Swing Bowling
- Thread starter DoubleO7
- Start date
Re: Swing Bowling
Kallis and flintoff both genuinely swing the ball. And Sidebottom is also one who swings it this list goes on mate.
Unless of course you are one of those users who starts a thread and then when people put in their opinios you tear it to pieces.
DoubleO7;321096 said:
Kallis and flintoff both genuinely swing the ball. And Sidebottom is also one who swings it this list goes on mate.
Unless of course you are one of those users who starts a thread and then when people put in their opinios you tear it to pieces.
petersiddle09
New Member
Re: Swing Bowling
Zaheer Khan. He swings it. Steyn
Zaheer Khan. He swings it. Steyn
Re: Swing Bowling
I wish you would stop saying everyone is a 'dud'.
Anderson is far from a dud he was actually one of the better bowlers lat year.
Wicket wise Anderson was the 7th best bowler in the world last year. He picked up 46 wickets @ 29.84 that is far from being a dud.
He gets good pace and swing he is a good quality player.
DoubleO7;321112 said:
I wish you would stop saying everyone is a 'dud'.
Anderson is far from a dud he was actually one of the better bowlers lat year.
Wicket wise Anderson was the 7th best bowler in the world last year. He picked up 46 wickets @ 29.84 that is far from being a dud.
He gets good pace and swing he is a good quality player.
mas cambios
Active Member
Re: Swing Bowling
Anderson is a nightmare and his form over the past few tests has been shocking. The guy could/can be a very, very good test player but producing it one test out of six just isn't good enough.
As for the main point of this thread, well, it really depends on what you mean by swing bowling. Swing bowling is far from dead and is still used by a majority of top level bowlers, although it's normally only one weapon of many within their arsenal. Pace, bounce and seam movement combined with the ability to swing makes for a deadly bowler and one who can adapt to most conditions.
However, If you mean the old fashioned type of swing bowler, the likes of Gary Gilmour or any number of New Zealanders or English players (Neil Mallender, Bicknell, even Hoggard in his early days) down the years, then yes, they are a dying breed, at least in the international game. There are still countries that produce pitches or have grounds/conditions that are conducive to swing; these places normally results in the the odd 'horses for courses' selection taking place but it is becoming increasingly rare.
There is nothing wrong with this type of player, it's just that international cricket seemingly demands players who can consistently hit the mid 80mph mark and above. Swing is still utilised, lethal at 90mph but it may not be as pronounced as some of the guys who trundle in at 77mph and get banana curve.
Then again what is better, a ball moving 3 foot but at a pace which gives you time to adjust or one that is bowled at 90mph and moves just enough to nick the edge? It's why Mcgrath was so successful in some respects, he had just enough pace and often moved the ball just enough to nick the edge. On the other hand the likes of Wasim and Waqar were so dangerous because they were some of the rare players who could achieve that sort of exaggerated swing (normally associated with 'trundlers') at pace; their method of dismissal was often LBW or bowled which in itself speaks volumes.
New Zealand still have a few players of this nature (I'm thinking Mills, Gillespie maybe even O'Brien) but this is largely because the environment of NZ suits this type of bowler and it gives them an edge. Sidebottom is probably the only other high profile swinger but even he has added pace since he made his test début as a true 'swing bowler'.
Anderson is a nightmare and his form over the past few tests has been shocking. The guy could/can be a very, very good test player but producing it one test out of six just isn't good enough.
As for the main point of this thread, well, it really depends on what you mean by swing bowling. Swing bowling is far from dead and is still used by a majority of top level bowlers, although it's normally only one weapon of many within their arsenal. Pace, bounce and seam movement combined with the ability to swing makes for a deadly bowler and one who can adapt to most conditions.
However, If you mean the old fashioned type of swing bowler, the likes of Gary Gilmour or any number of New Zealanders or English players (Neil Mallender, Bicknell, even Hoggard in his early days) down the years, then yes, they are a dying breed, at least in the international game. There are still countries that produce pitches or have grounds/conditions that are conducive to swing; these places normally results in the the odd 'horses for courses' selection taking place but it is becoming increasingly rare.
There is nothing wrong with this type of player, it's just that international cricket seemingly demands players who can consistently hit the mid 80mph mark and above. Swing is still utilised, lethal at 90mph but it may not be as pronounced as some of the guys who trundle in at 77mph and get banana curve.
Then again what is better, a ball moving 3 foot but at a pace which gives you time to adjust or one that is bowled at 90mph and moves just enough to nick the edge? It's why Mcgrath was so successful in some respects, he had just enough pace and often moved the ball just enough to nick the edge. On the other hand the likes of Wasim and Waqar were so dangerous because they were some of the rare players who could achieve that sort of exaggerated swing (normally associated with 'trundlers') at pace; their method of dismissal was often LBW or bowled which in itself speaks volumes.
New Zealand still have a few players of this nature (I'm thinking Mills, Gillespie maybe even O'Brien) but this is largely because the environment of NZ suits this type of bowler and it gives them an edge. Sidebottom is probably the only other high profile swinger but even he has added pace since he made his test début as a true 'swing bowler'.
Re: Swing Bowling
Early in his career he was but lately he has been very consistent.
V New Zealand (may 2008)
5-73
2- 57
0-54
1-99
3-66
2-64
4-118
1-21
7-43
2-55
These are quite consistent picking up a bag of wickets.
V South Africa (july 2008)
1-36
2- 78
3-136
3-72
1-60
3-42
2-85
Once again quite consistent performances in this series.
So last year he was very consistent and that is why he had such a good year as I said he is definitley not a dud.
DoubleO7;321577 said:
Early in his career he was but lately he has been very consistent.
V New Zealand (may 2008)
5-73
2- 57
0-54
1-99
3-66
2-64
4-118
1-21
7-43
2-55
These are quite consistent picking up a bag of wickets.
V South Africa (july 2008)
1-36
2- 78
3-136
3-72
1-60
3-42
2-85
Once again quite consistent performances in this series.
So last year he was very consistent and that is why he had such a good year as I said he is definitley not a dud.
mas cambios
Active Member
Re: Swing Bowling
Trust me, stats show what you want them to show. Anderson is the definition of frustrating and a black and white listing of stats does not illustrate his actual performances.
He took well over 25% of his wickets in two innings, remove New Zealand from the equation and his average will shoot up to near 45 per wicket. Away from tests his average was a shade under 75 (10 wickets from 20 matches), shooting up to mind numbing 112 if you exclude games played at home (still leaving him averaging 50 at home though).
Take it from someone who folllows England when they tell you the guy is inconsistent. A dud, well the jury is out at the moment but frustrating gets a resounding yes. As they say, there are "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" .
Not all that new, been about for a fair while and I'm sure that Pakistan supporters would happily point you in the direction of the likes of Wasim and Waqar.
Is it more common than normal swing? Personally I wouldn't say so but it's effects are more dramatic and therefore will get the headlines. It's also useful in places where the ball will only swing briefly or in places not conducive to conventional swing as it, which again is why it hogs the headlines.
grapedo;321700 said:
Trust me, stats show what you want them to show. Anderson is the definition of frustrating and a black and white listing of stats does not illustrate his actual performances.
He took well over 25% of his wickets in two innings, remove New Zealand from the equation and his average will shoot up to near 45 per wicket. Away from tests his average was a shade under 75 (10 wickets from 20 matches), shooting up to mind numbing 112 if you exclude games played at home (still leaving him averaging 50 at home though).
Take it from someone who folllows England when they tell you the guy is inconsistent. A dud, well the jury is out at the moment but frustrating gets a resounding yes. As they say, there are "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" .
Mousey;321706 said:
Not all that new, been about for a fair while and I'm sure that Pakistan supporters would happily point you in the direction of the likes of Wasim and Waqar.
Is it more common than normal swing? Personally I wouldn't say so but it's effects are more dramatic and therefore will get the headlines. It's also useful in places where the ball will only swing briefly or in places not conducive to conventional swing as it, which again is why it hogs the headlines.
mas cambios
Active Member
Re: Swing Bowling
If that's directed at me, then it doesn't make a lot of sense. Nowhere have I said that he is incapable of winning a series, merely that he is frustratingly inconsistent. This is borne out time and time again if you actually analyse the matches and not just the scorecards.
When he is good, he is very good, likewise, when he is bad he's terrible. There can also be little dispute that he has talent but like Bell, his chances to fulfil that talent are running out.
Can he win the Ashes for England in the summer? Well, he needs to reclaim his spot in the starting XI to begin with and then get some overs under his belt. He then needs to put a string of consistent performances together over the whole of the 5 matches, something he's been largely unable to do to date.
Personally, I don't see him playing a pivotal role although I'm sure he'll make an appearance at some point. If I'm wrong, then great; I actually hope I'm proved wrong. Not only because the urn will be back in our hands, but also because it may mean that Anderson has finally cracked it and can lead our attack for a few years.
grapedo;321864 said:
If that's directed at me, then it doesn't make a lot of sense. Nowhere have I said that he is incapable of winning a series, merely that he is frustratingly inconsistent. This is borne out time and time again if you actually analyse the matches and not just the scorecards.
When he is good, he is very good, likewise, when he is bad he's terrible. There can also be little dispute that he has talent but like Bell, his chances to fulfil that talent are running out.
Can he win the Ashes for England in the summer? Well, he needs to reclaim his spot in the starting XI to begin with and then get some overs under his belt. He then needs to put a string of consistent performances together over the whole of the 5 matches, something he's been largely unable to do to date.
Personally, I don't see him playing a pivotal role although I'm sure he'll make an appearance at some point. If I'm wrong, then great; I actually hope I'm proved wrong. Not only because the urn will be back in our hands, but also because it may mean that Anderson has finally cracked it and can lead our attack for a few years.