Take a wild guess. But it was only between the years of 1999 to 2005, where the techniques of apparently every batsman in world cricket went to pot and they were incapable of stopping nicks to the cordon.
I am not going to say that pace is not important though. You can still bowl well at 130 and 125 if you have other abilities like control, movement, variety etc. However the extra yard of pace is always a threat. The 100 mph Akhtar bowled might not be the greatest delivery. Fair enough but if you look back at some of the wickets Akhtar picked up, most of them were because he surprised the batsman or got the batsman to play a false shot because of extra pace.
Now there are of course the likes of Sami and Tait who bowl rubbish and go for runs..But if you bowl rubbish, you will get smashed regardless of whether you bowl at 150 or 120.
But pace is often important for penetration. I remember Shaun Pollock hardly troubling the top order batsmen in the last few years of his career. It was not that he was bowling tripe, its just that the pace at which he was bowling was just not troubling the batsmen.
- As featured in The Independent.
"Even when England lost 5-0 in 2006-07 I don't remember them folding like this. This is as bad as I have seen from an England side."
- Mick Vaughan on the 2013/14 tourists' efforts
He bowled at the pace quick enough for the batsmen. Actually bowled slower at some batsmen. His amazing longevity may be attributed for being reserved at speeds he bowl. If bowled as a tear away, would have been a 90mph Tremlett esque bowler with bit more fitness.
Diuretics are used to look good at TV shows
I played for 20 years in the Lankan team, I did not have any problems as a Tamil - Muralidaran
A medium pacer can be an all time great bowler if you can bowl like McGrath so not sure what all the fuss is about
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)