Pathan has come of age!

[sledger]

He's not, however, the best seamer there ever was.

in your opinion who is ?

 

[Richard]

None of them qualify as a swing bowler.
Hoggard is mediocre, Caddick was a 'never was' and Pollock is a seamer, not a swinger - plus his main weapons used to be his unerring accuracy and his excellent bounce.

Hoggard may be mediocre often, but he's certainly a swing-bowler.
If you seriously think Caddick never was a swing-bowler you clearly haven't seen much of him.
Same, really, with Pollock - he may be more of a seamer than a swinger but he's more than capable of getting the ball to swing when he pitches on the relevant length.

 

[Richard]

in your opinion who is ?

Malcolm Marshall.

 

[Swervy]

Control ?!
Lillee ? Lillee was a bit like Waqar and Akhtar - could produce brutal deliveries quite frequently but always lacked the control that was trademark of the great bowlers. Which is why he got clobbered quite often.
And no, Lillee isnt as good as Marshall - he has way too many holes in his resume. He sucked in Pakistan, never played in India, sucked in West Indies and sucked in Sri Lanka- he played 85% of his matches in England or Australia and as such, didnt face the challenge ( or declined the challenge- whichever way you want to look at it) to bowl in conditions that were less than ideal for pace bowlers.
He only had one good series vs the West Indies ( the best batting team of his era) and was mediocre against them overall.
He was a great bowler but bowlers like Marshall,Hadlee,Holding,Garner, Ambrose, McGrath, Akram etc. who conquered everybody and did well almost everywhere ( atleast, much more varied places than Lillee) easily rate ahead of Lillee.
Lillee is in my second tier of pace bowlers, alongside Waqar Younis,Statham,Walsh, etc.

Lillee is overhyped, simply because he came along at the right time with the 'macho' attitude.
The world had gone through a lull in pace bowling and apart from a fast-declining Wes Hall and a decent but no-great-shakes McKenzie, the world's pace bowling resources were laid bare.
Lillee came in and succeeded pretty well ( well- not greatly) and for 2-3 years before the rise of Roberts, was the only genuinely destructive speedster.
His 'macho' attitude endeared him to the public worldwide and a bit of a David Beckham of cricket ensured - a great bowler but one who's reputation is bloated up far more than it deserved on merit.
A bit similar would've been McGrath being on a Donald-Pollock-Akram-Waqar-esque decline around 2002-2003 and McGrath along with Pollock retiring as well and the world being fuelled by good seamers like Vaas, Gillespie and Akhtar for a few years before the next 'superb/great' bowler rose - that 'superb' bowler could've been Akhtar Mk-II but would get the billing of a 'once in a lifetime player' like Lillee did.

CC, as I say it comes down to opinion doesnt it..although in the last half of his career, I would have to contest your idea that Lillee lacked control.

And I agree, I would choose Marshall over Lillee, however my gripe was that Richard was laughing at someone who had an opinion which was contrary to his, but was an opinion that many an expert (ie people who have watched the game extensivly over a long period of time, or who played aginst a lot of great bowlers) would agree with

 

[C_C]

Hoggard may be mediocre often, but he's certainly a swing-bowler.
If you seriously think Caddick never was a swing-bowler you clearly haven't seen much of him.
Same, really, with Pollock - he may be more of a seamer than a swinger but he's more than capable of getting the ball to swing when he pitches on the relevant length.

swing = movement in the air before pitching.

So how does 'relevant length' get into it ?

And no, Caddick was no swing bowler. By that, i mean he was no consistent swing bowler.

 

[sledger]

Malcolm Marshall.

a very good choice i agree.

 

[shaka]

IK Pathan opening the batting, wow he has come of age, considering he has a batting average of about 22

 

[Richard]

swing = movement in the air before pitching.

So how does 'relevant length' get into it ?

In case you haven't noticed, you can't swing the ball if you bowl too short.
It's something to do with the ball having to be in the air for sufficient time, I think.
But whatever the reasons for it - most people notice that you have to bowl relatively full (relative to your height - taller bowlers can swing it from a shorter length) to swing the ball. Pollock doesn't always do so. Sometimes he bowls a shorter length and, being relatively short compared to some, doesn't swing it much.

And no, Caddick was no swing bowler. By that, i mean he was no consistent swing bowler.

No, he wasn't. Nothing about Caddick in 1993-1998 or Jun2001-Jan2003 was consistent.
In 1999-May2001, however, Caddick swung the ball near enough all the time, except in Pakistan where he bowled pretty poorly and at Galle where he bowled massively within himself. And as such he was an extremely good bowler in that period.

 

[Richard]

IK Pathan opening the batting, wow he has come of age, considering he has a batting average of about 22

I just noticed that. With SR Tendulkar, no less.
I mean, that's surely taking it a bit far.
BTW, does anyone know if these Challenger Series games they play every season are actually List-A-one-dayers, or just festival trial games?

 

[C_C]

In case you haven't noticed, you can't swing the ball if you bowl too short.
It's something to do with the ball having to be in the air for sufficient time, I think.
But whatever the reasons for it - most people notice that you have to bowl relatively full (relative to your height - taller bowlers can swing it from a shorter length) to swing the ball. Pollock doesn't always do so. Sometimes he bowls a shorter length and, being relatively short compared to some, doesn't swing it much.

No, he wasn't. Nothing about Caddick in 1993-1998 or Jun2001-Jan2003 was consistent.
In 1999-May2001, however, Caddick swung the ball near enough all the time, except in Pakistan where he bowled pretty poorly and at Galle where he bowled massively within himself. And as such he was an extremely good bowler in that period.

Unless you are talking bouncers and really short pitched deliveries, you will swing the ball whether you pitch it short of a length or pitch it full.

Pollock rarely swings the ball even when he pitches it up - his trademark is pitching it short of the length with unerring accuracy and having extra bounce do the job.

And two years of someone's career is largely irrelevant - its the equivalent of having a purple patch and purple patches ( or conversely, a slump) isnt sufficient to draw conclusions about one's career. Caddick was not a swinger of the ball, simply because he didnt swing it for the bulk of his career consistently.

 

[C_C]

I just noticed that. With SR Tendulkar, no less.
I mean, that's surely taking it a bit far.
BTW, does anyone know if these Challenger Series games they play every season are actually List-A-one-dayers, or just festival trial games?

They are List-A.

 

[Richard]

Unless you are talking bouncers and really short pitched deliveries, you will swing the ball whether you pitch it short of a length or pitch it full.

Pollock rarely swings the ball even when he pitches it up - his trademark is pitching it short of the length with unerring accuracy and having extra bounce do the job.

Pollock usually swings the ball when he pitches it up, because his action and seam-position are good, and if the ball is in sufficient condition you will always swing it when you pitch it up with a good seam-position - whether you want to or not.

And two years of someone's career is largely irrelevant - its the equivalent of having a purple patch and purple patches ( or conversely, a slump) isnt sufficient to draw conclusions about one's career. Caddick was not a swinger of the ball, simply because he didnt swing it for the bulk of his career consistently.

Except that that 2-year period formed over 1\3 of his career.
And it certainly isn't largely irrelevant - that is the Caddick I talk of, because the Caddick before and after that was a totally different, and much inferior, bowler.

 

[C_C]

Pollock usually swings the ball when he pitches it up, because his action and seam-position are good, and if the ball is in sufficient condition you will always swing it when you pitch it up with a good seam-position - whether you want to or not.

Except that that 2-year period formed over 1\3 of his career.
And it certainly isn't largely irrelevant - that is the Caddick I talk of, because the Caddick before and after that was a totally different, and much inferior, bowler.

1. Pollock rarely swings the ball and even when he pitches it up he gets nominal swing most of the time. I've seen Pollock practically his whole career until 2002 and he rarely swung the ball.

2. Again, 1/3rd of the career is largely irrelevant when compared to 2/3rds of it. Career must be evaluated not only by the # of matches but also by yearly distribution. I may play 15 tests for 3 years and do excellently and then do very average for the next 10, playing 5 per year and it would be erroneous to conclude that i was excellent for 'half' my career- the distribution of the matches show that i had a short 'golden phase' while i was mediocre for the bulk of my career. Likewise for Caddick.

 

[Richard]

1. Pollock rarely swings the ball and even when he pitches it up he gets nominal swing most of the time. I've seen Pollock practically his whole career until 2002 and he rarely swung the ball.

Well I really don't know what you've been watching because I saw Pollock for the first time in 1998 and he certainly swung it of times there. And I've seen far, far more of his career than not from 2000\01 onwards and he's swung it plenty often.

2. Again, 1/3rd of the career is largely irrelevant when compared to 2/3rds of it. Career must be evaluated not only by the # of matches but also by yearly distribution. I may play 15 tests for 3 years and do excellently and then do very average for the next 10, playing 5 per year and it would be erroneous to conclude that i was excellent for 'half' my career- the distribution of the matches show that i had a short 'golden phase' while i was mediocre for the bulk of my career. Likewise for Caddick.

Or rather, the fact that Caddick was playing lots reflected that he was bowling well and being retained.
When he played less, he was bowling less well and being picked less frequently.
We've done this one before, if you remember, and I don't really think there's any point doing it again, so let's just conclude that you find Caddick not to have been a swing bowler and I find him to have been one.

 

[marc71178]

Nope, Lillee struggled in Pak because he didn't bowl at his best.

Based on what?

 

[marc71178]

in your opinion who is ?

Craig White and Chaminda Vaas.

 

[tooextracool]

None of them qualify as a swing bowler.
Hoggard is mediocre.

hoggard maybe mediocre, but how does that change the fact that he swings the ball almost always when the conditions allow him to do so and is extremely efffective in those conditions?

Caddick was a 'never was'

which changes the fact that he could swing the ball how?

and Pollock is a seamer, not a swinger - plus his main weapons used to be his unerring accuracy and his excellent bounce.

have you ever watched pollock bowl? or are you making generalisations based on the fact that so many people compared him to mcgrath and therefore he must be exactly like him?

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, and Hoggard's swing has gone missing many times in a whole variety of conditions. He's also got the ball to swing in clear air when it's been coming out right.

even a little bit of moisture in the air or a slight wind in one direction can help a bowler swing the ball. fact though is that when the conditions arent in your favor no one can swing a cricket ball, well at least not enough to cause any problems.

Sometimes, of course, you get balls that, for whatever reason, don't swing even when everything seems right.
If you think Caddick never swung it on the subcontinent, meanwhile, I suggest you rewatch Kandy and SSC 2000\01.

i didnt get to watch that series so i shall reserve judgement on that. either way caddick couldnt swing the ball many many times when the conditions didnt favour him.

 

[tooextracool]

Fairly obviously.
Point is it's almost invariable that there is some swing, as long as you look after the ball properly.

and most bowlers do look after the ball properly, and have still struggled to get the ball to swing.

If they had got the ball into the right condition he might have.

no, the right condition is only 1 factor which determines swing, moisture, overhead conditions,bowling actions etc all come into play. in general you have to have overcast conditions, moisture or at least a light wind, to be able to get some swing irrespective of the state of the ball.

 

[honestbharani]

IK Pathan opening the batting, wow he has come of age, considering he has a batting average of about 22

lol, It is an experiment in domestic cricket. I don't see why you guys get so excited about this. I know that Harsha Bhogle has this theory that the guys in the national side should be batting at least 3 positions ahead of where they bat in the national side so that they become better contributors with the bat. Irfan bats at 7 or 8, and they want him to get better, so they ask him to open in the domestic OD games.