• 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.

Black and white era bowlers - Spinners vs Seamers?

peterhrt

U19 Debutant
That impression of McKenzie is almost certainly due to his very leisurely looking run and action. Though of nowhere near the same pace (I'm rubbish) I've encountered a few similarly deceptive bowlers.

Not sure one incident is a good indicator. Brendon Julian once broke Sanath Jayasuriya's arm.
David Frith wrote that McKenzie's "sturdy shoulders drove the ball with a smack into the pitch, and the lift off it was often too much for even the best batsmen in the world. Boycott's was just one forearm broken by his bowling." McKenzie also put West Indian keeper Hendriks in hospital requiring brain surgery.

But by all accounts he was a mild-mannered character who didn't like hitting batsmen.

Trevor Bailey estimated that the difference in speed between Tyson and Statham was similar to that between Statham and himself, which he said was considerable.
 

peterhrt

U19 Debutant
Any info on how fast Gary Barlett really was? Many say NZ's fastest ever.
Ian Craig said he was the fastest bowler he ever faced. Don Neely described him as "New Zealand's first bowler of devastating pace", and David Frith agreed that he was one of the fastest bowlers produced by New Zealand.

Christopher Martin-Jenkins wrote of pace off the pitch that could be very disconcerting.

Bartlett's biographer John Alexander claimed "He's recognised by everybody I've spoken to who played with him or against him as the fastest bowler they ever saw or faced."
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Migara said:
Spinners didin't. Game got better, it evolved. That is why Murali and Warne are at the top of the tree as spinners and Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, Ambrose and Imran are as pacers.

Fast bowling was revolutionized by Aussies in mid 70s with their sheer aggression, early 80s in WI by their persistence of aggression and in mid 80s by Pakistan with reverse swing. I would say yes, fast bowlers of current era are a tier above than of past, while spinners are probably similar when you make allowances for talent pool, better health inidicis and better training.
I think it's time to address these.

'Sheer aggression'. The fiery fast bowler has been a trope for as long as people have been trying to bowl fast. While Lillee was still in primary school Adcock and Heine were whistling the ball past batsmen's ears for overs at a time, Heine adding in a good dose of abuse as well. There was even a diplomatic incident caused by 'sustained aggression' in the thirties. The West Indies were lucky to have a torrent of very good bowlers at once (and not much since) but what they did with them is hardly unprecedented - similar bowling was the rule with Hall and Griffith in WI home series in the sixties.

Did reverse swing revolutionise fast bowling? Well it revolutionised the way teams tried to tamper with the ball, but otherwise not really. It is only a factor on occasion, a 'revolution' requires more. It's not like older bowlers couldn't have learnt to do it if they had the knowledge either. That an older player if transplanted into a new situation could take advantage of accumulated knowledge should be remembered.

And back to the first, if anyone wants to point out how Dennis Lillee revolutionised fast bowling aside from being much more open about being an obnoxious t***, please let me know.
 

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
I think it's time to address these.

'Sheer aggression'. The fiery fast bowler has been a trope for as long as people have been trying to bowl fast. While Lillee was still in primary school Adcock and Heine were whistling the ball past batsmen's ears for overs at a time, Heine adding in a good dose of abuse as well. There was even a diplomatic incident caused by 'sustained aggression' in the thirties. The West Indies were lucky to have a torrent of very good bowlers at once (and not much since) but what they did with them is hardly unprecedented - similar bowling was the rule with Hall and Griffith in WI home series in the sixties.

Did reverse swing revolutionise fast bowling? Well it revolutionised the way teams tried to tamper with the ball, but otherwise not really. It is only a factor on occasion, a 'revolution' requires more. It's not like older bowlers couldn't have learnt to do it if they had the knowledge either. That an older player if transplanted into a new situation could take advantage of accumulated knowledge should be remembered.

And back to the first, if anyone wants to point out how Dennis Lillee revolutionised fast bowling aside from being much more open about being an obnoxious t***, please let me know.
Lillee and Thompson took the aggression a step further wanting to see "blood on the pitch". Other than for Roy Gilchrist, who was basically borderline insane, no sane fast bowlers took it that far as Lillee, Thompson and the few to follow. Then WI took it from there onwards.

If anyone claims that diplomatic incident was due to aggression, that is horse****. The issue was the field, nothing else, Fifty years later West Indies bowled faster, and much persistently than the said incident, sans the field, nothing much happened. "he West Indies were lucky to have a torrent of very good bowlers at once" is an over simplification. They were good, they were methodical and they were persistent. South Africa had Steyn, Morkel and few others, but they were no where close to the excellence of the WI.

Dismissing reverse swing has not revolutionized fast bowling is just sour grapes.

Do Lillee did not revolutionize fast bowling as some claim. Interesting.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Lillee and Thompson took the aggression a step further wanting to see "blood on the pitch". Other than for Roy Gilchrist, who was basically borderline insane, no sane fast bowlers took it that far as Lillee, Thompson and the few to follow. Then WI took it from there onwards.

If anyone claims that diplomatic incident was due to aggression, that is horse****. The issue was the field, nothing else, Fifty years later West Indies bowled faster, and much persistently than the said incident, sans the field, nothing much happened. "he West Indies were lucky to have a torrent of very good bowlers at once" is an over simplification. They were good, they were methodical and they were persistent. South Africa had Steyn, Morkel and few others, but they were no where close to the excellence of the WI.

Dismissing reverse swing has not revolutionized fast bowling is just sour grapes.

Do Lillee did not revolutionize fast bowling as some claim. Interesting.
Once again you are twisting reality, which is not surprising.

Heine and Adcock did take it as far as Lillee and Thomson, though without bragging to the media about it, leading to matches and series with persistent exchanges of bouncers like in 57/58 and 63/64. And again, Hall and Griffith did much the same in in '65.
To describe the bodlyline furore as being merely over the field is contrary to fact. The 'persistent bowling of fast short-pitched deliveries' was the issue. The laws made afterwards are focussed on just that and made no restrictions on the field.
WI did have luck, sub-25 averaging genuine quicks don't fall out of the sky - they've had none since Bishop in '89. They could've tried the same strategy with an attack of Vanburn Holder, Uton Dowe, Grayson Shillingford and John Shepherd, but it wouldn't have been such a success.

To describe reverse swing as not being revolutionary is a fact, because it is not a significant factor in a lot of (probably most) matches. The decade following its popularisation was one of the most batting friendly ever (the 00s). If it was revolutionary it would occur more often with more influence. And conversely changes in pace and cutters are less often used.

In general I am sceptical of those proclaiming 'revolutions' in anything (unless you have a very low bar for what constitutes a revolution).
 

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
To describe reverse swing as not being revolutionary is a fact, because it is not a significant factor in a lot of (probably most) matches. The decade following its popularisation was one of the most batting friendly ever (the 00s). If it was revolutionary it would occur more often with more influence. And conversely changes in pace and cutters are less often used.

In general I am sceptical of those proclaiming 'revolutions' in anything (unless you have a very low bar for what constitutes a revolution).
Once again you are picturing opinions that you have pulled out of your arse as facts. That is lot more than "twisting the reality". Reverse swing is a fact in almost all matches played on subcontinent and some in West indies. It is just that there are a lack of bowlers who could make use of it. Currently no one outside Bumrah, Shami and Rabada seems to be good at it. In ODI it was killed by using two new ball, until then it was becoming more and more popular. There was a time every team had a bowler who could reverse swing it.

I agree to disagree with the bolded part.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Once again you are picturing opinions that you have pulled out of your arse as facts. That is lot more than "twisting the reality". Reverse swing is a fact in almost all matches played on subcontinent and some in West indies. It is just that there are a lack of bowlers who could make use of it. Currently no one outside Bumrah, Shami and Rabada seems to be good at it. In ODI it was killed by using two new ball, until then it was becoming more and more popular. There was a time every team had a bowler who could reverse swing it.

I agree to disagree with the bolded part.
'Almost all' seems to exclude most matches in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the UAE where despite the dryness of the pitches the amount of movement gained is usually modest, and many matches in India. In the West Indies recently with the Dukes ball new-ball swing and seam have been the rule while reverse swing is rare.

My statement that you have bolded you have not rebutted. There has been no revolution, fast bowlers averaged higher in the subcontinent in the 00s and 10s than any of the prior five decades, in fact they have done disproportionately worse compared to spin bowlers. This does not show a 'revolution'.

'It's revolutionary' and 'hardly anyone can do it these days' are not consistent statements, but it's beyond a fraud like you to realise when he has contradicted himself. There have been plenty of dry pitches recently to try on. Despite the advent of reverse swing cricket has gone on. Evolution, not revolution. It's another string to fast bowler's bow but not a revolutionary one.
 
Last edited:

Immenso

International Vice-Captain
Agree with the opening post, that when watching footage of Wes Hall, you look like you are watching a modern bowler.

Ironically. Would the proportional change of pace be more for spinners in modern era than pacers? Is a Jadeja bowling 33% quicker than a Verity?

I mean Tiger O'Reilly looks like he would still be successful. But would some of those slow finger spinners? Even from the 70s and 80s? Where as for seam bowling, Bowling at CdG or Sam Curran pace still works in the current era if you have wobble ball / three-quarter ball, plus some swing variety.

I don't have a strong opinion, just musing. It seems an impossible question to answer when you have (albeit from the slighty later colour/B&W era) Derek Underwood and Bishen Bedi from the same era being such different types of SLA bowler.
 

ataraxia

International Coach
Yeah I do doubt Verity and Tayfield would be any good in the modern era, because they're so prone to being smashed. Like even back then, with crap bats, Jock Cameron murdered Verity and Pom Pom Fellows-Smith (IIRC!) to Tayfield. I reckon yeah too slow is a factor, and that Verity might have been 75kph and Tayfield 80kph (pulling random numbers out here) even when bowling defensively. That's not necessarily to say they couldn't have adapted.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I reckon yeah too slow is a factor, and that Verity might have been 75kph and Tayfield 80kph
Not sure what you're basing this on. Verity was known as a quick, Underwood-type spinner with a similar reliance on rain-damaged pitches for his best performances.
 

Top