn it more than murali? rubbish.

No, I don't think anything, I know: that Mushtaq spins it more than Murali, Warne spins it for all intents and purposes the same amount as him and I highly suspect that MacGill spins it more than anyone, given that I've seen him turn it more than anyone. I've seen him pitch it shortish on the leg-stump edge of the pitch and miss off by quite some distance. I've seen Murali pitch it very short way outside off and spin it into the stumps. A breathtaking ball. But not turning as much as MacGill.

and as i've said time and time again, wrist spinner only turn the ball marginally more than a finger spinner on a non turner. there have been several wrist spinners who have performed well on non turners, either by using footholds or by using flight,drift,accuracy and the little bit of turn that they get.

So which wristspinners are these, then?
And it makes no sense to say that wristspinners turn it much more than fingerspinners on turners and almost the same amount on non-turners. The ratio will be the same regardless of how big the numbers are.

yet apparently sangakkara was....so hes obviously not a good batsman.

No, he wasn't. And he is, a very good batsman.

err he took a 4fer in the first test and then 2 5fers in the next one at lords. in that entire series he really only had 3 poor innings.

I'm not talking about his wicket-taking, I'm talking about his economy. And that was poor in all the first 5 innings.

 

[Richard]

no its conceivable that if more people disagree with you, that you might actually be wrong!

Not if the disagreements concern facts.
Because it doesn't matter how many people say "Ealham didn't bowl in the first 15 overs" when he did. And all the people that may say it are wrong.
It's not the same as "if 1,000,000,000 people say the sky's red, then it is", because the fact is, the sky is blue because everyone says it is. If everyone said the sky was coloured grhturbhnhsgs, then it would be!

and you can prove this?

No, I can't - and you can just use the excuse that "he must be making it up" because it doesn't fit your ideals.