Bowlers these days are lazy : Akram

[Chandan]

Bowlers these days are lazy, says Akram G.S. Vivek Posted: Tuesday , Jul 28, 2009 at 0954 hrs Pakistan fast bowling great Wasim Akram, in Delhi on a two-week trip as a bowling variation and strategy coach at a new pace academy, admits that he lacks the patience to work full-time. At the same time, he has a lot of patience while speaking on a subject that is close to his heart. In an interview with The Indian Express on Monday, Akram spoke at length about the nuances of pace bowling, how mastering swing is harder than reverse swing, and on how bowlers, of late, have become lazy. Excerpts: There’s a raging debate on Twenty20 eventually pushing out ODIs, and Test cricket losing spectator appeal. Do you endorse these views? • I think ODIs will be phased out. The power plays have somewhat stretched the interest levels but even then, the middle overs are a bit boring from the spectator’s aspect. Having quit the game, and watching from outside, I realise how boring it can be to watch a one-day match. I get bored even commentating during a one-dayer. However, I can’t understand the fuss behind protecting Test cricket. You don’t need anyone to save Test cricket. The format is still revered by cricketers, and if you provide good tracks, people will watch it. I watched the Ashes, one match went so close and other was such a fascinating win. Contests like these will take care of Test cricket. Do you think having different types of balls add to the challenge in Test cricket, or are you in favour of standardising balls? • I am totally against standardisation of the ball in Test cricket, and the ICC’s obsession with the Kookaburra. Using different types of balls is more like utilising home advantage. I remember the time we were playing the West Indies at home and Imran Khan told the curators to roll the wicket only on the two sides and leave the patch in between. The West Indies quicks used to hit that back-of-the-length spot and because the soil was loose in the middle, the ball never took off and our batsmen were protected. Similarly, when we came to India in 1990, we were told they would use only SG Test balls. We were curious to know about the SG ball, so we ordered a pack of balls from India and began practising. We realised it could reverse very well and it was a challenge to learn the nuances of bowling with that ball. I would want India to retain the SG balls, and let Duke and Kookaburra ball survive on their own turf. Don’t you think the use of technology has blunted the bowlers’ minds, that they have stopped developing and exploring? • I think bowlers nowadays are being pure lazy and are happy with whatever they are being given on a platter. They don’t want to be called greats, they are happy just being international cricketers. The use of technology is good but it shouldn’t stop the bowler from using his own mind. I remember Waqar and I used to hit the nets and try out various deliveries. We used to exchange our ball if one had been successful in getting reverse swing and then try again. We used to bowl with the wind, then switch to bowling against the wind. Bowlers nowadays don’t want to experiment and work hard. Over the past few years, I have only seen Zaheer Khan do the hard work. He put in a lot of work at Worcester and learnt some tricks. He’s the only guy in the Indian team who can move the ball in and out. There’s a lot of emphasis on a perfect side-on bowling action in India. Does an unorthodox bowling style have a place in today’s cricket? • I agree that there’s a lot more emphasis on the perfect action for the fast bowler, the typical side-on action. But in today’s cricket, one has to be different from the conventional to stand out and succeed. Malinga succeeded because he was different, batsmen have a hard time picking his deliveries. Similarly, Dilshan played the scoop shot and has scored so many runs. One has to encourage unorthodoxy in these changing times, look more towards effectiveness. I am against changing the basic action (to what’s considered correct) just for the sake of looking good. Why has reverse swing become an obsession with bowlers? Do you feel conventional swing is losing its charm? • It’s probably because reverse swing looks more dramatic. (Allan) Donald has asked to legalise ball-tampering so that the bowlers can get reverse swing. But if any bowler wants to master the art of reverse swing, he will eventually do it if he spends time at the nets. Honestly, one of the reasons why reverse swing is becoming an obsession is because swinging the new ball is more difficult than bowling reverse swing. I learnt to swing the ball only when I was 28-29. I figured out that the wrist plays an important role and used to run in with two different wrist positions to get the ball to swing. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A good interview! Even I think that ODIs are getting boring these days. But I don't think they'll be phased out because they are the real cash cows and common India fans love it which is where cricket's revenue generally comes from! And hence the bowlers will continue to suffer because of excess work load. Than how can we save the players and reduce their workload? 1.Make the tests a two tier system so that we do not get lopsided and almost inconsequential matches. 2. Improve the tracks and make it more interesting so that bowlers won't need to break their back, legs, knees and ankles to get a wicket and cricket becomes interesting. 3. Have a pool of at least 6-7 fast bowlers who are all first choice and they can be rotated to various formats. 4. Let the teams have home advantage, including the kind of ball they use. 5. Scrap meaningless matches like Asis cup CT and non bi-lateral ODIs without tests. Your views?

[DomainK]

Great interview. I agree with almost all the points. ODIs are becoming boring for me as well. Tests remain the most thrilling form of cricket followed by T20s. And yes, fast bowlers are becoming lazy and quite useless. Fast bowlers being thrashed around is becoming too common a sight and its worrying that they are comfortable with it. They take it for granted that they would be thrashed around. It was disheartening to see the number of mistakes the fast bowlers were making both in the IPL and the T20 WC when everyone was expecting a lot more accuracy given the nature of the format.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

The great man said he lernt to swing the ball only at 28-29........just shows his humility...despite the fact that he is widely considered the master of swing and perhaps the greatest exponent of swing in history of cricket

[Fontaine]

While I agree with some of what he's said I don't like generalizing that bowlers are lazy. You only need look at players like Nehra, Balaji who had career threatening injuries and rehabbed for months, worked extremely hard just to be able to bowl again. In Nehra's case he's had almost as many injuries to his ankles as Freddie but has really worked hard to get back to peak fitness even though there was very little opportunity to work back into the international setup. RP Singh is also a very hard worker. Especially when he went to English County Cricket and underwent extensive physio to strengthen his legs. Although you ofcourse have the opposites like Munaf and Sreesanth who would rather do dance shows than live, and breathe cricket.

[Lurker]

I think it is unfair to suggest modern day bowlers are lazy but it is definitely fair to suggest the bowlers of yesteryear were far more hardworking. This was partly driven by the fact that life, in general, was tougher earlier and these days people in general are getting lazy. Gone are the days of people walking to the local grocery market everyday and coming back with fresh veggies and fruits. These days everyone drives to the local mall and buys the week long, or more, stock of the same stuff. So why should cricket players be any different? Purely from a bowler's perspective I can see where Akram is coming from. Players like Kapil Dev and Imran Khan would run for hours. Deshprem Azaad ensured Kapil would do his army style drills often for 6 hours plus. Same with Imran. Same with Holding. If you put a player through a half of that today either he will puke or walk away suggesting the coach is overtraining him. A key differentiator between bowlers of today and yesteryears is that the former even when injured would elongate their career. Both Dennis Lilee and Malcolm Marshall came back from a career finishing injury(in both cases Doctors had suggested them to retire) to become even better bowlers. In case of Imran he struggled all his life with this. Kapil had knee issues but still played about 60 odd Tests from thereon. On the other hand Shane Bond, Flintoff, Lee, Balaji are finished the moment they are injured. The only aberration was Glenn Mcgrath who faught an injury but for his sheer work ethics I would put him as a bowler of yesteryear than a modern day one. xxx

[jf1gp_1]

5. Scrap meaningless matches like Asis cup CT and non bi-lateral ODIs without tests.

completly agree with you on that one, we have just had t20 wc in which all test playing took part, why do we want to assemble them again 2 month from now for a meaningless CT specially when they all meet again in march next for another t20 wc, then there an absolutly useless asia-afro cup schedule sometime in the next 8 months. If ICC wants to hold a sort of all-star game make a world xi and play then against WC holder, just one game once in four year and thats the end of it.

[riya]

Even though i agree that former cricketers were more hard working in terms of bowling in the nets,running around compared to new generation Gym boys,i don't agree that they are lazy.The number of international matches and IPl circuses are taking a toll on them.Using them properly by rotation policy is the best.Also more bowling and running instead of weight training will be better.Bowlers should look wiry not like He-man.They should have a proportionate body structure.Huge upperbody will put strain on Knees and legs.

[iHammad]

Wasim Akram just rocks. He is awesome. Only watch him live in one match, and that too was a Legends of Cricket match in Toronto.

[Max_Cady]

the guy is talking **** learned how to swing in 28-29? then how did u bowl those two balls to lamb and lewis in 1992,were they fluke deliveries

[riya]

^^ Not only that his first 5-fer against Aus in 85 Champions trophy in Aus(which we won :icflove:) were all inswingers.He was mainly a swing bowler from the start.I remember in India series 87 and 89 as well.l

[rainy day]

learned how to swing in 28-29? then how did u bowl those two balls to lamb and lewis in 1992,were they fluke deliveries

That was reverse swing.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

wasim akram could swing it both ways from the very 1st day and reverse swing it in about 2-3 years after his debut.......he is being humble here...do you think the man known as sultan of swing could only swing the ball properly for half of his career.....naaaaah.......he was the rare few who could swing the ball both ways with both old and new ball and that also at 90mph........that will take some beating.....no matter what anyone else does....for me wasim akram was is and always be the greatest fast bowler to step on the field.

[rainy day]

^^ I think what he meant here was that he became an expert when he was 28-29, implying that bowlers should first look to properly master swing with the new ball instead of being obsessed with reverse swing. E.g Irfan Pathan has been able to swing the ball right from the start but he hasn't really mastered it another example is Umar Gul master of reverse swing but has no idea how to bowl with the new ball.

[Fontaine]

^^ I think what he meant here was that he became an expert when he was 28-29' date=' implying that bowlers should first look to properly master swing with the new ball instead of being obsessed with reverse swing. E.g Irfan Pathan has been able to swing the ball right from the start but he hasn't really mastered it another example is Umar Gul master of reverse swing but has no idea how to bowl with the new ball.[/quote'] EXACTLY. Instead of focusing on your strength, bowlers like Irfan Pathan get carried away and try to bowl cutters, slower deliveries, and other types when it's clearly not their strength. Irfan barely began to learn how to swing the ball when he was asked to bat up the order by Guru Greg, then bowl in T20s and so on. Instead of concentrating on his ability to swing the ball with the right seam position he's bowling too many stupid variations, most of which he sucks at. Also when Akram was bowling there was a lot less cricket around. No T20 and less ODI cricket. So like he said, he had a ton of time to experiment with reverse swing, work on his release wrist position and all of those things that make you a master of the art. Nowadays, players are playing one ODI tournament after another with more and more T20 cricket (most of it useless) so that only time they really have to concentrate on bowling rhythmically and consistently is test match cricket.

[Lurker]

Also when Akram was bowling there was a lot less cricket around. No T20 and less ODI cricket. So like he said, he had a ton of time to experiment with reverse swing, work on his release wrist position and all of those things that make you a master of the art. Nowadays, players are playing one ODI tournament after another with more and more T20 cricket (most of it useless) so that only time they really have to concentrate on bowling rhythmically and consistently is test match cricket.

I keep hearing that argument and wonder how much of that is actually true? Lets compare Wasim Akram with Andrew Flintoff. In 17 years Wasim played 104 Tests, 356 LOI . If you can expand it(for sake of argument), that would be equivalent of 104*5 days + 356 days spent in the field. A grand total of 883 days spent playing cricket. Lets narrow it down to say 750 since not all test go into 5(and not everyone is the field for 5 days). Lets do the same with Freddie. 77 Tests, 141 LOI & 7 T20. This equals 77*5 + 141 + 7 =533 days. Doing the same rounding it would be close to 400-450 days spent in the middle. Akram played 17 years and spent 750 days, Freddie 12 years and 400 odd days. How is that too different ?? This when Akram was playing county entire season while Freddie was enjoying himself in IPL. And I have not even invoked Kapil who would beat everyone's ass when it comes to playing non-stop. xxx

[Mr. Wicket]

While you're at it also bring up Botham who had the immensely packed county calendar to deal with... not to mention the odd season of f/c cricket in Australia, and a LOT of test cricket against some brutal opposition in guys like Lillee, Thomson, Holding, Garner, Imran and friends.

[Lurker]

While you're at it also bring up Botham who had the immensely packed county calendar to deal with... not to mention the odd season of f/c cricket in Australia' date=' and a LOT of test cricket against some brutal opposition in guys like Lillee, Thomson, Holding, Garner, Imran and friends.[/quote'] Actually I was looking at some numbers and they are quite revealing me thinks. Here are the numbers for Akram: Deliveries bowled in first class : 50277 Deliveries bowled in LOI: 18186 Total deliveries bowled = 68463 (I have used First class since that involves Test and 4 days, LOI is not counted as part of first class). Freddie: Deliveries bowled in first class = 10889 Deliveries bowled in LOI = 5624 Deliveries bowled in T20 = 150 Total Deliveries bowled = 16663 That is 25% of bowling that Akram put forth!! In a career span that is about 75% of Akram. I bet if you use that yardstick(number of deliveries bowled in a career) most bowlers of today would actually come across as lazy..or prima donnas. Yes lot of cricket :whack:

[Chandan]

Why compare him with Freddie? Why don't you compare him with McGrath? Flintoff was one injury prone bowler whose career ended as soon as it took off. And then compare it with Steyn and Lee when they finish their career.

[Lurker]

Why compare him with Freddie? Why don't you compare him with McGrath? Flintoff was one injury prone bowler whose career ended as soon as it took off. And then compare it with Steyn and Lee when they finish their career.

I have always considered Akram and Mcgrath not too different in terms of era they played in. Akram retired in 2003, or thereabouts, Mcgrath in 2008 so a difference of 5 years or so. Lets compare Akram with Lee(since he has had a more xtended career than Steyn) Lee: First class: 24194 deliveries LOI: 8853 T20 : 349 Total deliveries = 33396 in a career over 10 years. Akram = 68463 in a 17 year career. How is Lee overworked??? xxx

[Chandan]

Lee still has some years to play, isn't it? And instead of talking without context like the forummer patriot, shouldn't you agree that a five test series more packed these days than they used to be in 1990? Perhaps then the entire series was spread in three and a half to four months. These days, the 5 tests have to be finished within 2 months. So there is a difference in bowling that many deliveries in just 60 days compared to bowling them in 120+ days. The body would get more time to recover. But here, were we discussing about this? I suppose the thread was about how bowlers today don't work hard enough on their basic skills and Akram compared himself with them saying how he and Waqar used to practise for long period in the nets. There was a reason why Irfan kept losing his swing. Instead of sticking to basics he paid more attention to learning new varieties and in the process lost his main weapon. I think I completely agree with him. Lack of FC cricket, once a bowler breaks into international team is also causing this. Just tell me, when did Ishant get enough time to play in the FC cricket since Jan 2008? This is what had happened to Irfan too, earlier when he had no time for non-international games where he could practice his basics on and on like Wasim could do back in 87-88 when he was young. So the problem isn't just laziness but lack of time too.