limitations make bowlers great

[Flem274*]

have been thinking this week that the vast majority of atg quicks either lost something or never had every talent to begin with, yet they almost seemed to get better because they had a couple of limitations.

mcgrath was never rapid and solidly medium fast for years, hadlee lost his pace, marshall was relatively short and i haven't seen him rated as the fastest west indian just the best, and steyn was also short and skiddy for a quick. ryan harris had a brief rapid run but slowed down and cummins has slowed up as well.

in the modern era of test spam where a great bowler is expected to play a lot of tests to earn greatness, only wasim had every talent in the book for a significant length of time. im not sure how fast ambrose was. if someone could weigh in that would be great.

the bowlers who come to mind as having the most raw talent i've ever seen are starc, tait, lee, bond and shoiab. all of them made the ball talk, a couple were extremely fast and a couple extremely tall, yet only bond and shoiab have produced great results to date in injury curtailed careers, so they're also not close to the conversation of the goat.

is it better to be almost perfect or even just very good stock than perfect stock? it seems to produce the very best of the best.

 

[harsh.ag]

Wasim is the counterpoint

 

[srbhkshk]

In a sense all of main WI legends apart from Marshall are the counterpoint, they had the height and the pace and are all among absolutely top tier.

 

[stephen]

Marshall was 150+ and swing the ball both ways don't forget. Ambrose was a yard quicker than McGrath but was almost as relentlessly accurate and had just as much nasty bounce. Lillee, before his injury was nasty quick.

 

[stephen]

Johnson was probably the most naturally talented bowler I've seen. Left arm, brutal bounce, 150+. When he got it right there was nobody better. He just didn't seem to know what it was that he needed to do to get it right.

 

[honestbharani]

I always felt his action was not as repeatable as the best bowlers and that created the issues he had.

 

[Starfighter]

I'm somewhat sceptical of the premise of the thread.


Also accuracy being underrated as a skill again.

 

[trundler]

The very best players adapt their games to work with their limitations as they age. Lillee was still pretty good when he was fast, just became a different kind of good when he slowed down and I think that pattern was followed by Hadlee, Marshall and others too. Batsmen do it too. Tendulkar and Hobbs slowed down a lot over time. Not sure if stock is as big a factor there.

 

[Spark]

I always felt his action was not as repeatable as the best bowlers and that created the issues he had.

Johnson himself has said as much. He said that his problems virtually always stemmed back to feeling like he had a lack of rhythm or confidence in his action, which basically amounts to issues with mechanical consistency.

 

[morgieb]

What this thread is telling me is that it's impossible to have the perfect fast bowler without him breaking down.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm somewhat sceptical of the premise of the thread.


Also accuracy being underrated as a skill again.

Yeah seems like the whole point of this thread is "some bowlers got better when they slowed down" which isn't exactly revolutionary

 

[Flem274*]

I'm somewhat sceptical of the premise of the thread.


Also accuracy being underrated as a skill again.

accuracy is more a result of practice than raw materials, which is where this thread focuses.

 

[Starfighter]

accuracy is more a result of practice than raw materials, which is where this thread focuses.

I think you've got to practice a lot to control swing, not many can swing the ball adeptly in both directions as it's hard to learn to control both. Not sure where you're going with the Starc/Tait/Lee/Bond/Shoaib thing either. None except Bond had actions or mentalities inclined to accuracy, and they were all inclined to injury.

I don't see any evidence for your 'one or two things is better' thesis. More things is simply harder to learn, so fewer do it, and not strictly needed. Look through the great bowlers and you'll find some had more tricks, other had fewer. Regardless of what they did they were all accurate.

 

[Flem274*]

I think you've got to practice a lot to control swing, not many can swing the ball adeptly in both directions as it's hard to learn to control both. Not sure where you're going with the Starc/Tait/Lee/Bond/Shoaib thing either. None except Bond had actions or mentalities inclined to accuracy, and they were all inclined to injury.

I don't see any evidence for your 'one or two things is better' thesis. More things is simply harder to learn, so fewer do it, and not strictly needed. Look through the great bowlers and you'll find some had more tricks, other had fewer. Regardless of what they did they were all accurate.

this is all right, but i'm not talking about skills, im talking natural attributes. someone can practice their accuracy, they can't practice growing taller. guys can improve speed, but the vast majority of bowlers will never be capable of 150kph.

 

[Starfighter]

this is all right, but i'm not talking about skills, im talking natural attributes. someone can practice their accuracy, they can't practice growing taller. guys can improve speed, but the vast majority of bowlers will never be capable of 150kph.

Then what the hell are you on about? You open up with "have been thinking this week that the vast majority of atg quicks either lost something or never had every talent to begin with, yet they almost seemed to get better because they had a couple of limitations. ​That's way more open than immutable physical characteristics, and the rest is in a similar vein, talking about "only wasim had every talent in the book for a significant length of time" which must refer to his moving-the-ball skills as he wasn't super quick. I already explained the problem with your 'not so good' example, unless being from NZ you think that pace alone is the most amazing thing in the world.

 

[trundler]

Those things help but aren't pre-requisites. If that's your point then.. well yeah duh. Donald and Holding did pretty well with their gifts.

I think you're underestimating the versatility of great quicks. They may have been renowned for 1 or 2 things but being a 1 trick pony doesn't get you far. See also: Anderson, JM.

 

[Flem274*]

Then what the hell are you on about? You open up with "have been thinking this week that the vast majority of atg quicks either lost something or never had every talent to begin with, yet they almost seemed to get better because they had a couple of limitations. ​That's way more open than immutable physical characteristics, and the rest is in a similar vein, talking about "only wasim had every talent in the book for a significant length of time" which must refer to his moving-the-ball skills as he wasn't super quick. I already explained the problem with your 'not so good' example, unless being from NZ you think that pace alone is the most amazing thing in the world.

eh what is this wahhh?

the best quicks of all time in no particular order are mcgrath, marshall, hadlee and steyn. they each had some pretty solid limitations. the best raw talents i've ever seen would be starc, shoiab, tait and lee yet they never achieved greatness. i thought it was interesting the very talented yet slightly more limited bowlers made it to the top but guys with everything going for them did not or have not.

if this elicits such a strong negative reaction from you then cool bro.

 

[Starfighter]

Shoaib, Starc, Tait and Lee had plenty of limitations. (Brains for one. And that's definitely a natural trait).

 

[Flem274*]

(Brains for one. And that's definitely a natural trait).

hahahahaha, this is actually a fair point

 

[vcs]

Bumrah bowled some serious porn in the series against WI last year (yeah, yeah I know it was only the WI). Pace, bounce, hooping swing both ways, hitting batsmen, everything.