Showing posts with label bowler. Show all posts

Saturday 7 December 2013

Greg Chappell on playing fast bowling

Ashes 2013-14: Ian Bell leads way in handling Mitchell Johnson barrage

Mitchell Johnson evoked memories of the West Indian attack of the late Seventies, and England need to learn from Ian Bell's example

England's Ian Bell looks on as he loses another partner to Mitchell Johnson of Australia, this time Graeme Swann. Photograph: Jason O'Brien/Action Images

It is often said by those that experienced it that the toughest most uncompromising cricket ever played came not in official Test matches, but in the no-holds-barred World Series Cricket. And it is further said that the most uncompromising of the uncompromising came not on the drop-in pitches of the Sydney Showground but in 1979 in the Caribbean, when WSC toured and played Super Tests. This was bare-knuckle cricket, jeux very sans frontieres, where the MCC equivalent of the Queensberry Rules, or even the Geneva Convention, were for cissies.

The pitches were hard and fast, there was no restriction on short-pitched bowling and in Michael Holding, Andy Roberts, Colin Croft, Joel Garner and Wayne Daniel, West Indies possessed a fighting machine to rival any in the game's history.

It was in the five matches of this competitive furnace that Greg Chappell, already a giant of the game, forged his greatest batting feats. It began quietly in Jamaica, with 6 and 20. But Bridgetown brought 45 and 90; Trinidad 7 and 150; Guyana 113 in his only innings; and finally Antigua 104 and 85 before Clive Lloyd ran him out. A total of 621 runs in the series at an average of 69. No one, legend has it, has played unrestricted fast bowling with such authority.

While Mitchell Johnson was laying waste the England batting at the Gabba and Adelaide Oval, it was hard to not think of this. I talked to him once about it and beyond the physical courage required, his rationale, the game plan that he employed, was fascinating. Twelve overs an hour, he said, is what you received from the fast bowlers and of those 72 deliveries, two thirds, or four balls of every over, would be going at great velocity past his nose. That left 24 balls an hour of which it was reasonable to assume his batting partner would get half. So twelve deliveries then with scoring potential, of which half he reckoned he would be defending. In other words, there were six deliveries from which he knew he needed to score and which he further rationalised, would be pitched up. "I was looking to come forward," he has said, "to drive. It was the percentage shot." All of which sounds counter-intuitive when placed alongside the more obvious back foot technique to allow more time to play the ball.

Whatever they may say, no one relishes facing extreme pace, and few have bowled faster than Johnson is currently managing. At times already in the series, the England top order batting has coped with him: Michael Carberry has done so twice, by letting the ball go in Brisbane and by lining him up from back in the crease in Adelaide; Alastair Cook was watchful in the second innings in Brisbane; and after his usual frenetic start, Kevin Pietersen just looked comfortable in the second innings at the Gabba until the second of three totally indiscreet shots in as many innings did for him unnecessarily. Johnson's real success, certainly in Adelaide, has come in blowing away the lower order. How would these batsmen cope with an incessant barrage such as Chappell received?

Ian Bell though, now there is a player. Here is a strange thing. Back in the days before helmets, when, say, Tommo and Lillee were terrorising England, and the high velocity short ball was a common currency, the number of batsmen who were actually hit, on the head specifically, was remarkably few, certainly compared with these days when scarcely a day goes by without someone "getting one on the lid" and invariably trotting a gentle leg-bye for their troubles. There is a good reason for this. Short of a crack on the head, little was to be gained by taking eyes from the ball and turning away. Instead there were two options, aside from taking on the short ball and hooking or pulling: either watch the ball and duck under; or drop the hands out of harm's way first and foremost, and then sway back to let the ball pass by. Photographs of the ball passing a batsman's nose show excellent judgment on the part of the player rather than a close call.

Bell plays as if a batsman from a bygone era. In the second innings in Brisbane, he swayed back to avoid the short ball like a reed bending in the wind. He does not attempt the legside cross bat shots, but keeps a square cut in his locker just in case. As with Chappell, he looks to get forward if he can ( there has been more opportunity offered on this pitch than the Gabba, and more, you can bet, than will be going at the Waca next week too). There is an unflustered calmness to him as well, as if he sees the ball in a slow motion dimension unavailable to others.

Just for a period, when Monty Panesar was showing a technique and fortitude that had proved elusive to those better qualified, there was the possibility that he might be able to engineer a remarkable century. He had stormed past his half-century by lofting Ryan Harris down the ground and now square cut him witheringly, clipped him to fine leg for four more and finished the most productive over of the match by lofting him elegantly into the crowd at deep extra cover. When Johnson, brought back for the coup de grace, pitched short, he leaned back and clipped the ball precisely over the slip cordon. These were the strokes of a man in control, a counterpoint to his teammates. An object lesson.

Saturday 1 December 2012

Imran Khan

Saad Shafqat in Cricinfo

Nobody's a perfect cricketer, but even his rivals will probably agree that Imran Khan comes pretty close. There's no question he is Pakistan's greatest-ever player, but even that description is an understatement. In fact, he has been world-class in batting, bowling, fielding and captaincy. Even among the game's absolute elite, hardly anyone can make that claim.

Nor did he slow down after retiring from cricket. It would have been entirely natural for him to climb into a comfortable zone of exalted reverence, but he gave that a pass. Instead, he single-handedly founded a philanthropic cancer hospital in Lahore in the memory of his late mother that has become one of Pakistan's premier medical institutes. Now, having just turned 60, he heads a political party that appears poised to emerge with influence in the country's next general election.

The passage of years has made it clear that Imran is really one perfect storm of a man in whom multiple natural gifts - ability, ambition, drive, personality, looks, physique, and pedigree - have come together spectacularly. He was born with advantages and he has gone on to make the most of them.

His family background (Lahore aristocracy) and schooling (Aitchison College, Pakistan's Eton) are as good as it gets in this part of the world. Then there is his unparalleled cricket education, starting from the family compound in Lahore's Zaman Park under the watchful eyes of Majid Khan and Javed Burki, going on to Oxford University, domestic seasons in England and Australia, Kerry Packer's World Series Cricket, an old-fashioned apprenticeship in reverse swing with Sarfraz Nawaz, and a complex partnership in battlefield tactics with Javed Miandad.

People say that if Imran succeeds in becoming a statesman, he will have achieved more than any other cricketer. Yet what he has achieved already - setting the philanthropy and politics aside - is quite incredible. As a bowler, his Test average, economy, and strike rate are all better than Wasim Akram's, which is a huge statement when you consider that for two years in his prime, Imran had to sit out with a stress fracture of the shin. And though his career Test batting average is only in the high 30s, it jumps to 52.34 in his 48 Tests as captain; astonishingly this is higher than the corresponding figure for Steve Waugh, Ricky Ponting, Sachin Tendulkar, Clive Lloyd, Allan Border, Sunil Gavaskar, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Len Hutton, and yes, even Miandad.

His fielding never gets talked about because it has been diluted by so much else, but Imran was an excellent outfielder - an extremely safe pair of hands both in catching and ground-fielding, and possessing a near-perfect arm from the boundary. He exercised tirelessly and his body language was always attentive and athletic. He might have adopted a regal air after becoming captain, but his commitment in the field was never diminished.



	Imran is almost as old as Pakistan's Test history, which makes it rather fitting that he should be the man to have so fundamentally altered its course

Then there is the matter of captaincy. Imran is almost as old as Pakistan's Test history, which makes it rather fitting that he should be the man to have so fundamentally altered its course. His captaincy was born in turbulence, arising from the dust of the infamous 1981 rebellion against Miandad. Yet once he was in charge, there was no looking back. He led by example, commanding respect, demanding unflinching dedication, and keeping merit and performance supreme. The team became united and laurels soon piled up: a fortress-like record at home, inaugural series wins in India and England, an unforgettable showdown in the West Indies, and the World Cup of 1992 - by any standards, a golden era. Pakistan's cricketing mindset was revolutionised.

Imran's entry into politics has complicated his hallowed status as a cricketing icon. Nowadays, whenever he is mentioned in a current-affairs context in the international press, the term is "cricketer-turned-politician". Choosing one identity over the other is no longer possible, because with Imran's continued evolution both have acquired equal importance. To the generation of cricket romantics and diehards who grew up watching and worshipping Imran - and I would place my boyhood friends and myself very much in that demographic - this feels like something of an intrusion.

Yes, the economy needs to be fixed; health, education, and unemployment need to be tackled; the foreign policy has to be sorted out; law and order have to be secured; and peace and prosperity must be ushered in. Yes, there is all that, of course. But what about the devastating spell of reverse swing on that breezy Karachi afternoon, those 12 wickets in Sydney that spawned a dynasty, that dogged defence, those towering sixes, that enthralling leap at the bowling crease, that quiet air of authority and command in the field? The space for reliving those pleasures is shrinking.

As a cricket fan, you expect your idols to be entirely defined by cricket, but Imran is an idol for whom the game is but one of his endeavours. That disorients the cricket lover's mind and calls for an emotional adjustment. Nevertheless, this is not any cause for concern or complaint, because the trajectory of Imran's life is really best seen as a compliment to the game. He was already a phenomenally successful cricketer and cricket leader. What else do you aim for next but the office of prime minister?

Initially politics proved a sticky wicket. For several years after founding his party, in 1996, Imran laboured on the margins of Pakistan's political theatre. He struggled to find a voice in the national conversation, and kept getting dismissed as an amateur naïvely trying to extrapolate the success he had had in cricket and through his cancer institute. Yet here too, Imran's persistence has paid off. His message of transformative change and clean governance is resonating throughout Pakistan, and his party has attracted a substantial following. Most observers expect him to be a key player in any coalition that emerges from next year's national polls.

The most noticeable consequence of Imran's political rise is that his critics have multiplied. He is accused of being a hypocrite who espouses conservative Islamic values after having lived the life of a playboy. He is derided for offering to negotiate with militant extremists. He is mocked for being stubborn and inflexible. Every now and then, his failed marriage to a British heiress is also raked up. Even his cricketing achievements are questioned, with people labelling him a dictatorial captain whose departure left the team in a tailspin. Pakistan may be a nascent democracy but it is still a vocal one.

Despite all the noise and clatter, Imran is quietly (and sometimes not so quietly) steaming ahead. If you take a panoramic view of his life and career, the quality that most dominates is focus and single-mindedness in the service of a lofty goal. It seems that for the right cause, he could almost move mountains through sheer force of will. Even his detractors always stop short of questioning his intent and resolve. Ultimately it is this clarity of purpose and Imran's seemingly limitless capacity for challenge and endurance that have taken him so high and so far.

Saad Shafqat is a writer based in Karach

Sunday 28 October 2012

Doosra: Is it really a question of integrity?

Posted by Michael Jeh 1 day, 5 hours ago in Michael Jeh

John Inverarity has bowled me a doosra today with his comments about the doosra and integrity. I’m genuinely not sure which way to play this one.

That he is a gentleman and a scholar there can be no doubt. His reputation as man of decency and integrity allows him the privilege of making a comment such as this with some immunity from anyone looking to take cheap shots at him. From that perspective, reading his words carefully, I can draw no hint of mischief or hypocrisy in his brave statement. Perhaps a long bow could be drawn to infer that he is pointing fingers at some bowlers but I genuinely think that to do so would be to do the gentleman an injustice. Clearly he believes that the doosra has the potential to corrupt bowling actions and he would prefer to see the Australian bowling contingent shy away from that technique. Fair enough too if that is his genuine belief.

On the other hand, I also believe that it may be a bit naïve on the part of Australian cricket, if Inverarity is speaking on behalf of the institution rather than as an individual, to encourage a policy that is clearly going to disadvantage Australia to this extent. Put simply, the doosra is arguably the most potent bowling weapon in modern cricket. Especially in limited overs cricket, it is probably the single most influential factor in giving bowling teams a sniff of hope. The fast bowlers have proved woefully inadequate in coming up with anything new to stem the flow of boundaries. In fact, their skill level has actually dropped some considerable level, evidenced by the steady diet of full tosses that are served up at least once an over when under pressure. So the doosra and the variations that followed (carrom ball) can lay claim to being the most influential game-changer. When a bowler with a good doosra comes on to bowl, I immediately sit up and take notice because there is always the chance that a game can be turned on its head. Since Shane Warne led the new spin revolution, nothing has excited me more in the bowling stakes than the perfection of the various types of doosra.

That is why I am slightly flummoxed by Inverarity’s stance on it. Whilst not necessarily agreeing with his inference that it may lead to illegal actions, I respect his integrity enough to accept his point in the spirit it was intended. However, to encourage Australian spinners to not learn the art form is possibly putting principle before pragmatism. That in itself is admirable if it were applied universally but no country, least of all Australia, has ever applied this morality on a ‘whole of cricket’ basis so what makes the doosra so special? Is Inverarity suggesting that Australian cricket should now make decisions on the basis of integrity or is the doosra singled out as the one issue where we apply the Integrity Test? If so, is it any coincidence that we don’t really have anyone who can bowl the doosra with any great proficiency and will that change on the day we discover our own Doosra Doctor?

All countries have their own inconsistencies to be ashamed of so I’m not suggesting that Australia is alone in this regard. Far from it. Living in Australia, I just get to see a lot more of the local cricketing news so I’m better qualified to make comment on Australian examples. A few examples spring to mind….let’s think back to the times when we prepared turning tracks in the 1980s to beat the West Indies. A fair enough tactic too so long as there’s no complaints if other teams prepare pitches to suit their strengths. Similarly, I recall a period during the late 1990s when Australian teams insisted on having their fielder’s word accepted when a low catch had been taken. That theory worked OK until Andy Bichel claimed a caught and bowled off Michael Vaughan in the 2002/03 Ashes series when replays showed it had clearly bounced in front of him. I know Bich quite well and he is as honest as they come so it was genuinely a case of him thinking it had carried when in fact it hadn’t. Around that same period, Justin Langer refused to walk when caught by Brian Lara at slip, despite the Australian mantra that a fielder’s word was his bond. They come no more honourable than Lara in this regard so what happened to the principle? Like all matters of convenience, it is admirable but rarely works when it becomes an inconvenient truth.

And that is the source of my confusion with linking the doosra to the question of integrity. I’m not convinced that the integrity issue will stand the test of time if Australia accidentally discovers a home-grown exponent of this delivery. Likewise the issue of the switch-hit. Now that Dave Warner plays it as well as anyone, are we opposed to this too on integrity grounds? If Warner hadn’t mastered the shot, would that too be something that we would not encourage because it perhaps bent the spirit of cricket?

Only time will tell whether Inverarity’s wisdom and guidance will be mirrored by those in the organisation with perhaps less integrity and more pragmatism in their veins. I suspect it will take more than one decent man to stop an irresistible force. His motives may be pure indeed but I suspect that this is one issue that will turn the other way!

Sunday 20 May 2012

The Unfairness of the Switch Hit

Why aren't more bowlers complaining about the switch hit?

The stroke is patently unfair and widens the imbalance between bat and ball

Ian Chappell

May 20, 2012

In my playing days I believed many Englishmen used to unnecessarily complicate what was meant to be a reasonably simple game. It looks like that habit has now spread.

I can't imagine a more complicated solution to control the switch-hit phenomenon than what the ICC is considering. Complex changes to the lbw law regarding what is a batsman's leg side and analysis of the risk-reward ratio of the shot to see if it disadvantages the bowler are two such proposals. Without watching another ball bowled, I can tell you the answer to the second suggestion: the switch hit is patently unfair to bowlers.

If a bowler, having already told the batsman (via the umpire) how he's going to propel the ball, places his field for a right-hander and ends up delivering to a left-hander, how can that be fair? It's possible to reach a more equitable arrangement dealing with the mafia.

One of the critical duties of an administrator is to ensure the contest between bat and ball remains balanced, like an evenly weighted see-saw. The switch hit is a hefty dad on one end with his five-year-old son, feet dangling in mid-air, on the other.

A simple law that states, "Having taken up his stance, a batsman may not change the order of his feet or hands in playing a shot", would ensure balance is restored.

With the fielding positions still effective, let the batsman play the reverse sweep, the scoop or whatever other innovative premeditated shot he dreams up and any self-respecting bowler will feel the odds are in his favour. The reverse sweep does not defy the proposed law above because the top and bottom hands remain exactly that on the handle.

If the ICC wants real proof of any disadvantage then let the bowler not have to tell the batsman from which side of the wicket he's going to deliver. When the bowler swaps from over to round at his pleasure, see how long it is before batsmen are bleating. In fact, the umpires would probably be the first to call for a truce.

In addition to disadvantaging the bowlers, the switch hit could unfairly help the batting side win a tight Test match. By swapping at the last moment, a batsman could induce a no-ball under the maximum-two-fieldsmen behind-square-leg law to gain victory without hitting the ball or the bowler knowingly doing anything illegal.



	One of the critical duties of an administrator is to ensure the contest between bat and ball remains balanced, like an evenly weighted see-saw. The switch hit is a hefty dad on one end with his five year-old son, feet dangling in mid-air, on the other

I've championed the cause of bowlers over the years, as the major innovators in the game, and I'm staggered they have been so timid in this debate. Whatever happened to the spirit of those revolutionaries John Willes and Ned Willsher, both of whom played a role during the 19th century in upgrading bowling from underarm (via sidearm) to the modern over-arm delivery?

I'm surprised no modern-day bowling revolutionary has tried swapping alternate deliveries from over and round the wicket until the officials enquired, "What's your problem?"

As a part-time leggie and a baseball catcher in my younger days, I would have seriously considered letting a batsman have it with a well-directed throw if he changed the order of his hands or feet while I was running in to bowl. I've no doubt Wills and Willsher would adopt more subtle methods, but I'm sure they would have admired my zeal in attempting to get my point across.

I'm often told the switch hit should be allowed because it's legal in baseball. That's nonsensical because in baseball the hitter has to stand in either the left- or right-hand batter's box, so the pitcher knows beforehand what he's facing and can adjust his field accordingly. And late in a close game the opposing manager will call on either a right- or left-handed pitcher in order to exploit the switch hitter's weaker side.

There's no doubt the switch hit requires a hell of a lot of skill, and it's exciting when Kevin Pietersen or David Warner clubs a six while quickly swapping from one style of batsman to another. Skilful yes, fair on the bowlers no, and it's the approval of such imbalances between bat and ball that can lead to things like chucking and ball-tampering, or at the very least on-field animosity.

Friday 6 April 2012

Switch is a hit

Mark Nicholas in Cricinfo

Pity the umpire in the split second before the switch hit. ICC's directive picks the moment that a bowler's back foot lands as the start of the delivery. From this point the batsman can do as he pleases with hands and feet but not before. Three times Kevin Pietersen made to switch and three times Tillakaratne Dilshan pulled away from releasing his offbreak. On the third occasion Asad Rauf warned Pietersen for time wasting.

Incredible really. International teams bowl their overs at 13 an hour and no one blinks an eye while the most thrilling batsman makes to switch hit and finds himself on the wrong side of the law. Not Rauf's fault, he is the messenger and one with a lot on his plate. Rauf could not possibly have been sure of exactly the moment when Pietersen changed his stance because he was watching Dilshan's back foot. Er, or was he watching Dilshan's front foot, lest he no ball? Hmm, or was he watching the return crease, lest he no ball there? Or was he intent on the striker's end of the wicket, the business end, with the popping crease in his peripheral? Or was he briefly somewhere else? Long days out there in the Colombo sun.

David Warner's switch hit six over mid-off - or is it mid-on?- in a T20I against India earlier this year rang the bells once more. Now Pietersen has them clanging like Notre Dame. The switch hit is different from the reverse hit because the batsman swaps his hands on the bat and rotates his body 180 degrees, to become a left-hander in Pietersen's case. Generally, the stroke is a plus for a game that is not completely sure how to embrace the 21st century. When it is played successfully spectators, quite literally, gasp in wonder. They talk about it, most love it. We don't see it often because it is difficult, showy and takes big cojones. It's right up Pietersen's street, and Warner's. Less so say Andrew Strauss or Rahul Dravid. But they wouldn't want to stand in the way of progress.

There are two things to consider here. Cricket's lifeline is the balance between bat and ball. Given the bowler must commit to releasing the ball from one side of the wicket and with a part of his foot behind the popping crease, the batsman who is not so shackled must give something away if he wishes to change striking position. This should be leg stump.

As the law stands, a batsman should not be given out lbw if the ball pitches outside leg stump. A simple change to that law, effectively taking the leg-stump advantage away from the batsman would even it up. Thus, if you choose to switch hit you forego your leg stump and can be lbw if you are hit between wicket and wicket either way round.

The second thing is the ICC directive mentioned above. Once the bowler is at the point of delivery there is little he can do in response to the batsman's move. The directive should be that the batsman may do as he pleases from the start of the bowlers' approach to the crease. This way the bowler has a better chance to respond and should not feel that pulling way is his only defence. Were the lbw law changed, the bowler would have an aggressive option and may even see the batsman's change of stance as an opportunity to take his wicket.

From this more evenly balanced reaction to the switch hit would come the conclusion that it is the bowler who is timewasting by refusing to deliver. Not the batsman, who is bringing to the game his sense of imagination and adventure.

Tuesday 6 December 2011

On off spin bowling

Dear Nathan,

Mate, keep spinning hard and getting the ball above the level of the batsman's eyes. You seem to know instinctively what I took years to learn: that the key to spin bowling is not where the ball lands but how it arrives. Spin hard, drive up and over your braced front leg with a high bowling arm and you can defeat the best batsmen on any track, anywhere, anytime.

My greatest practical lesson was bowling to the Nawab of Pataudi in India long ago. The great old leggie Clarrie Grimmett, who got Don Bradman plenty of times in his long career, told me to spin up and rely heavily on my stock ball: if you bowl hard-spun offbreaks on an attacking line and change your pace, you will get wickets. Like Shane Warne, when first brought on to bowl I simply bowled my stock ball, hard-spun and at slightly different paces, to ensure that I stayed in the attack.

If you played under Bill Lawry, as I did first up in my career, and went for a few runs in your first over, that might be your lot for the day. Thankfully I came to play under Ian Chappell, who was terrific, as was Mark Taylor down the track with Warne, Tim May and Mark Waugh. I think, too, that Michael Clarke is in the Chappell-Taylor mould. He tries to make things happen and he definitely has a rapport with your style and skill and will back you.

I love the way you spin up on the attacking line against the right-handers. Sometimes the right-hand batsman can snick an offbreak to first slip simply because he has allowed for greater turn in towards him. A ball with more over-spin on it may turn in a little, but not as much as the batsman expects, and that gives you a better chance of getting an outside edge. The one you got Doug Bracewell with in Brisbane looked like the sort of delivery I'm talking about. Ian Chappell took 17 catches off me in Tests, mostly at first slip, and most of those were the result of my getting more over-spin on those particular deliveries, while the batsmen allowed for a greater breadth of turn.

After my first 10 Tests and 46 wickets, Bob Simpson came to me and said, "Where's your arm ball?"

I replied: "Arm ball? What's that, Simmo?"

The great Australian opening batsman showed me the way to hold the ball, running your index finger down the seam.

"That's not for me, Bob," I said. "I bowl offbreaks. I'm not a swing bowler."

Bruce Yardley used to say the best "arm ball" was the offie he bowled that carried straight on.

Jim Laker bowled an undercutter but some turned a good way and some went like a legcutter. I put it to him: "Jim, the opposition are nine down. One ball to go and six to win. The slogging right-hander is in and you know he'll hit with the tide and try to win the game with a six. What happens if the undercutter you bowl doesn't leave the right-hander, but spins in from the off?"

He eyeballed me and in his laconic Yorkshire accent announced: "We lose!"

You have to give a bit to get a bit, and mate, you do that instinctively. I have no hesitation in saying that you are the best Australian offie I've seen in nearly 30 years. But you have to get your field placement right. Against the left-handers you simply have to have a straight midwicket. Why? Because we need to cover the straight-bat shots with a straight midwicket and deepish mid-on. As long as you bowl hard-spun, dipping offies on a line of middle stump, the batsman needs to take a huge risk to hit against the spin.

When you bowl to a right-hander, your off-side field is vital; conversely, when operating to a left-hander, your on-side field is paramount. As offies we are trying to get the right-hand batsman to hit against the spin to the off side, and left-handers to the on side.

Warne needed his straight midwicket to work a similar strategy. Against the left-handers you need to bowl a straighter line, that is, middle, middle and leg, so that if they miss you might hit off stump. That line, because of the manner in which the ball is coming towards the batsman, hard-spun and dipping, will make it tough for the best left-handers to play you. It will also give you a better chance of hitting off stump.

Also, don't be afraid to bowl the odd spell over the wicket to a left-hander. They're not used to it, and it is a good variation in itself. Looking back at my own career, each time I got Clive Lloyd out was when I bowled over the wicket.

I speak regularly with Graeme Swann about offspin in general, and lines. We talk about change of pace, and about operating to attacking lines and always spinning hard. We agree that the hard-spun, dipping ball to a right-hander must be outside the eyeline. A hard-spun delivery curves away a bit and that helps to create a gap between bat and pad.



	You have to give a bit to get a bit, and mate, you do that instinctively. I have no hesitation in saying that you are the best Australian offie I've seen in nearly 30 years.

I showed Daniel Vettori and Swann the method of bowling a square spinner. It is the offspinner's equivalent of the legbreak bowler's slider, which is pushed out of the front of the hand. When you get it right, the ball looks like an offbreak but appears to have less purchase on it. Upon hitting the pitch, it skids on straight. Swann got Marcus North a few times with that delivery, and he uses it a lot; he rarely resorts to the one-finger swinger that Simmo was banging on to me about. Vettori does bowl the one-finger arm-ball, which looks impressive but rarely gets good players out. His square spinner gets him wickets.

The square spinner is so much better than the doosra for two reasons: You cannot pick the square spinner, because it looks like an offbreak but carries straight on. And for a bloke like you, who really spins and bounces your stock offbreak, a doosra would probably be superfluous as it might beat the bat of any right-hander by a mile. The field would applaud, so too the captain, but the batsman would survive because moral victories don't count in your wicket tally.

The best offie I saw was Erapalli Prasanna, the little Indian bowler. You could hear the ball buzz when he delivered it. He said that spin bowling was an invitation for the batsman to hit into the outfield. He meant dropping or dipping the ball, so you do the batsman in the air and the ball hits higher on his bat than he wants it to. When that happens, there is a potential catch.

A word of warning: take care with whom you talk offspin, because I've seen the nonsense going on at the Centre of Excellence, where spinners are wired to music. There are precious few people in Australia who really know much about offspin bowling. Keep spinning hard and follow your instincts. You will find that subtle changes of pace, allied to your hard-spun deliveries will help break the rhythm of the batsman and bring you more wickets more often. Keep going as you are: your method of bowling offbreaks is a joy to watch.

Yours in spin, and good luck

Ashley Mallett

Offspinner Ashley Mallett played 38 Tests for Australia

Monday 5 December 2011

Cricket - Bowling Analysis of Great Performances

December 5, 2011

Posted by Anantha Narayanan 1 hour, 10 minutes ago in Tests - bowling

Five-wicket hauls in Tests: a look across and deep - part one

Michael Holding: 14 wickets on a flat track at The Oval in 1976 © Getty Images

There is a tendency to ignore the bowlers in Test cricket. I myself am guilty of this and do not allocate equal time and effort for these forgotten species. This time I have decided to make amends by doing the article on fifers in Test cricket immediately after I finished the one on Test hundreds.
First, the term used. Let me reproduce the Wikipedia entry below.
Five-wicket haul (also Five-for, five-fer, fifer, or shortened to 5WI or FWI)

Five or more wickets taken by a bowler in an innings, considered a very good performance. The term fifer is an abbreviation of the usual form of writing bowling statistics, e.g. a bowler who takes 5 wickets and concedes 117 runs is said to have figures of "5 for 117" or "5-117". Sometimes called a "Michelle", after actress Michelle Pfeiffer. I like the term "Fifer". However since that also refers to the foot-soldier who plays the "Fife", the Scottish flute, I am somewhat reluctant. "Pfeiffer" would be injudicious. I am not too comfortable with "Five-for", being slightly contrived and seemingly incomplete. So I will stick with "fifer", a single non-hyphenated (!!!) word and my favourite. Much better than "DLF maximum" or "Karbonn Kamaal Katch".
Some maxims have to be repeated in EVERY article since quite a few readers have a one-track mind and see what only they want to see. This is not a Bowling Ratings article. The ordering is based on an indicated measure and is visible to the reader clearly. Do not draw any unintended inferences and come out with comments based on those. There is no personal discretion involved other than setting up the parameters. In view of the size of the articles and number of tables, I have kept my narratives to a minimum.
Test Bowling is a fascinating subject. It is far more nuanced that Batting when it comes to analysis.
- The number of wickets in an innings is strictly limited to 10.
- Bowling successes are very clearly defined and measurable in terms of wickets (who and when) and accuracy.
- Bowling is three-dimensional: balls, runs and wickets. These three dimension-related values are available for all bowling spells. (Batting is also three-dimensional: runs, time, balls. Unfortunately only runs information is available for all matches.)
- Batsmen win and save matches. Bowlers, almost always, win matches. They rarely draw matches, a la Atherton, Hanif et al. But you will be surprised: wait for the next article !!! A great ODI team can be founded on top-class batting and average bowling, not a great Test team.
- 5 batsmen can score hundreds in an innings, and have done so. Only two bowlers can capture 5 wickets each in an innings.
All these nuances lead to a more exciting analysis of fifers.
It took me nearly a week to think of all possibilities, write the program, prepare the tables and then weave the article around the tables. I did so much work on the keyboard that my legs (yes, you read it correctly) started aching. This turned out to be the longest article I had ever done, barring none. So I decided to release this in two parts. This will also enable me to do some specialized requests and add those tables. At the end of the article, I have indicated the types of analysis which have been included in Part 2. Even now, the current article has been exceeded in size by only one article, the one published last, on Special hundreds.
A note on the tables. I have standardized the presentation to have the first 14 columns common. These are self-explanatory. I have shown Home/Away (H/A), Bowling Type (S for spinners), innings bowled in and Result (W for Win, = for draw and * for loss).
First the basic table. I did not do this for the hundreds. However it is necessary to start with this table in the bowling analysis since many readers may not be familiar with all these performances.
1. 9+ wicket bowling performances in Tests

MtId Year For Vs Score HA Bowler BT I <--Analysis--> R 0428 1956 Eng Aus-205/10 H Laker J.C S 3 51.2-23- 53-10 W 1443 1999 Ind Pak-207/10 H Kumble A S 4 26.3- 9- 74-10 W 0048 1896 Eng Saf-151/10 A Lohmann G.A 2 12.0- 6- 28- 9 W 0428 1956 Eng Aus- 84/10 H Laker J.C S 2 16.4- 4- 37- 9 W 1583 2002 Slk Zim-236/10 H Muralitharan M S 1 40.0-19- 51- 9 W 1029 1985 Nzl Aus-179/10 A Hadlee R.J 1 23.4- 4- 52- 9 W 1081 1987 Pak Eng-175/10 H Abdul Qadir S 1 37.0-13- 56- 9 W 1266 1994 Eng Saf-175/10 H Malcolm D.E 3 16.3- 2- 57- 9 W 1423 1998 Slk Eng-181/10 A Muralitharan M S 3 54.2-27- 65- 9 W 0483 1959 Ind Aus-219/10 H Patel J.M S 2 35.5-16- 69- 9 W 0967 1983 Ind Win-201/10 H Kapil Dev N 3 30.3- 6- 83- 9 * 0849 1979 Pak Aus-310/10 A Sarfraz Nawaz 4 47.2- 7- 86- 9 W 0683 1971 Win Ind-352/10 H Noreiga J.M S 2 49.4-16- 95- 9 * 0461 1958 Ind Win-222/10 H Gupte S.P S 1 34.3-11-102- 9 * 0131 1913 Eng Saf-231/10 A Barnes S.F 3 38.4- 7-103- 9 W 0437 1957 Saf Eng-214/10 H Tayfield H.J S 4 49.2-11-113- 9 W 0138 1921 Aus Eng-315/10 H Mailey A.A S 3 47.0- 8-121- 9 W

I have limited this to bowling spells in which the bowler captured 9 or more wickets. Only twice have bowlers captured all 10 wickets. Jim Laker's feat came 79 years and 427 Tests after Alfred Shaw bowled the first ball to Charles Bannerman. Anil Kumble's feat came a further 1015 Tests and 43 years after Laker dismissed Len Maddocks. I wonder how many years would pass before this happens again: let me say, around 2050. Laker had another 9-wicket haul, in the same match. Muttiah Muralitharan is the only other bowler to capture 9-wkts in an innings twice. Quite surprisingly, the three spinners, Muralitharan, Abdul Qadir and Subhash Gupte, captured 9 wickets on the first day. Another wonderful spinner, Hugh Tayfield's 9 for 113 was adjudged to be the best ever bowling performance in the Wisden-100 analysis. More of this performance later. Kapil Dev, Gupte and Jack Noreiga all captured 9-wickets in an innings, in vain. Surely let us all agree that no one, I repeat no one, in the next 1000 years, if Test cricket survives that far, would capture all 20 wickets in a match.
Now for something I think is very important, performance away from home.
2. Wonderful performances, away from home

MtId Year For Vs Score HA Bowler BT I <--Analysis--> R 0048 1896 Eng Saf-151/10 A Lohmann G.A 2 12.0- 6- 28- 9 W 1029 1985 Nzl Aus-179/10 A Hadlee R.J 1 23.4- 4- 52- 9 W 1423 1998 Slk Eng-181/10 A Muralitharan M S 3 54.2-27- 65- 9 W 0849 1979 Pak Aus-310/10 A Sarfraz Nawaz 4 47.2- 7- 86- 9 W 0131 1913 Eng Saf-231/10 A Barnes S.F 3 38.4- 7-103- 9 W 0047 1896 Eng Saf- 30/10 A Lohmann G.A 4 8.1- 5- 7- 8 W 0032 1889 Eng Saf- 43/10 A Briggs J S 3 9.4- 5- 11- 8 W 0104 1909 Aus Eng-119/10 A Laver F 2 18.2- 7- 31- 8 = 0026 1887 Eng Aus- 84/10 A Lohmann G.A 2 16.4-12- 35- 8 W 1370 1997 Aus Eng- 77/10 A McGrath G.D 1 20.3- 8- 38- 8 = 1398 1998 Eng Win-191/10 A Fraser A.R.C 2 16.1- 2- 53- 8 * 0699 1972 Aus Eng-116/10 A Massie R.A.L 3 27.2- 9- 53- 8 W 0131 1913 Eng Saf-160/10 A Barnes S.F 1 26.5- 9- 56- 8 W 0036 1892 Eng Aus-145/10 A Lohmann G.A 1 43.2-18- 58- 8 * 1341 1996 Saf Ind-137/10 A Klusener L 4 21.3- 4- 64- 8 W 0074 1902 Aus Eng-183/10 A Trumble H S 2 31.0-13- 65- 8 * 0079 1904 Eng Aus-111/10 A Rhodes W S 4 15.0- 0- 68- 8 W 0863 1979 Pak Ind-126/10 A Sikander Bakht 2 21.0- 3- 69- 8 = 1804 2006 Slk Eng-190/10 A Muralitharan M S 4 30.0-11- 70- 8 W 1307 1995 Saf Zim-283/10 A Donald A.A 3 33.0-12- 71- 8 W 1258 1994 Eng Win-304/10 A Fraser A.R.C 2 28.5- 7- 75- 8 W 0769 1976 Ind Nzl-215/10 A Prasanna E.A.S S 3 30.4- 5- 76- 8 W 0082 1904 Eng Aus-247/10 A Braund L.C S 1 29.1- 6- 81- 8 * 1027 1985 Slk Pak-259/10 A Ratnayeke J.R 2 23.2- 5- 83- 8 * 0699 1972 Aus Eng-272/10 A Massie R.A.L 1 32.5- 7- 84- 8 W 0947 1983 Ind Pak-323/10 A Kapil Dev N 1 30.5- 7- 85- 8 = 0738 1974 Eng Win-305/10 A Greig A.W 2 36.1-10- 86- 8 W 0781 1976 Win Eng-435/10 A Holding M.A 2 33.0- 9- 92- 8 W 0057 1898 Eng Aus-239/10 A Richardson T 2 36.1- 7- 94- 8 * 0323 1950 Win Eng-312/10 A Valentine A.L S 1 50.0-14-104- 8 * 1032 1985 Ind Aus-381/10 A Kapil Dev N 1 38.0- 6-106- 8 = 1797 2006 Aus Bng-427/10 A MacGill S.C.G S 1 33.3- 2-108- 8 W 0179 1929 Eng Aus-336/10 A White J.C S 4 64.5-21-126- 8 W 1020 1985 Aus Eng-482/ 9 A McDermott C.J 2 36.0- 3-141- 8 = 1680 2004 Ind Aus-474/10 A Kumble A S 2 46.5- 7-141- 8 = 1892 2008 Aus Ind-441/10 A Krejza J.J 1 43.5- 1-215- 8 *

In view of the importance of this classification, I have lowered the cut-off to 8 wicket captures at the risk of going beyond my self-imposed limit of 25 table entries. The table is ordered by the bowling performance. George Lohmann, on those uncovered pitches of yonder, crossed 8 wickets mark no fewer than four times. Quite a few achieved this twice. Barnes, Fraser, Kapil Dev, Massie (in the same match) and Muralitharan. The 9-wicket captures of Hadlee, Muralitharan and Sarfraz Nawaz are probably the pick of the lot, all resulting in winning matches. Sarfraz, to boot, in the last innings. The last time this was done, was by an off-spinner on a baptism debut of fire in India.
Now for some special selections. The bowlers who captured the top-six batsmen.
3. Bowling spells in which top six wickets are captured - 1

MtId Year For Vs Score HA Bowler BT I <--Analysis--> R BA-T Avge 0235 1934 Aus Eng-627/ 9 A O'Reilly W.J S 1 59.0- 9-189- 7 = 297 49.5 0461 1958 Ind Win-222/10 H Gupte S.P S 1 34.3-11-102- 9 * 262 43.7 1804 2006 Slk Eng-190/10 A Muralitharan M S 4 30.0-11- 70- 8 W 258 43.1 0990 1984 Eng Win-245/10 H Botham I.T 2 27.4- 6-103- 8 * 256 42.6 0754 1975 Eng Aus-304/10 A Underwood D.L S 1 38.4- 3-113- 7 * 254 42.3 1110 1988 Aus Win-349/ 9 H Hughes M.G 3 37.0- 9- 87- 8 * 254 42.3 1443 1999 Ind Pak-207/10 H Kumble A S 4 26.3- 9- 74-10 W 250 41.7 0913 1981 Aus Pak-500/ 8 H Yardley B S 1 66.0-16-187- 7 * 248 41.3 1726 2004 Aus Pak- 72/10 H McGrath G.D 4 16.0- 8- 24- 8 W 244 40.7 1028 1985 Slk Pak-295/10 A de Mel A.L.F 2 22.0- 1-109- 6 * 240 40.0 0765 1975 Win Aus-169/10 A Roberts A.M.E 3 18.4- 3- 54- 7 W 235 39.2 1029 1985 Nzl Aus-179/10 A Hadlee R.J 1 23.4- 4- 52- 9 W 234 39.0 1513 2000 Pak Eng-480/ 8 H Saqlain Mushtaq S 1 74.0-20-164- 8 = 234 39.0 1377 1997 Aus Eng-180/10 A McGrath G.D 1 21.0- 4- 76- 7 * 221 36.8 0428 1956 Eng Aus-205/10 H Laker J.C S 3 51.2-23- 53-10 W 213 35.4 0975 1984 Nzl Eng-463/10 H Cairns B.L 2 45.0-10-143- 7 = 212 35.4 0788 1976 Eng Ind-122/10 A Lever J.K 2 23.0- 6- 46- 7 W 207 34.5 0083 1905 Eng Aus-188/10 H Bosanquet B.J.T S 4 32.4- 2-107- 8 W 197 32.8 1525 2000 Aus Win-109/10 H Gillespie J.N 4 17.0- 5- 40- 6 W 189 31.4 0323 1950 Win Eng-312/10 A Valentine A.L S 1 50.0-14-104- 8 * 185 30.8 1583 2002 Slk Zim-236/10 H Muralitharan M S 1 40.0-19- 51- 9 W 180 30.0 1878 2008 Eng Nzl-123/10 H Anderson J.M 2 21.3- 8- 43- 7 W 165 27.6 0131 1913 Eng Saf-160/10 A Barnes S.F 1 26.5- 9- 56- 8 W 157 26.2 0424 1956 Win Nzl-157/ 9 A Atkinson D.S.t.E S 3 40.0-21- 53- 7 * 145 24.1 0039 1893 Eng Aus-269/10 H Lockwood W.H 2 37.3-11-101- 6 = 133 22.2

This table is ordered by the average of the batting averages of the six batsmen dismissed. O'Reilly dismissed Walters, Sutcliffe, Wyatt, Hammond, Hendren and Leyland, two of these on either side of 60.0. An imposing collection indeed. Gupte accounted for Holt, Hunte, Sobers, Kanhai, OG Smith and Butcher. Muralitharan dismissed Trescothick, Strauss, Cook, Pietersen, Collingwood and Flintoff. One cannot keep these two greats out. Muralitharan and McGrath are the only bowlers to do this twice in their career. Now for another view of the same group.
4. Bowling spells in which top six wickets are captured - 2

MtId Year For Vs Score HA Bowler BT I <--Analysis--> R Runs 1525 2000 Aus Win-109/10 H Gillespie J.N 4 17.0- 5- 40- 6 W 14 1726 2004 Aus Pak- 72/10 H McGrath G.D 4 16.0- 8- 24- 8 W 55 0131 1913 Eng Saf-160/10 A Barnes S.F 1 26.5- 9- 56- 8 W 73 0461 1958 Ind Win-222/10 H Gupte S.P S 1 34.3-11-102- 9 * 86 1878 2008 Eng Nzl-123/10 H Anderson J.M 2 21.3- 8- 43- 7 W 86 0788 1976 Eng Ind-122/10 A Lever J.K 2 23.0- 6- 46- 7 W 94 0424 1956 Win Nzl-157/ 9 A Atkinson D.S.t.E S 3 40.0-21- 53- 7 * 95 1804 2006 Slk Eng-190/10 A Muralitharan M S 4 30.0-11- 70- 8 W 106 0323 1950 Win Eng-312/10 A Valentine A.L S 1 50.0-14-104- 8 * 110 0765 1975 Win Aus-169/10 A Roberts A.M.E 3 18.4- 3- 54- 7 W 115 1377 1997 Aus Eng-180/10 A McGrath G.D 1 21.0- 4- 76- 7 * 115 0039 1893 Eng Aus-269/10 H Lockwood W.H 2 37.3-11-101- 6 = 119 1443 1999 Ind Pak-207/10 H Kumble A S 4 26.3- 9- 74-10 W 119 0754 1975 Eng Aus-304/10 A Underwood D.L S 1 38.4- 3-113- 7 * 122 1583 2002 Slk Zim-236/10 H Muralitharan M S 1 40.0-19- 51- 9 W 130 0083 1905 Eng Aus-188/10 H Bosanquet B.J.T S 4 32.4- 2-107- 8 W 137 0990 1984 Eng Win-245/10 H Botham I.T 2 27.4- 6-103- 8 * 142 1029 1985 Nzl Aus-179/10 A Hadlee R.J 1 23.4- 4- 52- 9 W 144 1028 1985 Slk Pak-295/10 A de Mel A.L.F 2 22.0- 1-109- 6 * 156 0428 1956 Eng Aus-205/10 H Laker J.C S 3 51.2-23- 53-10 W 160 0975 1984 Nzl Eng-463/10 H Cairns B.L 2 45.0-10-143- 7 = 239 1110 1988 Aus Win-349/ 9 H Hughes M.G 3 37.0- 9- 87- 8 * 247 1513 2000 Pak Eng-480/ 8 H Saqlain Mushtaq S 1 74.0-20-164- 8 = 288 0913 1981 Aus Pak-500/ 8 H Yardley B S 1 66.0-16-187- 7 * 388 0235 1934 Aus Eng-627/ 9 A O'Reilly W.J S 1 59.0- 9-189- 7 = 404

This table has been ordered by the aggregate of runs scored by the top six batsmen dismissed by the bowler. This is an indication of the mayhem which was caused by the bowler. Gillespie's decimation of the West Indian top order, including Brian Lara, reads like this: 6, 0, 4, 0, 4, 0. Looks like a telephone number or a T20 over. See how far ahead Gillespie is of McGrath, whose numbers are 9, 1, 17, 27, 1, 0. Spare a thought for O'Reilly, who was first in the previous classification and is now last. The top six English batsmen scored 52, 63, 0, 4, 132, 153.
Now the bowlers who out-performed their compatriots hundreds of times, okay by more than 12.5 times.
5. Bowling out-performers: many times the rest of the team

MtId Year For Vs Score HA Bowler BT I <--Analysis--> R BAvg TAvg Ratio 1630 2002 Win Bng- 87/10 A Lawson J.J.C 3 6.5- 4- 3- 6 W 0.5 18.2 36.5 1720 2004 Aus Ind-205/10 A Clarke M.J S 3 6.2- 0- 9- 6 * 1.5 48.0 32.0 0290 1947 Aus Ind- 58/10 H Toshack E.R.H 2 3.1- 1- 2- 5 W 0.4 10.8 27.0 0799 1977 Win Pak-180/10 H Croft C.E.H 1 18.5- 7- 29- 8 W 3.6 68.0 18.8 0348 1952 Ind Eng-266/10 H Mankad M.H S 1 38.5-15- 55- 8 W 6.9 100.0 14.5 0527 1962 Win Ind-187/10 H Gibbs L.R S 3 53.3-37- 38- 8 W 4.8 67.5 14.2 1210 1993 Aus Win-146/10 H May T.B.A S 3 6.5- 3- 9- 5 * 1.8 24.6 13.7 0294 1948 Aus Ind-277/10 H Lindwall R.R 3 22.1- 4- 38- 7 W 5.4 72.3 13.3 1899 2008 Aus Saf-281/10 H Johnson M.G 2 24.0- 4- 61- 8 * 7.6 101.5 13.3 0781 1976 Win Eng-435/10 A Holding M.A 2 33.0- 9- 92- 8 W 11.5 151.5 13.2 0047 1896 Eng Saf- 30/10 A Lohmann G.A 4 8.1- 5- 7- 8 W 0.9 11.5 13.1 0823 1978 Win Aus-290/10 H Holder V.A 2 13.0- 4- 28- 6 W 4.7 61.2 13.1 1275 1994 Aus Eng-323/10 H Warne S.K S 4 50.2-22- 71- 8 W 8.9 113.0 12.7 0129 1912 Aus Eng-175/10 A Hazlitt G.R S 3 21.4- 8- 25- 7 * 3.6 45.0 12.6 0743 1974 Eng Pak-226/10 H Underwood D.L S 3 34.5-17- 51- 8 = 6.4 80.0 12.5

Jermaine Lawson's 6 for 3 had an average of 0.5. His fellow bowlers captured 4 for 73 and the out-performance ratio is a whopping 36.5. Clarke's equally amazing 6 for 9 had an out-performer ratio of 32.0 and Ernie Toshack's unbelievable spell of 5 for 2 against India, ended with a ratio of 27.0. These three are bizarre performances. Colin Croft's is a genuine case of out-performance. 8 for 29 against 2 for 136, resulting in a ratio of 18.8. Mankad, the peerless Indian all-rounder captured 8 for 55 against 2 for 200. Shane Warne's 8 for 71 against 2 for 226 is an all-time classic. One would have expected Muralitharan present in this table. However he appears quite a few times in earlier tables but not in this one.
Next is an important variation of the top order wicket captures.
6. Based on difference between batting average and runs scored

MtId Year For Vs Score HA Bowler BT I <--Analysis--> R T7W Diff Avg 1906 2009 Win Eng- 51/10 H Taylor J.E 3 9.0- 4- 11- 5 W 5 216 43.3 1756 2005 Aus Eng-155/10 A McGrath G.D 2 18.0- 5- 53- 5 W 5 193 38.6 1971 2010 Pak Eng-446/10 A Mohammad Aamer 1 28.0- 6- 84- 6 * 5 190 38.0 1974 2010 Nzl Ind-266/10 A Martin C.S 3 27.0- 8- 63- 5 = 5 190 38.0 2016 2011 Aus Saf- 96/10 A Watson S.R 2 5.0- 2- 17- 5 * 5 183 36.6 1931 2009 Eng Aus-160/10 H Broad S.C.J 2 12.0- 1- 37- 5 W 5 179 35.8 0652 1969 Nzl Win-417/10 H Motz R.C 1 36.0- 3-113- 5 = 5 177 35.3 1615 2002 Pak Aus-127/10 A Shoaib Akhtar 3 8.0- 2- 21- 5 * 4 181 45.3 0755 1975 Eng Aus-152/10 A Lever P 1 14.4- 2- 38- 6 W 4 175 43.8 1278 1994 Win Ind-114/10 A Benjamin K.C.G 4 17.0- 3- 65- 5 W 4 171 42.8 1104 1988 Pak Aus-165/10 H Iqbal Qasim S 2 39.0-24- 35- 5 W 4 166 41.6 0303 1948 Eng Aus-389/10 H Hollies W.E S 2 56.0-14-131- 5 * 4 165 41.3 0255 1936 Eng Aus- 58/10 A Allen G.O.B 4 8.0- 0- 36- 5 W 4 164 41.0 1823 2006 Ind Saf- 84/10 A Sreesanth S 2 10.0- 3- 40- 5 W 4 163 40.7

This is based on the dismissals of top-7 batsmen. The bowlers who captured at least 4 wickets are considered. For each such bowler, I have compiled the sum of the difference between the batting average and the runs scored by the batsman. This has been averaged and we get the notional runs saved. This table lists the bowlers whose average runs saved value is greater than 35/40 depending on whether the bowler captured 5/4 wickets. Jerome Taylor's once-in-a-lifetime effort of 5 for 15 is on top. He dismissed Strauss (9), Cook (0), Pietersen (1), Collingwood (1) and Prior (0). The total batting average of these five batsmen was 227.5 and the saved runs average worked out to 43.3.
McGrath captured the wickets of Trescothick (4), Strauss (2), Vaughan (3), Bell (6) and Flintoff (0). The total of batting averages for these five comes to 208, leading to a runs saved value of 38.6. Shoaib Akhtar dismissed Ponting (7), M.Waugh( (0), S.Waugh (0) and Gilchrist (5). The total batting average was 192.5, leading to a runs saved value of 45.3. Shoaib Akhtar's and McGrath's performances were also away.
Martin's was during the 15 for 5 debacle of India and Watson's was on that manic November Thursday at Newlands.
Let us now look at bowling performances in bat-fests. The match RpW value here applies to the top-7 batsmen only.
7. Bowling performances in matches with high RpW values: > 50.0

MtId Year For Vs Score HA Bowler BT I <--Analysis--> R MatRpW 0781 1976 Win Eng-435/10 A Holding M.A 2 33.0- 9- 92- 8 W 50.2 1680 2004 Ind Aus-474/10 A Kumble A S 2 46.5- 7-141- 8 = 60.2 0416 1955 Ind Nzl-326/10 H Gupte S.P S 2 76.4-35-128- 7 = 54.5 0564 1964 Aus Eng-611/10 A McKenzie G.D 2 60.0-15-153- 7 = 66.9 0235 1934 Aus Eng-627/ 9 A O'Reilly W.J S 1 59.0- 9-189- 7 = 54.5 1981 2010 Aus Eng-260/10 H Siddle P.M S 1 16.0- 3- 54- 6 = 52.5 0781 1976 Win Eng-203/10 A Holding M.A 4 20.4- 6- 57- 6 W 50.2 0404 1955 Aus Win-382/10 A Lindwall R.R 1 24.5- 3- 95- 6 = 52.3 1981 2010 Eng Aus-481/10 A Finn S.T 2 33.4- 1-125- 6 = 52.5 1831 2007 Eng Win-437/10 H Panesar M.S S 2 36.1- 3-129- 6 = 50.5 1810 2006 Slk Saf-434/10 H Muralitharan M S 3 64.0-11-131- 6 W 52.3 1912 2009 Pak Slk-606/10 H Umar Gul 1 37.0- 2-135- 6 = 59.7 0450 1958 Win Pak-328/10 H Atkinson E.S.t.E 1 21.0- 7- 42- 5 W 56.2 0274 1939 Win Eng-352/10 A Constantine L.N 1 23.1- 2- 75- 5 = 50.7 1681 2004 Saf Win-427/10 H Nel A 2 28.1- 8- 87- 5 = 53.2 1816 2006 Win Pak-357/10 A Taylor J.E 1 26.0- 6- 91- 5 = 50.3 1303 1995 Win Eng-454/10 A Ambrose C.E.L 1 42.0-10- 96- 5 = 59.5 1034 1986 Ind Aus-396/10 A Yadav N.S S 2 62.3-21- 99- 5 = 53.1 0271 1939 Eng Saf-530/10 A Perks R.T.D 1 54.4- 5-100- 5 = 56.6 1891 2008 Ind Aus-577/10 H Sehwag V S 2 40.0- 9-104- 5 = 52.9 1148 1990 Eng Ind-454/10 H Fraser A.R.C 2 39.1- 9-104- 5 W 51.7 1614 2002 Ind Eng-515/10 A Harbhajan Singh S 1 38.4- 6-115- 5 = 51.7 0744 1974 Pak Eng-545/10 A Intikhab Alam S 2 51.4-14-116- 5 = 53.9 1850 2007 Ind Pak-456/10 H Harbhajan Singh S 2 45.5- 9-122- 5 = 54.4 1911 2009 Eng Win-749/ 9 A Swann G.P 2 50.4- 8-165- 5 = 81.4

These are heart-breakers. However most of these performances have been in drawn matches, as the qualification criteria suggests. The stand-out performance is Michael Holding's 8 for 92 and 6 for 57 on an Oval shirt-front pitch, possibly the greatest match bowling performance ever. He, almost certainly more than Viv Richards, was responsible for the fine West Indian win. Harbhajan Singh has held his own on the flat wickets twice, the only bowler to do so, other than Holding. Virender Sehwag is an unlikely name in this table. Now for a unique table. I would not spoil the fun. Pl see the table.
8. They captured 5 and only 5 wickets: but nos 7 to 11

MtId Year For Vs Score HA Bowler BT I <--Analysis--> R 1508 2000 Eng Win- 61/10 H Caddick A.R 3 11.2- 5- 14- 5 W 1432 1998 Pak Zim-183/10 H Saqlain Mushtaq S 1 13.5- 3- 32- 5 = 1431 1998 Aus Eng-191/10 H Gillespie J.N 3 15.2- 2- 88- 5 W 0949 1983 Win Ind-174/10 H Roberts A.M.E 3 24.3- 9- 39- 5 W 0608 1966 Win Eng-240/10 A Sobers G.St.A 2 19.3- 4- 41- 5 W Other fifers 1755 2005 Slk Win-113/10 H Muralitharan M S 3 21.0- 8- 36- 6 W 1504 2000 Slk Saf-269/10 H Muralitharan M S 3 35.0- 5- 84- 7 W 1423 1998 Slk Eng-445/10 A Muralitharan M S 1 59.3-14-155- 7 W 1175 1991 Eng Win-176/10 H Tufnell P.C.R S 2 14.3- 3- 25- 6 W 1058 1986 Pak Win-211/10 H Imran Khan 3 22.3- 2- 46- 6 = 1040 1986 Nzl Aus-103/10 H Bracewell J.G S 3 22.0- 8- 32- 6 W 0986 1984 Aus Win-509/10 A Hogg R.M 2 32.4- 4- 77- 6 * 0947 1983 Ind Pak-323/10 A Kapil Dev N 1 30.5- 7- 85- 8 = 0877 1980 Win Nzl-305/10 A Garner J 2 36.2-15- 56- 6 = 0725 1973 Win Eng-255/10 A Boyce K.D 4 21.1- 4- 77- 6 W 0703 1972 Ind Eng-200/10 H Chandrasekhar B. S 2 41.5-18- 79- 8 * 0463 1959 Win Ind-154/10 A Gilchrist R 3 21.0- 7- 55- 6 W 0436 1957 Saf Eng-254/10 H Tayfield H.J S 3 50.3-14- 69- 8 = 0250 1936 Aus Saf- 98/10 A Grimmett C.V S 3 19.5- 9- 40- 7 W 0075 1902 Saf Aus-296/10 H Llewellyn C.B 2 22.0- 3- 92- 6 =

These bowlers captured fifers, no doubt. But they also captured the LAST five wickets. And, to boot, these were the ONLY 5 wickets captured by the first five them. Don't think it is easy to do that. Some other bowler could spoil the fun. One batsman could remain not out. Everything has to work. This leaves us with just 5 bowlers, almost all of recent vintage. It is ironic that Gillespie appears at the top of the top-6 wickets list and also here. If I did not have the ONLY 5 wickets criteria, there are quite a few, 20 in all, who fit in. However these other 13 bowlers have had the satisfaction of capturing one or more top order wickets. Muralitharan appears thrice here indicating the way he dominated the late order batting.
Now for those who toiled for hours on end. These are fifers in innings of 600+ runs.
9. Bowling on and on and on ... in 600+ innings

MtId Year For Vs Score HA Bowler BT I <--Analysis--> R 0193 1930 Win Eng-849/10 H Scott O.C S 1 80.2-13-266- 5 = 0198 1930 Eng Aus-695/10 H Peebles I.A.R S 2 71.0- 8-204- 6 * 0740 1974 Ind Eng-629/10 A Bedi B.S S 1 64.2- 8-226- 6 * 0564 1964 Aus Eng-611/10 A McKenzie G.D 2 60.0-15-153- 7 = 0235 1934 Aus Eng-627/ 9 A O'Reilly W.J S 1 59.0- 9-189- 7 = 0279 1946 Eng Aus-645/10 A Wright D.V.P S 1 58.2- 4-167- 5 * 1911 2009 Eng Win-749/ 9 A Swann G.P 2 50.4- 8-165- 5 = 0970 1983 Aus Pak-624/10 H Lillee D.K 2 50.2- 8-171- 6 = 0851 1979 Ind Eng-633/ 5 A Kapil Dev N 1 48.0-15-146- 5 * 1079 1987 Eng Pak-708/10 H Dilley G.R 1 47.3-10-154- 6 = 0645 1969 Aus Win-616/10 H Connolly A.N 3 45.2- 7-122- 5 = 1852 2007 Pak Ind-626/10 A Yasir Arafat 1 39.0- 5-161- 5 = 0945 1983 Ind Pak-652/10 A Kapil Dev N 2 38.4- 3-220- 7 * 0259 1937 Eng Aus-604/10 A Farnes K 1 38.1- 5- 96- 6 * 1912 2009 Pak Slk-606/10 H Umar Gul 1 37.0- 2-135- 6 = 1935 2009 Slk Ind-642/10 A Herath HMRKB S 1 33.0- 2-121- 5 * 0989 1984 Eng Win-606/10 H Pringle D.R 2 31.0- 5-108- 5 * 0304 1948 Ind Win-631/10 H Rangachari C.R 1 29.4- 4-107- 5 =

This table is ordered by balls bowled. Scott bowled a third of the team overs. Lucky he got a couple of wickets in the end. Peculiar match. A timeless Test, which was drawn, by agreement. West Indies fall behind by 577 runs and England bat again. Then Headley's famous 223 saves the match. 9 days, and no result. A follow-on and they might very well have won by an innings. I know Shri might have something to say: but strange captaincy by Hon.FSG Calthorpe, the lone "gentleman" in the team. Over 9 days, he scored 13, bowled 4 overs and batted when he should have bowled. Commendable are McKenzie and Kapil Dev who captured 7 wickets amongst the batting mayhem although Kapil went for nearly 6 runs per over, thanks to four Pakistani centuries. Also noteworthy is Farnes' capturing 6 for 96 out of a 600+ total.
Now for some nice alternate tables. First is the one where the bowlers have been very economical.
10. 5-wkt bowling performances with RpO less than 1.0

MtId Year For Vs Score HA Bowler BT I <--Analysis--> R RpO 0527 1962 Win Ind-187/10 H Gibbs L.R S 3 53.3-37- 38- 8 W 0.71 0212 1931 Aus Saf-170/10 H Ironmonger H 2 47.0-29- 42- 5 W 0.89 0413 1955 Pak Nzl-124/10 H Zulfiqar Ahmed S 3 46.3-21- 42- 6 W 0.90 0479 1959 Aus Pak-134/10 A Mackay K.D 3 45.0-27- 42- 6 W 0.93 1104 1988 Pak Aus-165/10 H Iqbal Qasim S 2 39.0-24- 35- 5 W 0.90 0413 1955 Pak Nzl-164/10 H Zulfiqar Ahmed S 1 37.2-19- 37- 5 W 0.99 0785 1976 Ind Nzl-141/10 H Bedi B.S S 4 33.0-18- 27- 5 W 0.82 1113 1989 Win Aus-401/10 A Marshall M.D 2 31.0-16- 29- 5 * 0.94 0025 1887 Eng Aus- 97/10 A Barnes W 4 30.4-29- 28- 6 W 0.91 1394 1998 Slk Zim-140/10 H Muralitharan M S 2 29.0-18- 23- 5 W 0.79 0277 1946 Eng Ind-170/10 H Pollard R 2 27.0-16- 24- 5 = 0.89 0593 1965 Eng Nzl-166/10 H Titmus F.J S 3 26.0-17- 19- 5 W 0.73 0456 1958 Eng Nzl- 67/10 H Laker J.C S 1 22.0-11- 17- 5 W 0.77 0707 1973 Aus Pak-106/10 H Walker M.H.N 4 21.2- 8- 15- 6 W 0.70 0250 1936 Aus Saf-157/10 A O'Reilly W.J S 1 21.0-11- 20- 5 W 0.95 0434 1956 Eng Saf- 72/10 A Bailey T.E 4 20.4- 6- 20- 5 W 0.97 0009 1882 Eng Aus- 63/10 H Barlow R.G 1 20.4-22- 19- 5 * 0.92 1516 2000 Aus Win- 82/10 H McGrath G.D 1 20.0-12- 17- 6 W 0.85 0381 1954 Saf Nzl- 79/10 H Tayfield H.J S 2 18.4- 7- 13- 6 W 0.70 1156 1990 Ind Slk- 82/10 H Raju S.L.V S 2 17.5-13- 12- 6 W 0.67 0681 1971 Eng Nzl- 65/10 A Underwood D.L S 1 15.4- 7- 12- 6 W 0.77 0212 1931 Aus Saf-117/10 H Wall T.W 3 15.1- 7- 14- 5 W 0.92 0906 1981 Eng Aus-121/10 H Botham I.T 4 14.0- 9- 11- 5 W 0.79 1687 2004 Eng Win- 47/10 A Harmison S.J 3 12.3- 8- 12- 7 W 0.96 0047 1896 Eng Saf- 30/10 A Lohmann G.A 4 8.1- 5- 7- 8 W 0.86 0216 1932 Aus Saf- 36/10 H Ironmonger H 1 7.2- 5- 6- 5 W 0.82 1630 2002 Win Bng- 87/10 A Lawson J.J.C 3 6.5- 4- 3- 6 W 0.44 0290 1947 Aus Ind- 58/10 H Toshack E.R.H 2 3.1- 1- 2- 5 W 0.63

These are matches in which the number of overs bowled are greater than the number of runs conceded. This is ordered by the number of overs bowled. The table is led by Gibbs who had a RpO value of 0.71 while bowling 53 overs and capturing 8 wickets. Is it is possible today ? Look at Marshall's performance, the stand-out one amongst this lot. Out of an Australian total of 401, he captures 5 for 29, at an RpO of 0.94, while his compatriots capture 5 for 338, at an RpO figure of 2.1. In fact he just misses out on the out-performer table, with a ratio of 11.7. Lohmann's 8 for 7 has appeared in various tables. Only point of question would be the dicey quality of South African batting and the minefields he bowled on. Now for the final table in this first part article. The two extreme sets of fifers.
11. The two extremes of 5-wkt bowling performances

MtId Year For Vs Score HA Bowler BT I <--Analysis--> R 0193 1930 Win Eng-849/10 H Scott O.C S 1 80.2-13-266- 5 = 0371 1953 Ind Win-576/10 A Mankad M.H S 2 82.0-17-228- 5 = 0740 1974 Ind Eng-629/10 A Bedi B.S S 1 64.2- 8-226- 6 * 0945 1983 Ind Pak-652/10 A Kapil Dev N 2 38.4- 3-220- 7 * 1892 2008 Aus Ind-441/10 A Krejza J.J 1 43.5- 1-215- 8 * 1336 1996 Zim Pak-553/10 A Strang P.A S 2 69.0-12-212- 5 = 0198 1930 Eng Aus-695/10 H Peebles I.A.R S 2 71.0- 8-204- 6 * 0503 1961 Pak Ind-539/ 9 A Haseeb Ahsan S 2 84.0-19-202- 6 = ... ... ... 1720 2004 Aus Ind-205/10 A Clarke M.J S 3 6.2- 0- 9- 6 * 1210 1993 Aus Win-146/10 H May T.B.A S 3 6.5- 3- 9- 5 * 0047 1896 Eng Saf- 30/10 A Lohmann G.A 4 8.1- 5- 7- 8 W 0153 1924 Eng Saf- 30/10 H Gilligan A.E.R 2 6.3- 4- 7- 6 W 0216 1932 Aus Saf- 36/10 H Ironmonger H 1 7.2- 5- 6- 5 W 1630 2002 Win Bng- 87/10 A Lawson J.J.C 3 6.5- 4- 3- 6 W 0290 1947 Aus Ind- 58/10 H Toshack E.R.H 2 3.1- 1- 2- 5 W

This is the one table which contains the two ends of the bowling spectrum. Fifers for 200 runs and above and fifers for 10 runs and below. Most of these bowlers have already appeared in the earlier tables and this is just a different classification. Spare a thought for poor Krejza. On debut he toils hard with a 8-for-million performance and then is forgotten. Barring table 8, which points to a slightly negative aspect of bowlers, in which Muralitharan appears three times, he has appeared 10 times in the other 11 tables. This may not be conclusive but is a pointer to the range and depth of his bowling achievements. Lohmann, no surprise, appears 8 times. Signs of the times he bowled in. Two bowlers, contrasting in their teams' strengths, McGrath and Kapil, appear 7 times each. Wasim and Waqar appear very few times. That is a sign of the way they shared the spoils.

Wednesday 9 November 2011

Fundamental point of cricket

Isolated to its most fundamental point, cricket could be described as the duel between a bowler tempting a batsman to drive and a batsman trying to ignore that temptation.

Thursday 21 July 2011

On Test Cricket

Ave Test cricket

Many premature reports of its death later, the five-day game still stands, a byword for excellence in an era that encourages, and even worships, mass mediocrity

Gideon Haigh

June 21, 2011

Say what? You start about 11am and go till around 6pm, right? Why? Oh, never mind…

You break for lunch? And for afternoon tea? You play in the open air, so that rain and darkness can ruin everything? And you play for five days and still might not get a result?

Look, no offence, fella, but it will never catch on. You have to understand: we're too time poor, we're too attention-challenged, there aren't enough sixes, there isn't enough colour, you can't squeeze it into a tweet. I think you have to face it: sports marketing isn't for you. Have you considered a career weaving baskets?

The Test match, eh? Not even Lalit Modi could sell it. Fortunately he doesn't have to. Here we stand on the brink of the 2000th, and frankly the prospect could hardly be more mouth-watering. Tendulkar at Lord's? No dancing girls required here; no cricketainment necessary.

Cricket spaced 803 Tests over its first century, meaning that 1197 have been shoehorned into the 34 years since, despite more than 3100 one-day internationals having been wedged in over the same period. But there don't seem too many Tests; arguably there are too few, even if this is probably better than a surfeit.

Not everything is rosy in the garden, of course. During their recent series in the Caribbean, West Indies and Pakistan looked like schoolboys trying to solve differential equations by counting on their fingers, so technically and temperamentally ill-suited were they to the rigours of five-day cricket. But the essence of a Test is that some must fail. Identifying inadequacy helps us recognise excellence.

In an age in which it has been deemed obsolete countless times, the Test match somehow sails on, not so much a mighty ship of state any more as a reconditioned windjammer - not the fastest thing around, but somehow the lovelier for that. Administrators busily infatuated with cricketainment have rather neglected it of late - no bad thing, really, given the damage administrators do without trying.

Players, praise be, still value it. You could feel the joy in England's cricket this last Australian summer. You could see a couple of weeks ago how much runs at Lord's mattered to Tillakaratne Dilshan. And some days just sweep you away, like the last in Cardiff, where four days of slumber preluded a fifth of nightmares. Test matches do loudquietloud better than the Pixies.

Test matches survived a nasty brush with malpractice last year, better than seemed possible at the time; India's No. 1 status has been a boon for interest and relevance; Australia's decline probably has, too, in addition to representing a stern cautionary tale, a punishment for hubris. For what a falling-off is here. England might have invented cricket, but it was Australia that more or less invented the Test match, as a literal "test" of its prowess, as an expression of rivalry and fealty.

The origins of Test cricket lie in the primordial ooze that was early Anglo-Australian competition. There was then no structure, no schedule, no over-arching organising body - just an interest in settling who was better, and let it be said, making a few quid. The Marylebone Cricket Club would not come along with its ideas of fostering the bonds of empire until early in the 20th century; likewise there was no notion of providing for the rest of the game out of the profits on Test matches until the advent of the Australian Board of Control for International Cricket in 1905. The first 30 years of Test cricket are in the main the work of private entrepreneurs, jobbing professionals and local officials, all busily making up the rules as they went along.

The edge in competition mattered to the English, but to Australians it always mattered that little bit more. So it is that cricket owes an unacknowledged debt to the Adelaide sports journalist Clarence Moody, who wrote under the pseudonym "Point" in the South Australian Register. As a kind of five-finger exercise, Moody set out in a section of his book South Australian Cricket (1898) a list of what he regarded as the "Test matches" played to that time. Moody was hard to impress. He must have been tempted, out of national pride, to instate Australia's 1878 defeat of MCC at Lord's, honouring Spofforth's 10 wickets for 20, but on Australia's inaugural tour of England he decided that no Tests had been played; nor would he recognise the games played against "Combined XIs" by the rival English touring teams of 1887-88. Perhaps because he was so discriminate, and also in the absence of anything better, the list became canonical.

The other aid in the propagation of the Test match was, strange to say in an era that regards it as staid and unchanging, its pliability. Draw what inferences you will about the national characteristics they reflect, but the English preferred their Test matches to last three days, in order to minimise interference with the County Championship, while Australians insisted on a result, and cared not how long it took to obtain. All cricket down under was timeless, in fact: the first Test of the 1886-87 series, for example, actually began at 1.45pm after the completion earlier that day of the Victoria-New South Wales intercolonial match. When Sydney's gift to Somerset, Sammy Woods, originated his oft-quoted mot about draw(er)s being useful only for bathing, he was expressing a national, not just a personal, partiality.

The Test match resisted standardisation, furthermore, well into its evolution. Only after more than a century was the five-day format made entirely uniform; only in the last quarter-century have 90 overs in a day been the enforced minimum. And while ICC playing conditions make certain stipulations about arena dimensions, cricket in general has unconsciously preserved a pre-modern variety in the specifications of its grounds - a reminder of cricket's bucolic origins that Test cricket in its unregulated early development helped preserve.

Well established after half a century - no, nothing about this game happens in a hurry - Test cricket then took its other seminal step. Two Imperial Cricket Conferences at Lord's in 1926 agreed to England's exchange of visits with West Indies, New Zealand and India - a remarkable, seemingly unconscious expansion of the game on the stroke of a pen and a handshake or two. Had the step been contemplated twice, it may not have happened; as it was, cricket began an imperceptibly slow tilt from its Anglo-Australian axis.

What is sometimes ignored in the modern relativist custom of embracing cricket's "three forms", in fact, is that cricket owes the Test match everything. The one-day international was born into the global estate Test cricket created, like an heir with all the advantages; Twenty20 has come along in the last five years like the proverbial third-generation thickhead with a silver spoon sense of entitlement, good for nothing but money. Its future, moreover, will depend on the degree to which cricket can be preserved as something other than a scam for sharkskin-suited spivs and third-rate politicians.

One of the several ways in which cricket has been turned topsy-turvy in recent times is that after a hundred and more years as a bastion of conservatism, the sanctum sanctorum of the establishment, the Test match is the rebel game: uncompromising, unpredictable, ineffably appealing, immutably long, difficult to understand, resistant to commodification, and apparently unfriendly to the young, or at least to the condescending conception of the young as too dumb for anything but the bleeding obvious.

Here it stands, plumb in the way of the marketers and money men who see their role as sucking up to people who don't like cricket, and quite probably never will. Here it stands, relentless in its demands on players for excellence in an era that encourages, and even worships, mass mediocrity. Here it stands, kept alive by a love of the game that can't be bought, or feigned, or mimicked, or manufactured. Want to be the man? Want to fight the power? Celebrate Test cricket.

Gideon Haigh is a cricket historian and writer

Feeds: Gideon Haigh

Test cricket - a primal contest

The primal contest

The game's essential match-up, of batsman against bowler, finds its best expression in Test cricket

Peter Roebuck

Cricket is a contest between bat and ball, a struggle that reaches its highest form in the Test arena. In most games the players are attempting the same skills and the result depends on the quality of the execution. Boxers and tennis players land the same sorts of blows, play the same type of shots. In cricket, as in baseball, the teams have the same aim but the process involves a primeval battle between batsman and bowler.

It is a confrontation between prey and predator, collector and hunter, reason and fury. Both sides strive with every power at their disposal to emerge triumphant. At first the bowler presses for a quick kill, for he knows his opponent is at his most vulnerable before he has settled. If the batsman survives his period of reconnoitering, his opponent might change his strategy, play a waiting game, set a trap, seek an opening, probe for weakness, mental or technical, or else invite his rival to reach too far. Victory alone matters and it can be attained by means slow or swift, fair or foul.

For his part the batsman strives to calm his nerves and become accustomed to light and pitch and ball. He tries to take his time and to give no hint of shakiness, even as the elephants dance in his belly. Most likely he will endeavour to play a tried and trusted game honed over the years. Every innings is different, though, and no bowler is quite the same, so the willow wielder needs to have his wits about him.

The attack might include a tearaway, a crafty veteran, an innocent-looking swinger, a mean fingerspinner, and a wristy one, capable of giving both ball and bottle a fearful rip. By and large all of them will fulfill their caricature. At the lower levels the aged chap is the one to watch. Bowlers learn a thing or two as they go along. Hence the saying, "Never underestimate a grey-haired bowler."

Not that a fellow ever learns that lesson. One of the delights of cricket is that even experienced and supposedly intelligent players keep making the same mistakes and keep berating themselves with the same curses. Pitted against a touring Australian side not so long ago, I managed to survive the opening onslaught and then licked my lips as the ball was thrown to a creaking purveyor of slow curlers. Too late I realised that the accursed pensioner was not as guileless as he seemed, and that his deliveries were not so much easy meat as poisoned chalice. By then the trudge back to that place of eternal wisdom and endless regret, the dressing room, was well underway.

Ordinarily the batsman will begin to widen his range of shots once established at the crease. It is not always a conscious decision. As often as not, the change of tempo happens of its own accord. Confidence, a tiring attack and frustration can combine to hasten the flow of runs. Unless the field is pushed back, innings advance in fits and starts. Placement, too, is less common than supposed. Batsmen might manoeuvre the ball into a gap or loft into empty spaces, but piercing the field with a full-blooded shot usually depends as much on luck as skill.

Of course batsmen and bowlers sometimes switch sides. Then the batsman becomes the predator, attacking from the outset and so changing the course of the contest. Even opening batsmen have become audacious. Previously the movement of the ball and a wider insecurity caused by Depressions and wars dampened ardour. Charlie Macartney, an incorrigible Australian (that might be repetitive), was an exception. By his reckoning an opener ought to dispatch a drive back at the bowler's head at the first opportunity, thereby informing him that he was in for a proper scrap. Nowadays the spread of briefer formats, the dryness of the pitches and the mood of the era encourage early attempts to seize the initiative.

Test cricket provides the opportunity for every player to express his talents to the utmost. Whereas the one-day game, to some degree, dictates terms to those taking part, limiting their overs, reducing their time at the crease, influencing field placements and bowling changes, a five-day match is as liberating as it is daunting.

Unsurprisingly the most compelling exchanges between bat and ball take place in the Test arena. Here the greatest players of the era are given the chance to try their luck against their equivalents, and the freedom to score 200 or a duck, take 10 wickets or concede a stack of runs without reward.

Bowlers, especially, relish the opportunity to prove their worth. At last they can set their own fields anyhow - so long as they don't copy Douglas Jardine - and bowl as many overs as captain and body allow. Inevitably the leading practitioners have produced their best work in this environment, constructing dazzling, tormenting spells that linger as long in the memory as the brilliant innings played by their temporary foes. Along the way they have reminded observers that bowling can be as rewarding as batting, and a lot more destructive.

Every cricket enthusiast will recall occasions when bowlers surpassed themselves. Michael Holding's stint at The Oval in 1976 was unforgettable. At once he was graceful and mesmerising, not so much running to the crease as gliding to it. Head upright, shoulders swaying slightly, toes barely touching the grass, he gathered himself at delivery and without apparent effort sent down thunderbolts that contained the charm of the antelope and the wrath of a vengeful god. Stumps kept toppling over like skittles and shaken batsmen came and went, knowing they had been undone by an irresistible force.

Richard Hadlee's performance in Brisbane was more surgical than stunning. Operating off a seasoned run, summoning formidable expertise, cutting the ball around off a track that helped him a little and others not at all, he worked his way through the local order. Even by his precise standards it was a tour de force. Like so many of the best spells, too, the wicket-taking deliveries were defined not so much by their deadliness as by the company they kept. Superb batsmen were harried and humiliated into error. The Kiwi did not bruise a single body but he damaged many egos.

Wasim Akram's virtuoso display at the MCG stands out because he had the ball upon a string, made it bend both ways at a scintillating pace and left accomplished batsmen gasping and groping. It's hard enough countering a bowler sending them down at 90mph and swinging it in one direction. When they start moving it both ways, it's downright unfair. Wasim streamed to the crease and with a gleam more mischievous than menacing, produced an astonishing spell.

Malcolm Marshall's most remarkable contribution came on a slow pitch at the SCG. West Indies had already won the series, and some suspected that the track had been prepared for the home spinners. Certainly West Indies were below their best. Amongst the flingers only Marshall rose to the challenge. Shortening his run, adjusting his length, he transformed himself from fearsome fast bowler to relentless, precise, probing swinger. And he kept at it for two days, even as the Australians piled on the runs. It was a thrilling, stunning piece of controlled, resourceful, pace bowling.

Among the modern masters, Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne stand apart. McGrath looked like a hillbilly and bowled like a scientist. He was consistent and accurate, controlled and masterful, nagging away, securing extra bounce and movement, relying on skill alone to remove batsmen. He worked his way through an order as a rodent does a hunk of cheese, constantly nibbling, taking it piece by piece. If Lord's, with its inviting slope and disconcerting ridge witnessed his deadliest spells, it was because it suited him better than any other surface. But McGrath's greatness was most clearly revealed in his hat-trick taken in Perth against West Indies. His dismissals of Sherwin Campbell, Brian Lara and Jimmy Adams were notable for the precision of his analysis, the coldness of the execution, and the degree of craft required and revealed in the space of three balls. McGrath's combination included a perfectly pitched outswinger to an opening batsman inclined to hang back, a cutter landing on the sticks that drew a worried response from a gifted left-hander, and a bumper that rose at the shoulder of a tormented captain. Every delivery was inch perfect.

Warne's stature was revealed in his first and final contributions to Ashes series in England. His genius was shown by that very first delivery, to Mike Gatting, even as his character was confirmed by the fact that he dared to try his hardest-spun and least reliable offering. Twelve years later he was back in the old dart and trying to win an Ashes series off his own back. His performance in claiming 40 scalps in that ill-fated campaign stands alongside any contribution from any spinner in the history of the game. Although his powers were in decline, Warne's mind remained sharp, his determination was unwavering and his stamina superb. It was an unyielding, magnificent performance from a sportsman blessed with artistry, audacity, grit and bluff.

Of course many other great bowlers and bowling feats could be mentioned. The sight of Jeff Thomson unleashing another thunderbolt, Bishan Bedi lulling opponents to their doom, Murali spinning the ball at right angles in his early years, Waqar changing games with his sudden sandshoe crushers, Mike Procter in full flight, Derek Underwood landing it on a threepenny, and so many others pass easily into the mists of time.

That bowling has a beauty of its own is proven by these expert practitioners. They were as big a draw card as any batsman. The buzz that went around grounds as Warne marked out his run, the hush as the fast bowler stood at the top of his run, reinforces the point. Test cricket brings out the best in batsmen and bowlers alike, allows the game to reach its highest point. Confrontations between the giants - Lillee and Richards, Marshall and Gavaskar, Warne and Tendulkar - can be as exhilarating and satisfying. Then spectators and players remember what it was that that drew them to the game in the first place, and why they remain somewhat under its spell.

Peter Roebuck is a former captain of Somerset and the author, most recently, of In It to Win It

Feeds: Peter Roebuck

Unpopular Opinion

Search This Blog