Good Fast Bowlers and their Impact on batsmans Run making ability

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Serani]

Good fast bowlers do stop batsman scoring runs, Ambrose would not be budged from his line or length all game and was just relentless against batsman, same with McGrath when you just dont know where the next run will come from. I dont think express or swing bowlers are as good at this though, Shoaib, Steyn always give you things to hit every over because they are trying to bowler fuller and get you bowled or LBW, compared to Amby or Mcgrath who bowled just back of a length all day.

[maverick.rules]

I dont really know who would agree to that... any good fast bowler would give you less chances to score and very few bad balls. It is not easy to score against Mcgrath, wasim, waqar, ambrose, etc because they bowl good line and length as well as they have better plan to counter the batsman. They are more focused then any average tundler and they have good variety and surprises in their bowling arsnel. It is not easy for a batsman to force them off their line and length. Ofcourse, SRT or BCL or some other good batsman can take advantage on their good days but on an average it is difficult to score off them for the sheer skill and aptitude that these bowlers possess.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Welll, to score runs, batsmen have to stay at the crease and good fast bowlers make sure that the former dont stay too long! So, it is as they say a 'slam dunk'. :)

[thevortex]

But the hardest part about this poll is that I dont think there would be anybody who would choose 'No'! Or am I going to be surprised? I will wait and watch.

[vvvslaxman]

There are some believe good bowlers exist only in this decade lol where 22 guys averaged 50 plus.

[Lurker]

There seems to be a school of that thought that suggests that presense of good mean fast bowlers ( like Donald, Ambrose, Steyn, McGrath etc ) does not really affect the run scoring ability of batsmen. Just wanted to see where everybody stands on this aspect.

a) You need to check Dhondy's post about SRT's performance against fast bowlers. I say this because obviously this thread has followed from your damn-I-wont-be-convinced stance from other thread. b) You need to realize that fast bowlers have existed prior to Akhtar and Steyn. Larwood was considered fastest by everyone of his time. And if you go by Richie Benaud he considers Frank Tyson and Jeff Thomson 1-2, much ahead of anyone else in your list. c) You need to chill :giggle: ..or as your young generation f®iends suggest - chillax :giggle:

[vvvslaxman]

Tyson claims he bowled at 180k!! How do you disprove his claim?

[Serani]

Tyson had the nickname Typhoon, this clearly shows that he is the fasterst bowler everrrrr.

[The Outsider]

But the hardest part about this poll is that I dont think there would be anybody who would choose 'No'! Or am I going to be surprised? I will wait and watch.

It's another example of sophistry and dishonesty by Bossbhai - a poll designed as a trap. The origins of it are the Bradman thread where according to Bossbhai had Bradman played against phaaasht bowlers averaging less than 28 instead of above 28, never mind that Bradman himself was responsible for those high averages in the first place, his average would have dropped below Tendulkar - also never mind that when Tendulkar batted against bowlers with average above 28, he averages around the 60s, shown through stats. So what does mahashaya do he opens a ridiculous thread with a ridiculous poll and two months later you will see him back slapping himself as to how he supposedly proved people wrong. If you do a search on his older posts you will find several examples of either being a complete incompetent as far as grasping basic logic is concerned or twist and turn things to suit his preconceived notions and agendas and gloat about it. :hysterical:

[Lurker]

So what does mahashaya do he opens a ridiculous thread with a ridiculous poll and two months later you will see him back slapping himself as to how he supposedly proved people wrong.

As much as it looks like a cheap shot but BB has a tendency of doing that :giggle: By the way Boss bhai I elected "No" :--D:--D Hope you are happy :--D:--D

[vvvslaxman]

Tyson had the nickname Typhoon' date=' this clearly shows that he is the fasterst bowler everrrrr.[/quote'] Concur. Larawood is second fastest. Lindwall is third fastest. Trueman is 4th fastest. There was this guy adcock , SA fast bowler who used to resort to borderline chucking terrorized NZ batsmen once. But worse is charlie griffiths who broke the skull of nari contractor who had to give up cricket. There were not really clear cut rules those days. You only have to look at the run up of Lindwall. That was awesome extension and full throttle release.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[King Tendulkar]

Ah the love of the white cricketers pre the advent of the superpowers of subcontinent and windies players continues in this thread. Next some of you guys will be saying that european long distance runners of 30s were better then kenyans of 2010. Get it in to your head. Back in 30s cricket was a cosy little club of aussies v england. Do well in that and idiots in 2010 will label you best of all time. Fast my foot, Sachin would sweep Larwood if he faced him, like he does to Vaas. I would love to see Larwood try that bodyline stuff on Sachin. SRT would ramp him for 4(could not ramp for 6 as he was not quick enough), pull him out of ground and then reverse sweep him for 6.

[vvvslaxman]

None on them bowled to DGB in a test match except for Larwood. And when he decided enough was enough we all know what happened.

But.. but.. but.. according to you bowling became difficult only after 1970s :cantstop:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

errr ... read the post prior to that ... BTW why does none of your heroes from 30s and 40s get nominated next to the likes of Donald' date='McGrath, Ambrose in any casual cricket ranking of fast bowlers worth its salt ?[/quote'] slight modification to your sentence Why does none of your heroes from 90s and 00s get nominated next to the likes of Bradman in any casual cricket ranking of best batsmen worth its salt

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

ehhh? DGB himself said he looked exactly like Tendulkar while batting. But to answer your question ... that idea is soo entrenched and the brainwashing soo through and complete it now becomes politically incorrect to say anything contrary. Just look at yourself ... you have never even come close to providing straight answers to any of the 10 points in that post#105 and you think that pitches back in the 30s had evil demons in them.

If you don't know the answer i will tell you. Because batsmen in the current era you mention are not as good as Bradman.