Dale Steyn vs Wasim Akram vs Curtly Ambrose

[Mr Miyagi]

It was tactical from Kallis. Late career he only bowled when batsmen were set and the ball wasn't doing much. Either the batsmen take risks, or they don't score. This kills time until the ball starts reversing/ new ball arrives etc., and also gives the better bowlers a chance to rest up. He would probably have got wickets faster by bowling more aggressive lines, but they would have been much more expensive- weak bowler bowling at the worst time to get cheap wickets.

Yeah - agreed, 5th bowler alone and at all is tactical, which is meant to be for the greater good of the bowling team.

But a 5th bowler bowls less than the primary 4.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Kallis was just an example, it used to happen in the Shield in Aus a lot too from frontline bowlers. It got boring af at times.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Kallis was just an example, it used to happen in the Shield in Aus a lot too from frontline bowlers. It got boring af at times.

You're onto it. It is just that a 5th bowler is a bit of an exception.

Bowling for E/R in tests doesn't build pressure imo, it is defensive cricket that the bowling team is basically saying we're not playing to win, we want a draw, and the batting side then gets the upperhand and can play for a win or a draw, cos they won't be losing many. I don't mind bowlers having a third man, I don't mind a deep square leg, mid wicket or in between sweeper, but if bowlers can't get wickets, all they're doing at best is giving cheap runs away slowly at their end, and making it harder for the bowler at the other end and bowling after them to get more wickets too by not bowling to new batsmen.

Sure giving away cheap runs is better done slowly than fast, but in my experience wickets helps the rest of the bowlers more than low E/R.

 

[Bolo]

It's extremely boring. Sometimes to the batsmen as well, so it can get you cheap wickets. It's more for killing time without costing too many runs until you get some help from change in ball condition. It's definitely a legitimate tactic, even from frontline bowlers from time to time- without help from the pitch or ball not many bowlers can make things happen.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

It's extremely boring. Sometimes to the batsmen as well, so it can get you cheap wickets. It's more for killing time without costing too many runs until you get some help from change in ball condition. It's definitely a legitimate tactic, even from frontline bowlers from time to time- without help from the pitch or ball not many bowlers can make things happen.

Fine leg out, square leg out, fast leg theory time. Buy that wicket.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Obviously it's heavily dependent on the situation, it could be a long discussion I know, but just saying that in general it sucks and makes for boring cricket and doesn't really mean that you're a better bowlerIiMO

 

[Bolo]

A really good bowler won't do this, because they aren't that reliant on the ball or pitch.

A smart bowler might from time to time if they aren't that good, because they are more interested in winning than entertaining.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Obviously it's heavily dependent on the situation, it could be a long discussion I know, but just saying that in general it sucks and makes for boring cricket and doesn't really mean that you're a better bowlerIiMO

You think Kallis was bad?

Look at this:

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

potential contender for worst SR over 50 wickets?

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...ualval2=wickets;template=results;type=bowling

Carl Hooper beats him

 

[Burgey]

A really good bowler won't do this, because they aren't that reliant on the ball or pitch.

A smart bowler might from time to time if they aren't that good, because they are more interested in winning than entertaining.

Australia used to bowl dry line stuff outside off quite a bit when McGrath was playing and nothing was doing. Just built pressure with dots. Of course, they had a batting line up which regularly scored so quickly that there was still enough time to win the majority of games.

 

[Daemon]

You think Kallis was bad?

Look at this:

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

potential contender for worst SR over 50 wickets?

Sobers is another one with a very poor SR.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Sobers is another one with a very poor SR.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

But he doesn't break the century barrier like these guys.

 

[vcs]

Ambrose bowled the most destructive and memorable spells, destroying teams that were good players of pace.

Wasim had the most magic and variety, great longevity too.

Steyn demolished an ATG Indian batting lineup in India, consistently bowled series-deciding spells everywhere, taking SA to No. 1 and has stunning numbers in a more batting friendly era.

Tough to pick between these three.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Australia used to bowl dry line stuff outside off quite a bit when McGrath was playing and nothing was doing. Just built pressure with dots. Of course, they had a batting line up which regularly scored so quickly that there was still enough time to win the majority of games.

Yeah and pack 5 slips and 2 gullies in lol

trolls

 

[ankitj]

Seems like a consensus that Steyn is better than Ambrose. Probably there is logic to it. But it hurts to see anyone above Ambrose.

 

[Bolo]

Seems like a consensus that Steyn is better than Ambrose. Probably there is logic to it. But it hurts to see anyone above Ambrose.

Steyn is probably the greatest matchwinner (amoungst quicks) ever. Ambose might get you 7 wickets in a spell, but it's rare. Most of the time you are getting 3 or 4 wickets (admittedly extemely cheap) in a match. Steyn is giving you a matchwinning spell every three games, and while he bleeds out more runs between those spells, he's still taking as many wickets.

 

[Coronis]

Anderson should be compared with Walsh and Dev.

Ridiculously harsh on Walsh.

 

[Jack1]

Ambrose

 

[trundler]

Ridiculously harsh on Walsh.

Walsh definitely better than the other 2 in terms of quality but I was speaking in terms of longevity and endurance.

 

[Jack1]

Walsh definitely better than the other 2 in terms of quality but I was speaking in terms of longevity and endurance.

For bowling alone
1. Walsh
2. Anderson
3. Dev

 

[trundler]

I think for a poll like Ambrose vs Steyn vs Akram, the options are inadequate. Most people are going to say Steyn by hair's width but that's not accurately reflected by the numbers.