Curtly Ambrose vs Jimmy Anderson

[honestbharani]

I think his point was that Waqar didn't have a conventional inswinger and with the old ball only really had the reverse inswinger (ie) both with the new and old ball, he generally got it to move only one way... Out with the new ball, in with the old.

Only a rare few like Wasim and Anderson can get it to consistently go both ways with both conventional and reverse swing.

You don't need a conventional inswinger to take stacks and stacks of wickets with swing bowling though. See Steyn, Dale

Yeah, to determine whether someone is a swing bowler you ask whether they use swing as their primary method of getting wickets, not can they bowl inswing/outswing/backswing/squareswing/slantswing and so on. Steyn only swings the ball out but he has possibly the best out-swinger of any bowler ever, and picks up lots of wickets with it. And I don't think there's any swing bowler who's been really successful who hasn't also taken wickets using movement off the pitch, as that's simply what happens.

Fk all of you, I only consider someone a swing bowler if they can do both the in and out swinger

None of you are wrong, FWIW. And OS, there are loads of bowlers who get the ball to move both ways at will. They were just not very good bowlers either due to lack of pace or direction or discipline or any combination of above factors. Case in point - Debasish Mohanty.

 

[Starfighter]

It's a revelation to me that Mohanty moved the ball at all, let alone both ways, but I was only two years old during his playing career and so I can only think of highlights of him getting belted all around Bellerive Oval. But if you say he could, I'll believe you.

 

[honestbharani]

Lol.. Sourav Ganguly can get the ball to swing both ways too. So could any number of those English medium pacers who played in the 90s. I was just pointing out ability to bowl inswing and outswing at will alone is not some attribute for being a successful bowler.

 

[Burgey]

You don't need a conventional inswinger to take stacks and stacks of wickets with swing bowling though. See Steyn, Dale

Lillee, Dennis.

 

[Kirkut]

You don't need a conventional inswinger to take stacks and stacks of wickets with swing bowling though. See Steyn, Dale

You don't need to swing the ball at all. See Mcgrath, Glenn.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Lol.. Sourav Ganguly can get the ball to swing both ways too. So could any number of those English medium pacers who played in the 90s. I was just pointing out ability to bowl inswing and outswing at will alone is not some attribute for being a successful bowler.

I suppose the real question is not whether you can swing the ball both ways, but whether you can do it at a high standard, in terms of pace, accuracy and consistency.

I'm sure most cricketers could swing it both ways if they slowed down and focused on just swinging it. I know I can and I'm not even a bowler, but I'm not going to be dismissing Test batsman with it.

 

[stephen]

Yep swing is easy. Swing at pace and under control is hard.

 

[vcs]

McGrath swung the ball. He had the uncanny gift to make it swing just enough to catch edges and take wickets, rather than beating the bat four times in an over.

 

[TheJediBrah]

McGrath swung the ball. He had the uncanny gift to make it swing just enough to catch edges and take wickets, rather than beating the bat four times in an over.

Not really. He hardly swung anything. Other than occasionally some faint outswing on literally the first 1 or 2 balls of the innings, or some equally faint reverse-inswing on occasions later in the innings, he never moved the ball in the air at all. It was all off the pitch.

 

[honestbharani]

TJB is obviously exaggerating but yes, swing was never a big thing for McGrath.

 

[vcs]

Maybe I've been watching too many youtube highlights of him. He didn't do the Anderson/Steyn thing of making it hoop around corners, but I definitely remember enough movement happening through the air, both ways. I'd say he swung it considerably more than Ambrose (random example), from what I've seen.

 

[harsh.ag]

McGrath got reverse swing going. Little bit, but he did it consistently.

 

[TheJediBrah]

TJB is obviously exaggerating but yes, swing was never a big thing for McGrath.

not really exaggerating at all tbh. He almost never swung anything conventionally, it was a bit of a running gag among the Aussie players & commentators that he might swing the first 1 or 2 deliveries with the new ball, but literally nothing else. A bit of reverse swing in Tests if conditions suited but that was about it.

 

[OverratedSanity]

He got Shiv Sunder Das with a sick reverse inswinger in the 2001 series.

 

[honestbharani]

not really exaggerating at all tbh. He almost never swung anything conventionally, it was a bit of a running gag among the Aussie players & commentators that he might swing the first 1 or 2 deliveries with the new ball, but literally nothing else. A bit of reverse swing in Tests if conditions suited but that was about it.

Back in the 97 Ashes, he definitely got a few wickets with swing. The gag was probably a thing post 2000 or so but even then, he often got the ball to swing a reasonable amount in conditions where it favored swing. Its just that he also got so much of movement off the seam after pitching that people forget the (admittedly little) swing.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Back in the 97 Ashes, he definitely got a few wickets with swing. The gag was probably a thing post 2000 or so but even then, he often got the ball to swing a reasonable amount in conditions where it favored swing. Its just that he also got so much of movement off the seam after pitching that people forget the (admittedly little) swing.

97 before my time unfortunately. Maybe he changed over the years, definitely wouldn't surprise me if he swung it a bit more earlier on in his career.

 

[Starfighter]

Hmm, a quick viewing of highlights from the 1997 Ashes is definitely favourable to TJB's view over hb's recollection. I couldn't find all the wickets (Because the Poms liked talking over showing back then) but only found one wicket that seemed to have any amount of conventional swing at all. And as for the recollection that he often swung it a reasonable amount in favourable conditions later on, I think that's pretty far from the truth too. I'd say that the conventional swing he got was small and occasional and only accounted for a very small proportion of his wickets. Definitely not a swing bowler.

Certainly not much swing here.

 

[TheJediBrah]

1:49

"groundsman Mike Hunt"

lol

 

[honestbharani]

Hmm, a quick viewing of highlights from the 1997 Ashes is definitely favourable to TJB's view over hb's recollection. I couldn't find all the wickets (Because the Poms liked talking over showing back then) but only found one wicket that seemed to have any amount of conventional swing at all. And as for the recollection that he often swung it a reasonable amount in favourable conditions later on, I think that's pretty far from the truth too. I'd say that the conventional swing he got was small and occasional and only accounted for a very small proportion of his wickets. Definitely not a swing bowler.

Certainly not much swing here.

I never said he got lots of wickets with his swing post 2000. But yeah, the 97 Ashes I watched on cable, so my recollection does seem a little different. Will have to check out your youtube clips when I am home.

 

[stephen]

Geez that LBW at the start of the video would have been given in today's era of DRS.