Did Reverse Swing hamper Pakistan cricket?

[zaremba]

Goughy you couldn't resist could you?

Mark Butcher and Graham Gooch as well.

 

[Goughy]

Goughy you couldn't resist could you?

Mark Butcher and Graham Gooch as well.

Ill be honest, I looked for clips of Butcher bowling and couldnt find any He was my number 1

 

[GIMH]

Love that Tresco ball. Why was he bowling so early on?

 

[tooextracool]

On the contrary, which of the current Pakistani bowlers can reverse the ball prodigiously?

After Razzaq and Akhtar there hasn't been a single Pakistani bowler who's been able to reverse the ball appreciably. The culture died out with the retirements of Wasim and Waqar and the advent of a batting captain - Inzamam.

Indeed. I cant really say that I understand Sohail here. Cant say too many of the Pakistan bowlers are particularly adept with the old ball and it would seem like there are plenty of bowlers who are capable of swinging the new ball (Sami, Akthar, Gul, Naved). Pakistan's biggest problems are the lack of discipline within the country itself and the furious inconsistency (much like Aamer Sohail himself) with their side.

 

[tooextracool]

Aamir Sohail, as a batsman, was highly overrated and perhaps given more opportunities than he deserved. He was selected in the team ahead of the likes of Shoaib Mohammad and Zahid Fazal - both of whom performed more consistently then he ever did.* - In case of Fazal, domestically during the early 90's.

Not to mention a couple of first class veterans who never got the chance because Imran Khan didn't like their batting styles.

Aamer Sohail was an exceptionally talented but extremely inconsistent player. No one ever question how well he could play, he just didnt do so often enough IMO.

 

[tooextracool]

A little surprised that he nominated Courtney Walsh (alongside Glenn McGrath) as the most difficult bowler to open against. I would have put him a little bit lower down the pecking order, certainly below Curtly Ambrose and I'd have thought Donald and Pollock as well.

Hes not the only one to have done that. Nasser Hussain also put Walsh down as one of the toughest he had faced in his autobiography IIRC. Mike Atherton has also claimed that the spell that Walsh bowled to him in 93/94 at Sabina Park was the fastest he had ever faced. And this is coming from a man who had to face Allan Donald at Edgbaston in 98. I was a bit surprised to hear that Walsh was that quick at one point, certainly barely ever hear his name being thrown around when it comes to the fastest bowlers of their time, but I really do wonder how many mph he might have been bowling during the early to mid 90s.

 

[Top_Cat]

Hes not the only one to have done that. Nasser Hussain also put Walsh down as one of the toughest he had faced in his autobiography IIRC. Mike Atherton has also claimed that the spell that Walsh bowled to him in 93/94 at Sabina Park was the fastest he had ever faced. And this is coming from a man who had to face Allan Donald at Edgbaston in 98. I was a bit surprised to hear that Walsh was that quick at one point, certainly barely ever hear his name being thrown around when it comes to the fastest bowlers of their time, but I really do wonder how many mph he might have been bowling during the early to mid 90s.

I believe the Waugh's, especially Mark, also rated Courtney very highly. Mark also said it was Courtney's pace which did for him on a few occasions, that when he cranked it up was as quick as anyone. Ian Healy never much liked facing him either.

Courtney's action wasn't really simple I think so perhaps some days, when it wasn't all ticking along in unison, he was down on pace. I think his rather smoothe look when he bowled belied the speed he generated. I only once saw him live in Adelaide and speed-wise, he looked very pacey.

 

[Richard]

Love that Tresco ball. Why was he bowling so early on?

No-one knows. Nasser Hussain simply gave it a bash.

 

[Richard]

(lets ignore the fact that the clip sees many trapped on the crease going nowhere as length and bounce are not important )

This really does get annoying. I've never, once, said it's not important.

 

[Richard]

Hes not the only one to have done that. Nasser Hussain also put Walsh down as one of the toughest he had faced in his autobiography IIRC. Mike Atherton has also claimed that the spell that Walsh bowled to him in 93/94 at Sabina Park was the fastest he had ever faced. And this is coming from a man who had to face Allan Donald at Edgbaston in 98. I was a bit surprised to hear that Walsh was that quick at one point, certainly barely ever hear his name being thrown around when it comes to the fastest bowlers of their time, but I really do wonder how many mph he might have been bowling during the early to mid 90s.

I believe the Waugh's, especially Mark, also rated Courtney very highly. Mark also said it was Courtney's pace which did for him on a few occasions, that when he cranked it up was as quick as anyone. Ian Healy never much liked facing him either.

Courtney's action wasn't really simple I think so perhaps some days, when it wasn't all ticking along in unison, he was down on pace. I think his rather smoothe look when he bowled belied the speed he generated. I only once saw him live in Adelaide and speed-wise, he looked very pacey.

Walsh's action accentuated his pace, too - Victor Marks commented on that in his tribute in Wisden in 2001. Saying many batsmen found him more difficult to play than the more pacy Holding, because his action meant you picked-up the ball later

Walsh did not bowl well as often as some other bowlers did, but when he did bowl well he was often, it would seem, more difficult to face than almost anyone.

 

[Richard]

Obviously that isnt true, but Im not going into this again ( have just deleted a large and excited post).

In advance of any reply, Ill not respond so we will not go round in circles.

Indeed, as I've said before - my experiences lead me to believe differently to you.

Sideways movement is one of the easiest things for a good batsman to play, especially if it goes early.

Of course it is. It's late swing that causes problems - early swing is much easier to negotiate. I have plenty of experience of this in my own bowling.

Most wickets are off balls that barely move a hairs width.

Well given that many wickets fall to nothing or out-and-out bad deliveries - yes.

 

[Top_Cat]

Well given that many wickets fall to nothing or out-and-out bad deliveries - yes.

A ball which doesn't move sideways =! a poor delivery. It's not even a nothing ball. Just getting it in the area where batsmen will have doubts about whether to leave or play you makes a ball more dangerous than if it was a bit wider or shorter.

 

[Richard]

A ball outside off-stump that does nothing is a nothing ball. Any wicket falling to it is exclusively poor batting.

And obviously, a wide Long-Hop or a leg-stump Full-Toss is an out-and-out bad delivery.

Neither of these deliveries should get a wicket.

A ball which makes the batsman play is different.

A delivery doesn't have to move to be a good ball and deserving of a wicket. But it does have to make the batsman play, OR move. IE, a wide outswinger that draws the drive and produces an edge is also good bowling, and so can a straight ball that makes the batsman play and takes the edge be.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Obviously that isnt true, but Im not going into this again ( have just deleted a large and excited post).

Sideways movement is one of the easiest things for a good batsman to play, especially if it goes early.

Most wickets are off balls that barely move a hairs width.

In advance of any reply, Ill not respond so we will not go round in circles.

More or less sums it up. Sideways movement is a valuable asset if one possesses the other necessary qualities in a bowler. It's not anywhere near as important as some make it out.

 

[Richard]

Likewise, bounce is a valuable asset if one possesses the other necessary qualities in a bowler. It's not the most important asset some make it out to be.

The more bounce, the better. Sideways movement with very low bounce isn't likely to be terribly effective. Likewise, good bounce without any sideways movement isn't likely to be terribly effective.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Obviously that isnt true, but Im not going into this again ( have just deleted a large and excited post).

Sideways movement is one of the easiest things for a good batsman to play, especially if it goes early.

Most wickets are off balls that barely move a hairs width.

In advance of any reply, Ill not respond so we will not go round in circles.

A wise man once said to me...

"Obviously I completely agree with you, but havn't we been over this a number of times already? Should it really need explaining again?"

 

[Goughy]

A wise man once said to me...

"Obviously I completely agree with you, but havn't we been over this a number of times already? Should it really need explaining again?"

I know. It is too easy to get sucked in. But touche

 

[Richard]

It obviously doesn't need explaining again - what is being said is understood completely. It's simply disagreed with.