The importance of wicket-taking bowlers and wicket-taking lines and lengths in LOIs

[LORD_analyst]

19 hours ago, express bowling said:

Bumrah was able to pick up a wicket in his opening spell too, and we need wickets at at the beginning.

unlike bhuvi ....vastly overrated ...even with help of swing in 1st over he didnt even felt threatning to batsmen....i dont know why u go easy on him....he has 70 odd wickets in 70 matches....and shami has 91 wickets in 49 matches......he is a piece of ****

[LORD_analyst]

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

So who fills the need for tight bowling pace bowlers ? Bumrah ?

did you hear virat kohli in press conference ..he said you can bowl 10 dot balls in a spell ....if u dont take wickets  ....then u are burden on team......anyways  we saw in   ct final.....bhuvi was wicketless in his first five overs.....he was bowling tight ...and in the end we got 340...its all about wickets in test and odi...he is only suited in t20 defensive bowling......

you are a low iq monkey

[Vk1]

Last match conditions was an exception than norm. 2019 w.c starts as early as May till July so there could be a lot of flat pitches like in CT. It's the occasional rough pitches that pak were lucky to get in semifinal that could cause problems. Bhuvi with his new knuckle ball a must on such pitches.

[Muloghonto]

Just now, LORD_analyst said:

did you hear virat kohli in press conference ..he said you can bowl 10 dot balls in a spell ....if u dont take wickets  ....then u are burden on team......anyways  we saw in   ct final.....bhuvi was wicketless in his first five overs.....he was bowling tight ...and in the end we got 340...its all about wickets in test and odi...he is only suited in t20 defensive bowling......

you are a low iq monkey

If Virat thinks bowling 10 dot balls in a LOI is a burden, we need a new captain. For a while i've been suspicious about the intelligence of 'Kaptan aggressive' and he is confirming it more and more that he is the inverse of Dhoni : we traded in a passive moron captain for an aggressive moron captain.

 

You can't just fill a side with aggressive wicket-taking bowlers in limited overs contest. it needs to be a balance of miserly bowlers AND wicket-taking bowlers. 
Almost all great ODI fast-bowling partnerships have one wicket-taking bowler (Waqar/Donald/Lee) and one bowler who is miserly with runs (Akram/Pollock/McGrath).

Simply because some batsmen (especially aggressive batsmen, like Warner, Hales, etc) will more likely throw their wickets to containing bowlers, when set, than to aggressive bowlers. Otherwise, you end up with opposition scores like 200 all out, 180 all out, 355/5, etc.: if you only have aggressive bowlers, those guys will be butchered by aggressive batsmen on the day they click. Instead, what you want, is a balanced attack.

 

regardless of the format, bowling in cricket follows a simple philosophy : one end bowls aggressively, other end looks to bottle it up. Switch it up next spell.Not two bowlers trying their level best to bowl aggressively. 

[LORD_analyst]

5 minutes ago, Vk1 said:

Last match conditions was an exception than norm. 2019 w.c starts as early as May till July so there could be a lot of flat pitches like in CT. It's the occasional rough pitches that pak were lucky to get in semifinal that could cause problems. Bhuvi with his new knuckle ball a must on such pitches.

32*, 1/25	India	v Australia	Chennai	17 Sep 2017	ODI # 3910
1/36	India	v Sri Lanka	Colombo (RPS)	6 Sep 2017	T20I # 618
5/42	India	v Sri Lanka	Colombo (RPS)	3 Sep 2017	ODI # 3909
0/41	India	v Sri Lanka	Pallekele	27 Aug 2017	ODI # 3907
0/53, 53*	India	v Sri Lanka	Pallekele	24 Aug 2017	ODI # 3906
0/33	India	v Sri Lanka	Dambulla	20 Aug 2017	ODI # 3905
0/18	Indians	v SL Pres. XI	Colombo (CCC)	21 Jul 2017	Other
0/27	India	v West Indies	Kingston	9 Jul 2017	T20I # 617
0/19	India	v West Indies	North Sound	30 Jun 2017	ODI # 3898

 

remove that 5fer in sl...and u will see that he has 2 wickets in last 9 matches........

now stick him up in ur ass...

by the way knuckle bowl is useful in sub-continent conditions where pitch has variable bounce and bowl comes slowly to restict big -hitting..it is not meant for wickets....better reply when u know a thing  or two about cricket.

[LORD_analyst]

19 hours ago, express bowling said:

The 2 wrist spinners ripped through the Aussie middle order to win us the match.

 

Looks like Axar's unavailability was a blessing in disguise.  We could play 2 wicket-taking spinners.

 

We need to persist with this duo.

 

Bumrah was able to pick up a wicket in his opening spell too, and we need wickets at at the beginning.

 

Pandya's knack of picking crucial wickets in the middle is heartening.

32*, 1/25	India	v Australia	Chennai	17 Sep 2017	ODI # 3910
1/36	India	v Sri Lanka	Colombo (RPS)	6 Sep 2017	T20I # 618
5/42	India	v Sri Lanka	Colombo (RPS)	3 Sep 2017	ODI # 3909
0/41	India	v Sri Lanka	Pallekele	27 Aug 2017	ODI # 3907
0/53, 53*	India	v Sri Lanka	Pallekele	24 Aug 2017	ODI # 3906
0/33	India	v Sri Lanka	Dambulla	20 Aug 2017	ODI # 3905
0/18	Indians	v SL Pres. XI	Colombo (CCC)	21 Jul 2017	Other
0/27	India	v West Indies	Kingston	9 Jul 2017	T20I # 617
0/19	India	v West Indies	North Sound	30 Jun 2017	ODI # 3898

 

remove that 5fer in sl...and u will see that he has 2 wickets in last 9 matches........

now stick him up in ur ass...

[express bowling]

5 hours ago, LORD_analyst said:

did u see what bhuvi was bowling even with swing in his first over...pathetic was bowling back of length with swing instead of good length.....he hasnt got edged an batsman since 2016........filthy low iq people still rate him as best indian bowler...averages 40 from 2016.....i thought u had good knowledge of game and will point it out ...but i was wrong

 

I did not say that Bhuvi is a wicket-taker in ODIs.

 

5 hours ago, LORD_analyst said:

unlike bhuvi ....vastly overrated ...even with help of swing in 1st over he didnt even felt threatning to batsmen....i dont know why u go easy on him....he has 70 odd wickets in 70 matches....and shami has 91 wickets in 49 matches......he is a piece of ****

 

I was talking about Bumrah and not Bhuvi.

 

5 hours ago, LORD_analyst said:

32*, 1/25	India	v Australia	Chennai	17 Sep 2017	ODI # 3910
1/36	India	v Sri Lanka	Colombo (RPS)	6 Sep 2017	T20I # 618
5/42	India	v Sri Lanka	Colombo (RPS)	3 Sep 2017	ODI # 3909
0/41	India	v Sri Lanka	Pallekele	27 Aug 2017	ODI # 3907
0/53, 53*	India	v Sri Lanka	Pallekele	24 Aug 2017	ODI # 3906
0/33	India	v Sri Lanka	Dambulla	20 Aug 2017	ODI # 3905
0/18	Indians	v SL Pres. XI	Colombo (CCC)	21 Jul 2017	Other
0/27	India	v West Indies	Kingston	9 Jul 2017	T20I # 617
0/19	India	v West Indies	North Sound	30 Jun 2017	ODI # 3898

 

remove that 5fer in sl...and u will see that he has 2 wickets in last 9 matches........

now stick him up in ur ass...

 

Again.... I did not mention Bhuvi in that post.

[express bowling]

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

You can't just fill a side with aggressive wicket-taking bowlers in limited overs contest. it needs to be a balance of miserly bowlers AND wicket-taking bowlers. 
Almost all great ODI fast-bowling partnerships have one wicket-taking bowler (Waqar/Donald/Lee) and one bowler who is miserly with runs (Akram/Pollock/McGrath).

 

All these miserly bowlers were top wicket-takers too.

 

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Simply because some batsmen (especially aggressive batsmen, like Warner, Hales, etc) will more likely throw their wickets to containing bowlers, when set, than to aggressive bowlers. Otherwise, you end up with opposition scores like 200 all out, 180 all out, 355/5, etc.: if you only have aggressive bowlers, those guys will be butchered by aggressive batsmen on the day they click. Instead, what you want, is a balanced attack.

 

regardless of the format, bowling in cricket follows a simple philosophy : one end bowls aggressively, other end looks to bottle it up. Switch it up next spell.Not two bowlers trying their level best to bowl aggressively. 

 

There is no clash between wicket-taking bowling and miserly bowling as far as pacers are concerned.

 

Pollock was explaining this well in a TV show.

 

In the first 40 overs of ODIs and in test matches .... the solution is to target the top of off-stump with almost all deliveries and punctuate this with surprise bouncers. Keep appropriate field setting for this bowling. All great bowlers basically do this only.

 

 

[Muloghonto]

Just now, express bowling said:

 

All these miserly bowlers were top wicket-takers too.

for almost all great bowlers, they are miserly and great wicket-takers. But you know perfectly well, amongst McGrath-Lee/Wasim-Waqar/Donald-Pollock, who's job was to concede as little as possible and who's job was to take wickets as primary goals. 

 

Just now, express bowling said:

 

There is no clash between wicket-taking bowling and miserly bowling as far as pacers are concerned.

Uh, yes there is. Its the difference between having a Curtly Ambrose or a Brett lee at your disposal. two very different skill-sets and two very different focus. 

One guy takes wickets by making you do something rash at end of a 6-1-15-0 spell. Other guy takes wickets by giving enough juicy balls for the batsmen to get over-excited/high-risk-high-reward of 'its either bowled/lbw or a four-ball' lengths.

 

 

[express bowling]

17 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

for almost all great bowlers, they are miserly and great wicket-takers. But you know perfectly well, amongst McGrath-Lee/Wasim-Waqar/Donald-Pollock, who's job was to concede as little as possible and who's job was to take wickets as primary goals. 

 

Bottomline is ..... if a pacer is either unable to take sufficient wickets or is very expensive ..... in either case he won't be a good choice in a top ODI team. 

 

Quote

Uh, yes there is. Its the difference between having a Curtly Ambrose or a Brett lee at your disposal. two very different skill-sets and two very different focus. 

One guy takes wickets by making you do something rash at end of a 6-1-15-0 spell. Other guy takes wickets by giving enough juicy balls for the batsmen to get over-excited/high-risk-high-reward of 'its either bowled/lbw or a four-ball' lengths.

 

 

 

No two good pacers are exactly similar .... some will be slightly more accurate and economical .... some will go for wickets a bit more ..... but, bottomline is, if they end up being top ODI bowlers, they will not be a failure either on the wicket-taking front or on the economy front.

Edited September 19, 2017 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

7 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Bottomline is ..... if a pacer is either unable to take sufficient wickets or is very expensive ..... in either case he won't be a good choice in a top ODI team. 

Yes, but that is not the bottomline or even intention of this thread. we already had someone quote Kaptan aggressive that a bowler is useless if he bowls 10 dot balls but doesn't take a wicket. 
Pace bowlers work in packs. this is why all great pace attacks have had the 'containment option and all-out aggression option'. 

 

7 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

No two good pacers are exactly similar .... some will be slightly more accurate and economical .... some will go for wickets a bit more ..... but, bottomline is, if they end up being top ODI bowlers, they will not be a failure either on the wicket-taking front or on the economy front.

Ambrose was not exactly a great wicket-taking bowler in ODIs, neither was Walsh. Yet, they are still great bowlers. 

the point wasn't to say that one class of bowler are failure in taking wickets and another class are failure in keeping runs down. the point was to show that we need both types of bowlers : bowlers who are mainly good at taking wickets AND bowlers who are mainly good at restricting runs. not 5 bowlers who are trying to take a wicket every ball.

 

[express bowling]

28 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Yes, but that is not the bottomline or even intention of this thread. 

That is incorrect.  Having an acceptable ER is a given in LOIs .... which is why I have not even considered Umesh Yadav for ODIs in the OP although he has a good wickets per match ratio.

 

Quote

Pace bowlers work in packs. this is why all great pace attacks have had the 'containment option and all-out aggression option'. 

 

We have Bumrah as the more containing option.  But he is a wicket-taker too.  This is what is needed.

 

Similarly, the more aggressive pacer should have an acceptable ER too.

 

Quote

Ambrose was not exactly a great wicket-taking bowler in ODIs, neither was Walsh. Yet, they are still great bowlers. 

Ambrose and Walsh were great test bowlers but not ODI greats.

 

WI  deteriorated as an ODI team in '90s and one of the reasons was not having sufficient  wicket-taking pacers.

 

Quote

 

the point wasn't to say that one class of bowler are failure in taking wickets and another class are failure in keeping runs down. the point was to show that we need both types of bowlers : bowlers who are mainly good at taking wickets AND bowlers who are mainly good at restricting runs. not 5 bowlers who are trying to take a wicket every ball.

 

 

My point was that even the low ER bowlers should not overlook the wicket-taking aspect.  Most top ODI bowlers have achieved both.

 

Further, both our ODI pacers focus more on containing runs than taking wickets in the first 10 overs.  We saw Bumrah change this in SL and the results were much better.
 

Edited September 19, 2017 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, express bowling said:

That is incorrect.  Having an acceptable ER is a given in LOIs .... which is why I have not even considered Umesh Yadav for ODIs in the OP although he has a good wickets per match ratio.

Point out where in your OP you said that necessity of ER. You last modified it 21 hrs ago

 

 

3 minutes ago, express bowling said:

Ambrose and Walsh were great test bowlers but not ODI greats.

 

WI  deteriorated as an ODI team in '90s and one of the reasons was not having sufficient  wicket-taking pacers.

You are kidding right ? a guy who's career ER is 3.3/3.5 in an era when 250 was the par score (ER of 5), is not a great ?! I will take Ambrose and Walsh in any format as a bowler over any fast bowler from the subcontinent not named Wasim or Waqar. 

WI deteriorated in the 90s because of their batting. its their bowling that kept them as a threat to OZ/PAK/RSA. Because except for Lara and Chanderpaul, they had nobody- a super inconsistent Hooper was a distant third in their batting lineup and you know you have problems when Chanderpaul of the 90s is your 2nd best ODI batsman. 
this is why WI were winning matches vs OZ/ENG/RSA/PAK with regularity when Walsh and Ambrose were there and promptly started to get whitewashed 5-0 by the same sides as soon as these guys retired. 

 

 

[LORD_analyst]

1 hour ago, express bowling said:

 

All these miserly bowlers were top wicket-takers too.

 

 

There is no clash between wicket-taking bowling and miserly bowling as far as pacers are concerned.

 

Pollock was explaining this well in a TV show.

 

In the first 40 overs of ODIs and in test matches .... the solution is to target the top of off-stump with almost all deliveries and punctuate this with surprise bouncers. Keep appropriate field setting for this bowling. All great bowlers basically do this only.

 

 

you are fighting with a retard who says akram .donald were run containing bowlers- they had wicket per match greater than 99% of indian bowlers.....if u bowl just around off stump then one will nick and others may beat the batsman which decreases er.

you are wasting ur time ...

[LORD_analyst]

6 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Point out where in your OP you said that necessity of ER. You last modified it 21 hrs ago

 

 

You are kidding right ? a guy who's career ER is 3.3/3.5 in an era when 250 was the par score (ER of 5), is not a great ?! I will take Ambrose and Walsh in any format as a bowler over any fast bowler from the subcontinent not named Wasim or Waqar. 

WI deteriorated in the 90s because of their batting. its their bowling that kept them as a threat to OZ/PAK/RSA. Because except for Lara and Chanderpaul, they had nobody- a super inconsistent Hooper was a distant third in their batting lineup and you know you have problems when Chanderpaul of the 90s is your 2nd best ODI batsman. 
this is why WI were winning matches vs OZ/ENG/RSA/PAK with regularity when Walsh and Ambrose were there and promptly started to get whitewashed 5-0 by the same sides as soon as these guys retired. 

 

 

stupid * ...wicket tacking and smart bowling with low e.r are not mutually exclusive things ....most of good bowlers go have higher wicket taking ability tend to go for low e.r....except some.

[LORD_analyst]

1 hour ago, express bowling said:

 

I did not say that Bhuvi is a wicket-taker in ODIs.

 

 

I was talking about Bumrah and not Bhuvi.

 

 

Again.... I did not mention Bhuvi in that post.

so u do agree that he is defensive bowler...???

[Muloghonto]

6 minutes ago, LORD_analyst said:

stupid * ...wicket tacking and smart bowling with low e.r are not mutually exclusive things ....most of good bowlers go have higher wicket taking ability tend to go for low e.r....except some.

Nope.

 

[LORD_analyst]

On 9/17/2017 at 6:37 PM, express bowling said:

I want to see Bumrah and Bhuvi go for wickets in the first 10 overs

 

Bowl  the off-stump line.

 

Bowl a fuller length if ball is swinging.

see first over of bhuvi and notice that kohli has not kept even one slip...which means he doesnt trust his wicket taking ability

[express bowling]

5 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Point out where in your OP you said that necessity of ER. You last modified it 21 hrs ago

 

The necessity of an acceptable ER is so basic in LOIs that a separate mention is not necessary in a post that is targeted at people who live and breathe cricket.

 

As I said above, the fact that I am not even considering Umesh as an ODI option as of today ( despite him having a goodish wickets per match ratio ) proves that I have considered acceptable ER as one of the parameters.

 

5 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

You are kidding right ? a guy who's career ER is 3.3/3.5 in an era when 250 was the par score (ER of 5), is not a great ?! I will take Ambrose and Walsh in any format as a bowler over any fast bowler from the subcontinent not named Wasim or Waqar. 

Walsh had an ER of 3.8 and Ambrose 3.5 but low wickets per match ratio.   Compare this with other top ODI bowlers of that era who had good wickets per ratio as well as low ERs.   Subcontinent is not important here ..... we are talking about ODI greats from all over the world

 

5 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

WI deteriorated in the 90s because of their batting. its their bowling that kept them as a threat to OZ/PAK/RSA. Because except for Lara and Chanderpaul, they had nobody- a super inconsistent Hooper was a distant third in their batting lineup and you know you have problems when Chanderpaul of the 90s is your 2nd best ODI batsman. 
this is why WI were winning matches vs OZ/ENG/RSA/PAK with regularity when Walsh and Ambrose were there and promptly started to get whitewashed 5-0 by the same sides as soon as these guys retired. 

 

 

We are talking about ODIs here ..... and the WI team of the '90s had difficulty taking sufficient  wickets in ODIs on more occasions than not.

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, LORD_analyst said:

see first over of bhuvi and notice that kohli has not kept even one slip...which means he doesnt trust his wicket taking ability

that doesn't necessarily mean Bhuvi doesn't have wicket-taking capabilities. It can also mean 'moron captain'.