so really any bowler, not matter how successful they are,if they dont move the ball that much (for example Joel Garner,Jeff Thomson,Glen McGrath...and in the early days of Holding...probably plenty of others),they just dont deserve the wicket. You see I see accuarcy as being the most fundamental aspect of bowling,accuracy is the number one getter of wickets in cricket...and McGrath or Garner were deadly accurate..and in my opinion deserve every bit of success they got..ok the odd time they might have been a tad lucky,so is every bowler..some times they have been unlucky..it evens itself out.Originally posted by Richard
In terms of a wicket?
An away-swinger that hits the outside-edge and goes in the air to a fielder. Or an in-swinging Yorker that hits the toe and would have been going onto the stumps or hits the stumps direct. Or an in-swinger that takes a thin inside-edge and goes to a fielder (usually the wicketkeeper). Or an in-dipper that pitches outside off and hits off.
In terms of just a good ball; anything that doesn't go off the middle of the bat to the boundary. Anything that does can't really be good bowling.