• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Penetration in bowlers

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
With the recent rich vein of shirtfronts infecting our centre squares, penetration - likelihood of taking a wicket - has become a dying art among bowlers of both persuasions. Who's the worst offenders in this category?

For mine:

Brett Dorey
Brad Williams
AA
Ashley Giles
Kabir Ali
Liam Plunkett
Mohammad Sami


Which raises other questions: what is penetration? What is it that makes these bowlers roaring successes at domestic level yet abandons them in their - and their country's - hour of need?

At the same time, why is it that some bowlers can look harmless - the definition of unpenetrativeness - but still take wickets with a steady flow (Giles, Razzaq)?

Discuss.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Plunkett is penetrative he's just expensive with it.

You can probably add Pollock to that list these days, probably lots to add from the weaker Test nations as well.
 

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
I saw Dorey once on the international scene. Wasn't impressed at all. He was gun-barrel straight and was beaten back easily.
 
Last edited:

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
LongHopCassidy said:
I saw Dorey once on the international scene. Wasn't impressed at all. He was gun-barrel straight and was beaten back easily.
You can't really judge a guy based on him bowling second change on a flat pitch in an ODI. He swung the ball plenty in Bangladesh when he got it first up, and obviously he has a reputation for being one of the best swing bowlers in domestic cricket.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
LongHopCassidy said:
With the recent rich vein of shirtfronts infecting our centre squares, penetration - likelihood of taking a wicket - has become a dying art among bowlers of both persuasions. Who's the worst offenders in this category?

For mine:

Brett Dorey
Brad Williams
AA
Ashley Giles
Kabir Ali
Liam Plunkett
Mohammad Sami


Which raises other questions: what is penetration? What is it that makes these bowlers roaring successes at domestic level yet abandons them in their - and their country's - hour of need?

At the same time, why is it that some bowlers can look harmless - the definition of unpenetrativeness - but still take wickets with a steady flow (Giles, Razzaq)?

Discuss.
you could probably add steve harmison to that list as well, whenever he plays on a track that doesnt offer extra/uneven bounce.
generally in ODIs and occasionally in tests bowlers that bowl accurately take wickets by applying the pressure even if they arent penetrative. Pollock is an example of that when hes playing outside of swinging/seaming conditions.No bowler can really be penetrative in all conditions, which is why Englands pace quartet last summer was such a craze, because each bowler seemed to be suited to different conditions.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
tooextracool said:
you could probably add steve harmison to that list as well, whenever he plays on a track that doesnt offer extra/uneven bounce.
generally in ODIs and occasionally in tests bowlers that bowl accurately take wickets by applying the pressure even if they arent penetrative. Pollock is an example of that when hes playing outside of swinging/seaming conditions.No bowler can really be penetrative in all conditions, which is why Englands pace quartet last summer was such a craze, because each bowler seemed to be suited to different conditions.

McGrath seems to take wickets everywhere. His game is based on unerring accuracy. When the ball is swinging, or there is help, he demolishes lineups....but even without much help he does relatively well.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Bit harsh on Plunkers there I fancy. He sprays it around a fair bit, but he does bowl wicket taking deliveries too. He's got height & bounce on his side as well.

I reckon you could add Shane Watson to the list, offers v little in way of movement or bounce.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
silentstriker said:
McGrath seems to take wickets everywhere. His game is based on unerring accuracy. When the ball is swinging, or there is help, he demolishes lineups....but even without much help he does relatively well.
he may take wickets everywhere but that doesnt mean that he is penetrative. fact is that you can be accurate in all conditions but that equal penetrating. Mcgrath is penetrating in a lot of conditions but there are plenty of times when hes barely beating the bat, and hes just taking wickets from poor shots after building up the pressure. Not that theres anything wrong in that, its still good bowling but it doesnt make him penetrating.
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
Rana Naved in Tests tends to be a genuinely unpenetrative bowler in Tests. Which makes you think, how the hell does he take so many wickets in ODIs. Its not like hes bowling all 10 overs at the death or anything.
 

thedarkmullet

School Boy/Girl Captain
Vettori is one that doesn't penetrate but takes wickets(when he actually does) through building up pressure.
As for the rest of the Kiwis, Bond is the only one that comes to mind as regularly pentrating the bastman's defence if thats how we're defining it. That inswinging yorker of his is lethal.
 

bagapath

International Captain
vic_orthdox said:
You know what they say though...

It's not the length that matters, it's how you use it.
the late malcolm marshall could take wickets anywhere any time. his overall record is indicative of his amazing wicket taking ability. but what separates him from other bowlers with similar record is his uniform success against all opposition in all countries. the bad series he had in new zealand is an exception that proves the rule ! with murali and hadlee coming a very close second, marshall should be the most penetrative bowler of the post packer era.


In England 18 4293 177 1758 94 18.70 7/22 6 1 2.46 45.67
In Australia 10 2444 87 1042 45 23.16 5/29 5 1 2.56 54.31
In West Indies 31 6672 205 3150 157 20.06 7/80 8 2 2.83 42.50
In New Zealand 3 714 21 289 9 32.11 4/43 - - 2.43 79.33
In India 9 1794 70 886 36 24.61 6/37 2 - 2.96 49.83
In Pakistan 10 1667 53 751 35 21.46 5/33 1 - 2.70 47.63
Totals 81 17584 613 7876 376 20.95 7/22 22 4 2.69 46.77
 

tooextracool

International Coach
shortpitched713 said:
Rana Naved in Tests tends to be a genuinely unpenetrative bowler in Tests. Which makes you think, how the hell does he take so many wickets in ODIs. Its not like hes bowling all 10 overs at the death or anything.
Naved is generally way too inaccurate to pick up wickets in tests. Against England he was extremely penetrating, much like in county cricket.
 

Top