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

[LORD_analyst]

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

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

 

wasnt quoting u... dont want to get in an argument with you ...but one thing is clear that u are jst a rookie

dont reply....jst die

Edited September 19, 2017 by LORD_analyst

[express bowling]

11 minutes ago, LORD_analyst said:

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

Yes, he has been a defensive ODI bowler for the last 30 months or so.

 

Bowls more wicket-taking areas in test matches.

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

 

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.

Ok. But your initial post comes across as 'lets sacrifice the tight bowler for a more aggressive bowler'. Which is wrong.

 

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

 

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

You've always had an axe to grind against Walsh, Ambrose and almost all WI bowlers. A significantly better ER in ODIs is more valuable than wicket-taking ability, especially for that era, when it was all about stifling runs early enough so no-matter what, you don't cross 250. Incase you forgot, in the 90s, the last 10 overs still went at 5.5-6.5 rpo at best of times.  

 

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

 

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.

Nope. they had way more difficulty chasing down low scores. Hero cup, World cups, series vs OZ/RSA are all chock-full of WI failing to chase 200-220. If you look at LoI stats for 90s, WI batting was far below the top team standards than WI bowling.

And WI went from 'can beat OZ/RSA/PAK on a given day in any format' to 'no hope, straight-up whitewashed consistently' within a couple of years of Walsh-Ambrose's retirement. they were the only ones keeping the team competetive. 

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, LORD_analyst said:

wasnt quoting u... dont want to get in an argument with you ...but one thing is clear that u are jst a rookie

dont reply....jst die

 

there are not many people here who've been around from the 'Anil' days. So pipe down, kiddo. I can quote whomever i want. And you can chose to run away too. 

[Rightarmfast]

The conversation is going very technical, and I am at work. So can't respond in the same language. However, with whatever understanding I have, ER will not be an exclusive entity. A champion bowler regardless will take wickets as well as contain runs. Prime example is Mcgrath. If you think his job was to contain runs, you are wrong. He used to take the wickets of the best batsmen of his time. Wasim was the nemesis of all tailenders.

Agarkar was a great wicket taking bowler. He is not counted as a champion bowler because of his inability to check runs.

 

Hope I am sticking to the topic.

[express bowling]

32 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Ok. But your initial post comes across as 'lets sacrifice the tight bowler for a more aggressive bowler'. Which is wrong.

 

Have I mentioned anywhere that we should look for wicket taking bowlers irrespective of their ER   ?

 

Don't put words in my mouth and don't assume things I did not say.

 

Quote

You've always had an axe to grind against Walsh, Ambrose and almost all WI bowlers. A significantly better ER in ODIs is more valuable than wicket-taking ability, especially for that era, when it was all about stifling runs early enough so no-matter what, you don't cross 250. Incase you forgot, in the 90s, the last 10 overs still went at 5.5-6.5 rpo at best of times.  

 

Incorrect.  West Indian pacers of the early '80s were my idols as a young kid and I tried to emulate Marshall for many years as a kid.  What a bowler he was  !

 

We are discussing ODI bowling greats here and bowlers with both high wickets per match and low ERs would definitely beat the bowlers with only low ERs.

 

Quote

Nope. they had way more difficulty chasing down low scores. Hero cup, World cups, series vs OZ/RSA are all chock-full of WI failing to chase 200-220. If you look at LoI stats for 90s, WI batting was far below the top team standards than WI bowling.

And WI went from 'can beat OZ/RSA/PAK on a given day in any format' to 'no hope, straight-up whitewashed consistently' within a couple of years of Walsh-Ambrose's retirement. they were the only ones keeping the team competetive. 

The WI ODI bowling attack of the '90s did not generate the same worry among batters as the Aussie, Pakistani or SA attacks of the '90s  did.

Edited September 19, 2017 by express bowling

[express bowling]

16 minutes ago, Rightarmfast said:

The conversation is going very technical, and I am at work. So can't respond in the same language. However, with whatever understanding I have, ER will not be an exclusive entity. A champion bowler regardless will take wickets as well as contain runs. Prime example is Mcgrath. If you think his job was to contain runs, you are wrong. He used to take the wickets of the best batsmen of his time. Wasim was the nemesis of all tailenders.

Agarkar was a great wicket taking bowler. He is not counted as a champion bowler because of his inability to check runs.

 

Hope I am sticking to the topic.

Exactly

[Muloghonto]

15 minutes ago, Rightarmfast said:

The conversation is going very technical, and I am at work. So can't respond in the same language. However, with whatever understanding I have, ER will not be an exclusive entity. A champion bowler regardless will take wickets as well as contain runs. Prime example is Mcgrath. If you think his job was to contain runs, you are wrong. He used to take the wickets of the best batsmen of his time. Wasim was the nemesis of all tailenders.

Agarkar was a great wicket taking bowler. He is not counted as a champion bowler because of his inability to check runs.

 

Hope I am sticking to the topic.

McGrath operated on what was, consistently the best bowling lineup of 90s/early-mid 2000s. Sure, Pak, WI and RSA had great bowling attacks for part/most of the time, but the combination of Fleming-McGrath-Warne-Gillespie-Lee-Bracken, all represented, the most complete and consistently good bowling attacks of their time. He also had the luxury of playing for a super-strong batting lineup that is performing well together so i take it with a pinch of salt. 

 

In anycase, that is not the point. 

 

bowlers in ODIs, still predominantly have one of two go-to plays. You either seek to contain as much as possible or you can seek quick wickets of unsettled batsmen.

almost all bowlers fall in one or either category, as means of bowling : Murali is  former, Warne is a latter. McGrath is a former, Waqar a latter. Etc. there is only one i've ever seen, who switched very well from 'primarily defending --> primarily attacking' in LoIs and that was Wasim.

Now, cricket is obviously a reactive game and it follows the general principle of most sports: if you do one thing exceedingly well, your other skills will automatically gain momentum, as a consequence of the mental game at hand. 

Ie, obviously, a very good containing bowler will get more wicket than he deserves (on pure merit of the ball), because in a LoI game, batsmen will be under increasing pressure to not give away 10 overs for 30 runs or such. Similarly, a gun attacking bowler, when firing, enjoys the 'holy crap! i am #5 and its 10/3. Shut shop, only play for width and defend everything on stumps for the next over or two' aspect of enjoying deflated economy rate. 

 you cannot tell me, Ambrose didn't win the match, in instances where WI are defending 250 and he ends up with 10-3-25-1. these are in many cases, just as matchwinning as a 10-1-50-4 kinda figures. 

 

In an ideal scenario, you want a McGrath/Ambrose type paired with the Waqar/Lee type. Because the latter guys are  elite wicket-taking threat but mediocre at playing the 'nothing is gonna happen for you today, its time to contain and be content' game. 

the former guys are 'yes, if you don't play my 4th channel, you won't get out but i will end up with 10-4-20-1 kinda figure' guys. 

then you can build pressure both ways on batsmen : they are forced out of their comfort zone to try and hit a 'nearly unhittable' guy as well as forced to live super-dangerously against the 'murder or be murdered by magic ball' type bowler who is continuously looking to get  them out. this 'fight both ways at any time, depending on who is facing whom and at what balls' causes most batsmen- even the greatest of them- fail more often than succeed. 

 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, express bowling said:

 

Have I mentioned anywhere that we should look for wicket taking bowlers irrespective of their ER   ?

 

Don't put words in my mouth and don't assume things I did not say.

I understand and accept your clarification. Matter is over for me, what you meant. I am simply pointing out, that your initial posts 100% focus on wicket-taking and every bowler becoming more wicket-taking, with 0% mention of economy, came across as 'screw economy, take 10 wickets ASAP and be done'. 

 

Quote

 

Incorrect.  West Indian pacers of the early '80s were my idols as a young kid and I tried to emulate Marshall for many years as a kid.  What a bowler he was  !

 

We are discussing ODI bowling greats here and bowlers with both high wickets per match and low ERs would definitely beat the bowlers with only low ERs.

But you won't find many great bowlers who beat Ambrose at ER. thats the whole point. His jaw-droopingly low ER, especially for his era (where LoIs were not as slow as 80s but not as murder-the-bowler crazy like post 2007/8) makes him a strong candidate for any LoI side. Man's ER for 170+ matches spanning 12 years,is 3.48. that is a career 'par' of 10-x-35-x !!! Nobody has played as much as him and beaten his ER rate and nobody probably will. Yet, he is the only bowler ever, to retire after 1990, play more than 100 matches (arbitary, but good sample space cut-off for old timers) that has a sub 3.5 ER. And competition is pretty sparse : Pollock is a distant 3.67 ER away and your typical 'conservative bowler of the 90s' ER spans the 3.8-4.2 zone. 

in a format where the whole point is having X number of balls to score Y number of runs, you straight up, cannot ignore the best case example of 'give least number of runs(X), in full quota of overs(Y)' guy. Or atleast, involve him in the conversation, as a bowler with by far the best economy rate of his era can claim to be the best limited overs guy in any limited overs format, regardless of wickets or average. 
Ie, i know its hypothetical, but the best ODI/t20 bowler one can possibly be, is 10-10-0-0 with no balls on stumps (as balls on stumps are by nature, easier to put bat on and if batsman can put bat on, even a genuine edge can go for runs- his bottomline). 

Quote

 

The WI ODI bowling attack of the '90s did not generate the same worry among batters as the Aussie, Pakistani or SA attacks of the '90s  did.

Its because they had a steep drop-off after Walsh and Ambrose. Hooper was a very good bowler but he was a good 5th bowler. not lead spinner/middle-overs guy. But they generated just as much worry for the top 4 as any other attack, because combined Walsh and Ambrose were usually as good as anyone for exposing #4 early. and IMO they generated just a bit less fear than those lineups but they were the 4th of the 'big-4' bowling attacks of their generation.

I can tell you though, the only reason WI were the #4 of the big4 is because they could not adequately compensate for Bishop's frailty. but until the very end, everytime Bishop played, WI bowling attack was instantly extremely menacing and Bishop played ODIs late into the 90s. Because even a 'repaired and half as good Bishop from mid 90s was a very good bowler who was an excellent #3 bowler for them.

 

India, NZ,SL, England- these teams were the perennial bowling under-dogs of the world, where they relied on their batting to win way more often than their bowling, compared to the big-4.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Muloghonto

[express bowling]

 

The following video showcases wicket-taking lines and lengths of a pacer, which results in low ER too

 

Targeting the top of off-stump ball after ball and  punctuating it with surprise bouncers  ( to stop batsmen from playing on the front-foot comfortably and the bounce may get wickets too )

 

If the batsman leaves or misses the ball, he is bowled or LBW 

 

If the batsman tries to play he may knick it

 

It is not easy to score off

 

It is important to keep a slip or two, a point, a 3rd man etc. to help pacers bowl in these areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by express bowling

[express bowling]

 

Another such ODI spell targeting top of off stump punctuated by surprise bouncers

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

Not true for 2nd video. 1st wicket is not targeting top of off-stump, its classic 4th-stump line. 4th wicket is a leg stump overpitched ball, that the guy played a completely wrong shot to. last wicket is off cutter on off-stump, taking middle stump.

[rkt.india]

18 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Not true for 2nd video. 1st wicket is not targeting top of off-stump, its classic 4th-stump line. 4th wicket is a leg stump overpitched ball, that the guy played a completely wrong shot to. last wicket is off cutter on off-stump, taking middle stump.

off cutter at 142KPH 

[express bowling]

23 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Not true for 2nd video. 1st wicket is not targeting top of off-stump, its classic 4th-stump line. 4th wicket is a leg stump overpitched ball, that the guy played a completely wrong shot to. last wicket is off cutter on off-stump, taking middle stump.

 

The target is top of off stump...  slight changes are bound to happen as humans are not robots.... infact, that is why top of off stump is suggested by coaches.... error on the off-side means 4th or 5th stump which is still a good line... error on the leg side means middle or leg-middle which is still an acceptable line. Some balls will bounce extra and may take the shoulder of the bat.

 

The top of off-stump is the bulls-eye area .... lots of good pacers will bowl in a small circle around this with their stock balls .....with all balls not hitting this spot exactly as they are not robots and the slight variations help too.

 

For the first wicket, the batsman moved on the off side and came forward, so the slight change in line.

 

Look carefully, for the last wicket the  off stump was hit.

Edited September 20, 2017 by express bowling

[express bowling]

1 minute ago, rkt.india said:

off cutter at 142KPH 

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

off cutter at 142KPH 

didn't fully come off, but notice him running his hand over the ball at point of delivery...either way, ball pitched on off stump and came in to hit middle.

Not target top of off like you claim.

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

The target is top of off stump...  slight changes are bound to happen as humans are not robots.... infact, that is why top of off stump is suggested by coaches.... error on the off-side means 4th or 5th stump which is still a good line... error on the leg side means middle or leg-middle which is still acceptable line. Some balls will bounce extra and may take the shoulder of the bat.

BS. 

if you think bowlers like McGrath/Pollock/Ambrose cannot hit top of off at will practically, you are being disingenuous.

Either way, McGrath calibre bowler doesn't target off stump and end up overpitching on leg stump. 

And no, coaches don't just say target top of off by default. If you can bowl 4th stump on a non-driving/non-pulling length for you, that is always the best possible default ball. 

 

2 minutes ago, express bowling said:

The top of off-stump is the bulls-eye area .... most good pacers will bowl in a small circle around this with their stock balls .....with all balls not hitting this spot exactly as they are not robots and the slight variations help too.

Indeed. And pacers like McGrath, Pollock,Ambrose- they always bowled good length on 4th stump and got carry enough so its not drivable easily. 

 

2 minutes ago, express bowling said:

For the first wicket, the batsman moved on the off side and came forward, so the slight change in line.

 

Look carefully, for the last wicket the  off stump was hit.

the first wicket, doesn't matter what the batsman did or didn't do, its still not an 'example of how to target top of off stump'. You are correct about the last one however, i had to freeze it to see it clearly. the other ones i pointed out, are not fitting your criteria.

 

[express bowling]

31 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

BS. 

if you think bowlers like McGrath/Pollock/Ambrose cannot hit top of off at will practically, you are being disingenuous.

Either way, McGrath calibre bowler doesn't target off stump and end up overpitching on leg stump. 

And no, coaches don't just say target top of off by default. If you can bowl 4th stump on a non-driving/non-pulling length for you, that is always the best possible default ball. 

 

Indeed. And pacers like McGrath, Pollock,Ambrose- they always bowled good length on 4th stump and got carry enough so its not drivable easily. 

 

the first wicket, doesn't matter what the batsman did or didn't do, its still not an 'example of how to target top of off stump'. You are correct about the last one however, i had to freeze it to see it clearly. the other ones i pointed out, are not fitting your criteria.

 

 

You have a habit of arguing for the sake of it.

 

Targeting the top of off-stump is a basic dictum in pace bowling and not my suggestion .... everyone, from Pollock to McGrath to bowling coaches at every level talk about it all the time.

 

Top bowlers at the highest level may make slight changes, like the the 4th stump line or higher bounce,  based on various factors like playing conditions, type of batsmen etc.  There are different bowling styles too.

 

If you don't know about this then you have not bowled at any level in your life and there is no point discussing bowling with you.

 

p.s - We are discussing LOI lines here, where not giving any width becomes even more important

Edited September 20, 2017 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

47 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

You have a habit of arguing for the sake of it.

 

Targeting the top of off-stump is a basic dictum in pace bowling and not my suggestion .... everyone, from Pollock to McGrath to bowling coaches at every level talk about it all the time.

Except Pollock, McGrath targetted top of 4th stump. Because thats how you get edges to slip cordon the best. Did you even see these guys play or what ?

 

47 minutes ago, express bowling said:

Top bowlers at the highest level may make slight changes, like the the 4th stump line or higher bounce,  based on various factors like playing conditions, type of batsmen etc.  There are different bowling styles too.

Except as i said, many a bowler has targetted 4th stump line as their bread and butter, day in and day out.

 

47 minutes ago, express bowling said:

If you don't know about this then you have not bowled at any level in your life and there is no point discussing bowling with you.

 

p.s - We are discussing LOI lines here, where not giving any width becomes even more important

4th stump line is not giving them width. its underivable and just enough away from the body that its hard to pull. 

 

it there are different bowling styles- which there are, it negates your whole 'target top of off as default' position. 

 

[express bowling]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Except Pollock, McGrath targetted top of 4th stump. Because thats how you get edges to slip cordon the best. Did you even see these guys play or what ?

 

Except as i said, many a bowler has targetted 4th stump line as their bread and butter, day in and day out.

 

4th stump line is not giving them width. its underivable and just enough away from the body that its hard to pull. 

 

it there are different bowling styles- which there are, it negates your whole 'target top of off as default' position. 

 

 

 

You are being pedantic here for the sake of argument and missing the big picture.

 

One of the points of this thread is discussing wicket-taking lines and lengths in LOIs.

 

There are certain lines and lengths which are generally  not effective for taking wickets regularly  .... like bowling a middle and leg line, bowling on the leg, bowling way outside off, bowling short of length with no extra bounce, bowling in different areas every ball.

 

One of the basic dictums of pace bowling is targeting top of off stump .... slight variations are always made by expert bowlers to adjust for different conditions in different matches as well as their own bowling styles.

 

Usually, the objective is  to create a doubt regarding whether to play the ball or to leave the ball and also whether to come forward or go back . This is what fetches wickets on a regular basis. 

 

The advantage of an off-stump delivery over a channel delivery is getting some bowleds and LBWs too along with some edges.... like we see in the above videos. 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by express bowling