-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Is Mohammad Asif currently the best fast bowler in the world ?
- Thread starter Salamuddin
- Start date
Rusty
Cricket Spectator
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but as per your logic you contradict yourself....
The first eg goes for 65 runs, less your 8 runs per wicket, would bring him back to 41, ie. 65-(3*8), which is one run adrift of the 2nd eg, and therefore not "easily better" as you put it.....
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
No its not, not on a flat wicket and a small ground that's for sure.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Oh the joys of robot-cricket...
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
If one guy is 10-40, then you can be sure the other guys are going to be belted. If you only tighten things and not take wickets, international quality batsmen will find runs somewhere. You have to take wickets, especially if you're the main wicket taking option.
shortpitched713
International Captain
That would be true, if Harbajhan was a much better strike bowler than his pace counterparts. For the most part, I don't think he is. Most of the time I've seen India ODIs spinners haven't taken too many 5 fers. Most of the time you'll see one or two pace bowlers take 3-4 wickets, Harbajhan take 2, and the second/third seamer being absolutely innocuous. The pace bowlers are more inconsistent in taking wickets than Harbajhan, but they take about the same amount. The strength of a spinner like Harbajhan then lies not in the fact that he is a "strike bowler" per se, but rather in the fact that he can consistently pick up the odd wicket(s) while keeping things tight. Such a manner of bowling can be useful in keeping up some level of pressure on the batsmen, especially when more often then not, most of the pace bowlers are getting belted around.
haroon510
International 12th Man
all i wanted to say is that he knows how to swing the bowle both ways. that is what makes him successful. he hasn't been in international scene for along and he is already bowling unplayable deliveries. my personal favorite bowle of him is the one that nips back in. his in swingers that comes in and he has dismissed top batsmans like pieterson, laxman, sehwag and others with his inswinger deliveries.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=D6fr9SqFG_Y&mode=related&search=
that is the delievers that i am talking about. the one that hit the middle stump of Sehwag and Laxman. amazing delieveries.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=D6fr9SqFG_Y&mode=related&search=
that is the delievers that i am talking about. the one that hit the middle stump of Sehwag and Laxman. amazing delieveries.
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Not from all 5 bowlers no.
Lots of bowlers can get those sort of figures if they bowl at the right times, and a 10-0-40-0 from say 21-40 would not be that good an effort IMO.
Someone who bowled first up or at the death and had that sort of return would be a good performance.
Wickets are a key part of the game - unsettling the opposition and stemming the flow of runs...
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
A bowler who takes wickets will, in the vast majority of cases, cause his teammates to be more economical. The exception to this is obviously death wickets, but even they are only irrelevant if wickets haven't fallen earlier in the innings. The fact is that no team will ever make 210 (on a decent batting wicket) unless they've lost wickets and thus been forced to slow down. In fact, you'd find very few scores of under 200 in the last 10 or 15 years in ODIs where a team has lost few wickets and batted their full 50 overs. I won't say none, as there's probably been one or two instances involving crappy batting lineups or tricky wickets, but certainly it's been extremely rare. If you don't take wickets, batsmen will score runs, no matter how accurate the bowling is. The only way you're going to contain the run rate in the long term is to remove batsmen and stop the opposition taking risks.
You can of course minimise the damage by bowling well, but it's still not a patch on wicket taking.
Incidentally, 0/42 aren't bad ODI figures, really. 1/42 would even qualify as a fairly good performance IMO, which is why bowlers like Harbhajan and Vettori are reasonably effective in ODIs. Obviously as Marc said the significance depends on when you return those figures, but either way you couldn't say that 0/42 was poor on anything but a really dicey pitch. However, 3/65 would in most cases be infinitely better, particularly if those wickets fall inside the first 30 or so overs, or if other bowlers have taken early wickets and you take them later. It's not even close IMO, unless you're talking about a bowler who gets 0/50 off 7 or 8 and then comes back at the death and takes a few cheap scalps.
Last edited:
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
In ODIs England doesn't have a team. It's a collection of players with hardly a clue.
A team is a collection of players who play together and work with each others' strengths.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Happy now?
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Also, IMO Ramesh Powar is a better finger spinner than Harbhajan. Harbhajan has gone downhill ever since he started using the doosra and now without it, he's quite mediocre. People have success with it early so become way too reliant on it and ignore other parts of their game.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
And Powar just took another wicket, haha. 
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
There's no need to take wickets if everyone can contain. The overs are limited, after all.
Trouble is, in India few seam-bowlers can contain, so the trouble remains regardless of whether a spinner takes a few wickets to go with his economical spell or not.
If India had 3 good line-and-length seamers, 2 of whom were good blockhole-at-the-death bowlers, a spinner wouldn't need to take any wickets through his own attacking intent, he (like the seamers) could just sit tight and wait for the batsmen to gift the wickets... or plod to 180\2 off 50 overs. The result is likely to be the same.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
It doesn't happen, because if you're contained well enough you eventually gift your wickets away - and usually get bowled-out... and if not you end-up scoring even slower and crawl to 160\9.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Not hard to work that one out, pal...Hmm, this multi-quote does work
Yes, Bracken isn't as good as McGrath and Pollock... what'd be more accurate is to describe him as superior to any newcomers.
gunner
U19 Cricketer
it depends on the matches
against india you would raher take 10-70-3 cos there big hitters are awlays at the top
but against teams like say pakistan you would rather take 10-40-0 cos then you face afridi/razzaq/malik at the end and you would rather keep people like hameed or farhat at the crease
against india you would raher take 10-70-3 cos there big hitters are awlays at the top
but against teams like say pakistan you would rather take 10-40-0 cos then you face afridi/razzaq/malik at the end and you would rather keep people like hameed or farhat at the crease