Ball of the century...overrated?

[aliG]

Shane warnes a good bowler, but I don't think you can label any ball....the ball of the century. I remember some of allen donalds straight and perfect yorkers, Ambroses spearing bouncers, and waqars swinging yorkers.

I could find many balls make a better impression on me then warnes 'century' ball. Here's just one beauty. LINK

Edit: Link Fixed.

 

[C_C]

It was an awesome ball but ball of the century is tad overreaction.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

"Ball of the century" is not really a serious claim, I don't think. Unless you've seen every one you can't possibly argue that, and even then there's obviously lots of great deliveries to choose from.

The name for it came up not just because the ball was amazingly good, but because of the stage. Warne was an unknown, he was on his first tour of England, Australia hadn't produced a great spinner for decades, Gatting was the best player of spin in the England team, and was completely stunned by the ball. He saw it drifting to leg, expected he had the spin covered and it flicked the top of off - it was just the perfect ball. The look on Gatting's face, and the impact that it had on the cricketing world and the star Warne would become are just as important as how much it drifted and how much it turned.

 

[honestbharani]

Personally, I think I have seen better deliveries from Warney himself. I remember a couple in the Benson and Hedges Series against Windies and Pak, in a game against the Windies, he went around the wicket to Chanderpaul and Robert Samuels and the ball basically pitched right at the edge of the pitch, it was a short ball as well and the batsmen shaped to cut the ball. But the ball kept turning in and actually hit the thigh pad of both batsmen (who were making room by backing away from the stumps in a desperate attempt to play the cut) and then crashed into the stumps. I have seen similar deliveries from Murali to right handers as well. And I remember Murali's own version of the ball of the century, to Sadagopan Ramesh, the ball (I actually watched the thing in a mirror) was almost an exact replay of the ball of Warney to Gatting.

 

[Deja moo]

IMO, the circumstances shouldnt dictate how great a delivery is perceived. If India produce a quick who bowls a Younis Khan at 95mph, and Younis walks off with mouth wide open, it still wouldnt or shouldnt have any bearing. The quality of the delivery ( and the batsman too) should be all that matters.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

IMO, the circumstances shouldnt dictate how great a delivery is perceived. If India produce a quick who bowls a Younis Khan at 95mph, and Younis walks off with mouth wide open, it still wouldnt or shouldnt have any bearing. The quality of the delivery ( and the batsman too) should be all that matters.

But the context does matter. If someone hits a big six over midwicket, it's a great shot. If they hit it off the last ball with 5 needed to win in the world cup final, it's a once in a lifetime shot. The pressure and the circumstances all impact on the bowler and the batsman and the viewers, so they impact on the quality of the delivery and how it is percieved. If Warne had been bowling a lovely spell and had 4 wickets and Gatting was on 120, it wouldn't have been quite as amazing. Even if it was his second ball it wouldn't have been the same. What you have to remember when considering that ball is that nobody knew anything about Warne and nobody in England had seen him before. It was just a tubby young Australian leggie, and he came in and bowled the most perfect ball imaginable off his very first delivery.

Shaun Tait got his first test wicket with a wonderful ball, a perfectly placed inswinging yorker to a set batsman. If it had been his first ball in test cricket, it would be a lot more memorable and discussed much more often than it is.

 

[honestbharani]

But the context does matter. If someone hits a big six over midwicket, it's a great shot. If they hit it off the last ball with 5 needed to win in the world cup final, it's a once in a lifetime shot. The pressure and the circumstances all impact on the bowler and the batsman and the viewers, so they impact on the quality of the delivery and how it is percieved. If Warne had been bowling a lovely spell and had 4 wickets and Gatting was on 120, it wouldn't have been quite as amazing. Even if it was his second ball it wouldn't have been the same. What you have to remember when considering that ball is that nobody knew anything about Warne and nobody in England had seen him before. It was just a tubby young Australian leggie, and he came in and bowled the most perfect ball imaginable off his very first delivery.

Shaun Tait got his first test wicket with a wonderful ball, a perfectly placed inswinging yorker to a set batsman. If it had been his first ball in test cricket, it would be a lot more memorable and discussed much more often than it is.

I will tell you someone who DID get a wicket with his first ball in test cricket........NILESH KULKARNI. He got no less a batsman than Marvan Atapattu. Now, there, that is the ball of the century.

 

[Deja moo]

I will tell you someone who DID get a wicket with his first ball in test cricket........NILESH KULKARNI. He got no less a batsman than Marvan Atapattu. Now, there, that is the ball of the century.

But Nilesh isnt tubby or blonde. And Atapattu didnt stare agape. Two very important pre-requisites ( other than their nationalities of course)

 

[Shounak]

But Nilesh isnt tubby or blonde. And Atapattu didnt stare agape. Two very important pre-requisites ( other than their nationalities of course)

Hahahahahahah

 

[Adamc]

I will tell you someone who DID get a wicket with his first ball in test cricket........NILESH KULKARNI. He got no less a batsman than Marvan Atapattu. Now, there, that is the ball of the century.

...and then proceeded to help Sri Lanka to the highest total of the century.

 

[Deja moo]

...and then proceeded to help Sri Lanka to the highest total of the century.

We're discussing ball of the century, not balls of the century

 

[James90]

But the ball kept turning in and actually hit the thigh pad of both batsmen (who were making room by backing away from the stumps in a desperate attempt to play the cut) and then crashed into the stumps.

Siamese twins?

 

[Barney Rubble]

The ball Warne bowled to Trescothick on Monday, which turned 31.2 inches according to Hawkeye, was pretty special. The lbw appeal was turned down on the grounds that the ball had hit him outside the line of off-stump, and was missing leg. That's how much it turned; the one that got Trescothick out wasn't so bad, either.

 

[Kweek]

though the ball that got strauss out was very special too!( cant remeber which test, 2nd I think

 

[Pedro Delgado]

The ball Warne bowled to Trescothick on Monday, which turned 31.2 inches according to Hawkeye, was pretty special. The lbw appeal was turned down on the grounds that the ball had hit him outside the line of off-stump, and was missing leg. That's how much it turned; the one that got Trescothick out wasn't so bad, either.

Wasn't that out of the rough though? Even Giles turns it out of the rubbish .

IIRC (I didn't do very well on this subject yesterday) the Gatt ball was over the wicket,drifted to just outside leg and turned off the pitch to hit top of off, whereas t'other day it was bowled around the wicket and spat out of the rough, not the pitch per se.

Both good balls like, but different.

 

[aliG]

Personally, I think I have seen better deliveries from Warney himself

Agreed and Agreed.

o btw here is the fixed link...i put in a bad link in the first one. This is exactly what I am talking about. Not just the facial expression of the batsmen...but check out the body language. This is just poetic.

fixed LINK

 

[open365]

it was christened 'ball of the century' by a journalist and it just caught on,doesn't acctually mean it was the ball of the century.

but still a great delivery,i think its so special because the ball hit off stump round about the same line it left his hand and considering it pitched outside leg makes it realy special.

 

[steds]

Siamese twins?

 

[Tom Halsey]

Of course it's not the ball of the century. No-one can ever claim that.

Agree about the ball to Trescothick though, that was special.

 

[greg]

Another factor about the ball, mentioned on Channel4's programme tonight was the Gatting factor. The English weren't that worried about Warne before that series, firstly because Hick had taken him for a big century in the Worcestershire county game, and secondly because in Mike Gatting we had someone with a reputation for being the best player of legspin in England. The fact that it was him who was deceived just made it extra special.

The ball of the century tag is fully justified IMO. Quoting similar balls bowled by other bowlers (or even Warne himself) is to ignore the profound impact that ball on cricket (and particularly, from an Anglocentric view, English and Ashes cricket) for the next decade. It was not just the quality of the ball. It was the circumstances in which it was bowled and the consequences that it had.