Swing to win, India

[Number]

@SachinLara All/most of the bowlers you mentioned were very quick in their early parts of career, during which they took wickets all over the world, earned experience, accuracy and learned skills and reached a point where they could afford to be slow. Compare that to a newbie who comes from Indian domestic setup, with his skill set he can't afford to be very slow. Hence I feel newcomers should have pace. Although I'm no pace fanatic, results over anything for me but I will always be doubtful of any pacer's success who starts off with 125-130 range.

[panther]

Jii7KFDQaes What a bowler, despite his height he did not get carried away with the short stuff and his fuller length was lethal in deceiving the batsman.

[Muloghonto]

Nonsense. Ambrose low 80mph bowler' date=' what you smoking[/quote'] One of the first times they had speed cams in cricket was England in West Indies in 1998. Ambrose barely crossed 82mph then and most batsmen are actually of the opinion that Curtley could bowl at a mean pace when he was irked, but he mostly bowled at fast-medium speeds. Speed never was Ambrose's weapon and it was most aptly demonstrated at a county game i watched in 1995, where Hick was batting against Ambrose and Ambrose bowled six consecutive perfect blockhole yorkers and Hick dug out six consecutive yorkers. The same guy who was Waqar and Wasim's bunny at yorkers. (Hick was an Ambrose bunny too, but fishing outside offstump, not yorked for pace). Ambrose could move the ball both ways, bowl anywhere on the pitch accurate to a penny and got monster bounce due to his 6'7 frame. His stock ball was 4th stump line good length inswinger that would come up to Dravid's chest. I remember that series vividly. Not extreme pace. And by the time Ambrose bowled in his last series in England, he had excellent record but he bowled around 78mph with the occasional 80-81 mph 'effort ball'. So yes, you wanna see how someone with R Vinay Kumar's pace is sucessful in Test cricket, watch the last year of Ambrose's career. Even at his pomp, in 1991 at WACA, he was not the 90mph bowler we think he was. Of all the great west indies bowlers to come through, Ambrose and Walsh were definitely the slowest of the fast bowlers that i can remember. None of them were consistent 90mph bowlers like Holding, Marshall, Croft, Roberts were and Garner actually was not that frighteningly quick either.

[Muloghonto]

Akram and Walsh were slower than Ishant?! Not until they were in their early 30's or so! youre right they were far more skilled- at a faster pace. They were not express their peaks but were fast, not fast medium by any means McGrath might have been about the same pace or slower but with his consistency and accuracy he was a demon.

Akram could bowl all day at 90mph, but in his own words, he preffered to bowl slower to get more swing and tried to keep it in the 85-86mph zone. Walsh by the way, was never very fast. I don't think Walsh's effort ball broke the 90mph barrier and even in his youth, he was not much faster than McGrath. What Walsh had, was amazing control and the tightest stock delivery in the game- the inswinger from 4th stump line that swung in brutally and bounced always at chest height.He got just as much bounce as Ambrose, but swung in the ball more ( though unlike Ambrose, he had no outswinger and was not much more than an excellent 2nd-line bowler till late in his career when he became an exponent of the slower ball that moved out slightly). You are correct about McGrath's consistency but IMO, Ambrose was even more consistent and accurate than McGrath. I've never seen a fast bowler more accurate than Ambrose and if it were a contest of pitching six balls on an idential spot anywhere on the pitch, Ambrose would easily be the best ever fast bowler, quite competetive with the likes of Kumble, Warne,Murali, Bedi etc. who could put it on the same spot all day long.

[Muloghonto]

We want bowlers like Imran, Waqar Younis, Marshall, Akhtar, Lillee etc who can run down sides with sheer pace. Even very good batsmen genuinely fear express pace. Swing bowlers can be effective, but I don't see any of our bowlers (except an improved version of Yadav) who can intimidate the opposition into submission. These 130-135K bowlers need helpful conditions to be successful. They would rarely run through sides. We need accurate and skilled bowlers who consistantly bowl 140+ and frequently bowl 145+ and occasionally reach 150-160. Manjrekar's idea may work for a short while. After a while, we would see our bowlers loose 5-10 kph speed and they pose no threat to international quality batsman, swing or no swing. Some bowlers like McGrath were not lightning fast, but were highly disciplined and accurate and gave nothing away. Such bowlers are not common. Young pacers must focus on speed and then on accuracy. If you are not a fast bowler to begin with, you will never remain a threatening bowler all your life and at some point you will loose some control and accuracy and with no speed for backup, your career would be finished. This is what that routinely happens to Indian bowlers who swing a lot but are not very pacy. Pacy bowlers get enough time to recover their accuracy if they loose it.

What a load of rubbish. Imran & Marshall were once-in-a-lifetime bowlers, so was Waqar (though Waqar was too inconsistent for me to rate him amongst the best, despite his early career numbers) and i am yet to hear a batsman who fears Akhtar more than they fear Ambrose and i can assure you, Ambrose even with his nostrils flared and breathing fire at Steve Waugh in 1995 never bowled within touching distance of Akhtar. Indian bowlers lose their way because too many of them think they can bowl as fast as they can without loss of control and instead of refining their craft of seam bowling at 22 years old, decide to try and bowl consistently at 90mph due to populist pressures. Thats what happened to Zaheer, Ishant, Irfan and practically everyone else. As for medium pacers needing helpful conditions, i can assure you that for 95% of his life Akram didn't bowl faster than 85-86mph and got results everywhere. Pollock was not very fast either and he too succeeded everywhere, so did Ambrose, McGrath, ectc. who were Ishant Sharma/Umesh Yadav in speed. You don't need to be fast to succeed everywhere, but you must be accurate to a penny and either swing the ball both ways or get disconcerting bounce. Accuracy is a must, which Indian pacers have been mediocre at (except Kapil) and we've never had a pacer who could move the ball both ways or get disconcerting bounce everywhere.

[Muloghonto]

@SachinLara All/most of the bowlers you mentioned were very quick in their early parts of career, during which they took wickets all over the world, earned experience, accuracy and learned skills and reached a point where they could afford to be slow. Compare that to a newbie who comes from Indian domestic setup, with his skill set he can't afford to be very slow. Hence I feel newcomers should have pace. Although I'm no pace fanatic, results over anything for me but I will always be doubtful of any pacer's success who starts off with 125-130 range.

Look, whats holding back Bhuvi is not the extra 5kph in stock ball speed. Whats holding him back is: a) he is not extremely accurate b) he is largely a one trick pony- moves the ball in viciously to a rightie but can't move it out even half as much c) does not have disconcerting bounce. If Bhuvi could pitch six balls on a penny anywhere on the pitch and moved it out half as much as he brings it in, he would quite easily put up 300 wickets at sub 25 average. Something that gaining extra 5kph won't do for him.

[SLICKR392]

^ Good point and he also has this issue of PK, swings it a lot on good conditions. You can take Hilfy, he swings it enough to get a nick or pitches it in middle stumps and swings it a bit away to hit the off stump. kxhB_CssXDY Lack of movement by Viru but you need to learn to master and control your swing. About his inswing -usually when BK pitches it on the mid stump he swings it a lot to the leg side which either goes for a boundary towards the fine leg or goes wide. Again, lot of gap between Dravid's bat & pad but it was a good ball. mw4GI-Ud7cQ

[King Tendulkar]

One of the first times they had speed cams in cricket was England in West Indies in 1998. Ambrose barely crossed 82mph then and most batsmen are actually of the opinion that Curtley could bowl at a mean pace when he was irked, but he mostly bowled at fast-medium speeds. Speed never was Ambrose's weapon and it was most aptly demonstrated at a county game i watched in 1995, where Hick was batting against Ambrose and Ambrose bowled six consecutive perfect blockhole yorkers and Hick dug out six consecutive yorkers. The same guy who was Waqar and Wasim's bunny at yorkers. (Hick was an Ambrose bunny too, but fishing outside offstump, not yorked for pace). Ambrose could move the ball both ways, bowl anywhere on the pitch accurate to a penny and got monster bounce due to his 6'7 frame. His stock ball was 4th stump line good length inswinger that would come up to Dravid's chest. I remember that series vividly. Not extreme pace. And by the time Ambrose bowled in his last series in England, he had excellent record but he bowled around 78mph with the occasional 80-81 mph 'effort ball'. So yes, you wanna see how someone with R Vinay Kumar's pace is sucessful in Test cricket, watch the last year of Ambrose's career. Even at his pomp, in 1991 at WACA, he was not the 90mph bowler we think he was. Of all the great west indies bowlers to come through, Ambrose and Walsh were definitely the slowest of the fast bowlers that i can remember. None of them were consistent 90mph bowlers like Holding, Marshall, Croft, Roberts were and Garner actually was not that frighteningly quick either.

Walsh was not quick and not even that great. willing work horse. Ambrose was fast. Talking about his last year is irrelevant, its like analysing sachin or a dravid in their last year. Amborse dropped to kumars pace and then retired, sums it up really:cantstop: Ambrose in pomp was fast, tall, accurate and moved it. Scary combination. Thats why he is contender for ATG team. Stop saying he was medium pacer based on last year or so in cricket. He was easily 87 to 92 mph bowler. You should have watched him in pomp rather then last tour to england

[King Tendulkar]

If Ambrose is not a fast bowler. We might as well pack up and go home

[express bowling]

@ SachinLara Some clarifications 1) Before speedguns were regularly used, from the 1999 world cup, we don't know what speeds the pacers bowled at. But bowlers like Akram, Ambrose, Walsh etc. were perceived as fast by the batsmen playing them. Ask any batsman who has faced themand he will tell you that they were fast. Look at any video of them and you will see that they hurried batsmen of their era consistently. Maybe the currently fitter batsmen will not get hurried as much but that is immaterial. They were quick for their era. 2) You have seen speed gun readings of these greats when they were at the end of their careers. At that time they were much slower than their peak. 3) There are broadly 3 kinds of pacers. . a) Those who hit the deck hard with a high % of deliveries. They are mostly fast or fast-mediuim, sometimes even medium-fast and tall. They push the batsmen on the back foot with hostile short balls and then pitch deliveries up and try for seam or swdwing. Most strike bowlers among pacers fall in this category. e.g- Akram, Ambrose, Walsh, Roberts, McGrath,Lilee,,Garner,Holding, Imran, Pollock, Donald . b) Shorter bowlers who are really quick in the air mostly pitch it up and try to get swing. e.g Waqar, Malinga, Umesh, Aaron, . c) Pacers who don't like hitting the deck hard or can't do it. They don't bowl with effort and They just pitch the ball up hoping for swing. Such bowlers maybe medium pace or even fast-mediums. ZTthey don't push the batsmen on the backfoot, the batters plant themselves on the front foot itfficult to get them out. Most Indian pacers ,from whatever era, fall in this category. 4) The speed gun reading measures the speed at which the ball is released. The speed at which the ball reaches the batsman is different. Some pacers have the ability to make the ball lose less pace and hence hurry the batsmen more. Most strike bowlers, including spinners, have this ability. Most Indian seamers don't have this ability. The problem with Manju's model is that we will get bowlers of the 3rd type [ type © ] and they don't end up becoming strike bowlers.

[Muloghonto]

Walsh was not quick and not even that great. willing work horse. Ambrose was fast. Talking about his last year is irrelevant, its like analysing sachin or a dravid in their last year. Amborse dropped to kumars pace and then retired, sums it up really:cantstop: Ambrose in pomp was fast, tall, accurate and moved it. Scary combination. Thats why he is contender for ATG team. Stop saying he was medium pacer based on last year or so in cricket. He was easily 87 to 92 mph bowler. You should have watched him in pomp rather then last tour to england

I also watched him in 1991 in Australia and even then Ambrose was not more than 85-86mph, with the effort ball around 88-90mph. I am sorry but Ambrose was no faster than Ishant or Umesh for his stock deliveries and even his effort balls were hardly a km or two faster. Oh by the way, it may come as some surprise to you, but i have it on good authority that a certain Javagal Srinath was faster than Ambrose. Ambrose obviously, was a fast bowler. So was McGrath, Pollock, etc. who were better than any India has ever produced. My point is, however, that they were not 'faster' than Indian bowlers such as Srinath, Nehra, Ishant, Umesh Yadav,etc. What makes a great bowler is not extreme speed.extreme speed was simply a bonus. If any of our bowlers can be as good as a 38 year old Ambrose, bowling at less than 80mph, we can easily ascend to #1 in test cricket. Check out his stats from his last year and you will see why pace is largely irrelevant to the discussion of great fast bowling. For Ambrose bowling at 78mph was heck of a lot better than anything we've ever seen an Indian produce since Kapil Dev's glory days.

[express bowling]

We need pacers who will run in hard and bowl the ball with effort. They will hit the deck hard with a certain % of deliveries and extract life from the pitch. Ability to swing as well as seam the ball is a big plus. They maybe either fast or fast-medium. Both are ok as long as the other features are there. Most Indian pacers, even those with reasonable pace, don't extract life from the pitch.

[Muloghonto]

@ SachinLara Some clarifications 1) Before speedguns were regularly used, from the 1999 world cup, we don't know what speeds the pacers bowled at. But bowlers like Akram, Ambrose, Walsh etc. were perceived as fast by the batsmen playing them. Ask any batsman who has faced themand he will tell you that they were fast. Look at any video of them and you will see that they hurried batsmen of their era consistently. Maybe the currently fitter batsmen will not get hurried as much but that is immaterial. They were quick for their era.

I have and the common consensus is Ambrose was fast, but except when you got Curtley really mad, he did not even approach 90mph. You should know that I've been here (north america) a while and i do play cricket- its not uncommon to meet west indians here or in the states who've played FC cricket with the west indian greats of that era and virtually everyone i've spoken to who've actually faced ambrose said that he wasnt the fastest, but definitely the bounciest and most awkwardest to play against. Batsmen are hurried not just by pace, but also by bounce. When a ball pitches on good length, cuts in and bounces chest high, or hell, with Ambrose, often times he'd pitch it up to half volley length and still get it to bounce past your waist, it does hurry you for the stroke, for its extremely hard to play deliveries from that length at that bounce. For comparison, give me a Waqar Younis good length delivery from good length at 95mph over Ambrose's 85mph hr one because i can assure you, i'd play the faster less bouncing ball from that length better.

2) You have seen speed gun readings of these greats when they were at the end of their careers. At that time they were much slower than their peak.

Akram by his own words stopped bowling faster than 85-87mph because that is the ideal swing range he found. McGrath played for years in the speed gun era, so did Pollock and they were not breaking 140kph either on a consistent basis.

3) There are broadly 3 kinds of pacers. a) Those who hit the deck hard with a high % of deliveries. They are mostly fast or fast-mediuim, sometimes even medium-fast and tall. They push the batsmen on the back foot with hostile short balls and then pitch deliveries up and try for seam or swdwing. Most strike bowlers among pacers fall in this category. e.g- Akram, Ambrose, Walsh, Roberts, McGrath,Lilee,,Garner,Holding, Imran, Pollock, Donald.

Err, Akram was not a hit the deck bowler. he was mostly a fuller length bowler, along with Waqar. Most strike bowlers you;ve named have far more skillsets than Indian pacers, not pace in every case. As i said, watch Ambrose in his last series. Guy barely broke 80mph. Yet the guy got less than 20 average with the ball. What does that tell you ?? Fast bowling is not just about bowling fast. Its about movement, line, length, consistency and above all, control. By Manjrekar's model, we'd have the 'standard' Indian bowler being a Zaheer Khan/Chaminda Vaas. If at any given time India has atleast 2 such bowlers available, we will consistently win virtually anywhere in the world. And to be these type of bowlers with success, you need movement both ways and consistency. What the Indian public wants, is a gaggle of bowlers bowling as fast as we can, due to some sort of inferiority complex, and end up with 20 Mohammed samis for 1 Shoaib Akhtar every 10 years or so.

[Muloghonto]

We need pacers who will run in hard and bowl the ball with effort. They will hit the deck hard with a certain % of deliveries and extract life from the pitch. Ability to swing as well as seam the ball is a big plus. They maybe either fast or fast-medium. Both are ok as long as the other features are there.

You are putting the cart before the horse. Having a bowler do nothing but hit the deck hard gets you Ishant like numbers. Ability to sing and seam the ball is not a big plus, it is an ABSOLUTE MUST. Ability to consistently bowl at 140kph or more is the plus. As my examples show you, you dont need extreme pace to succeed. But you do need extreme control and movement both ways/bounce to succeed. If someone comes with extra pace with that, thats a bonus, not a necessity.

[CG]

I have and the common consensus is Ambrose was fast, but except when you got Curtley really mad, he did not even approach 90mph. You should know that I've been here (north america) a while and i do play cricket- its not uncommon to meet west indians here or in the states who've played FC cricket with the west indian greats of that era and virtually everyone i've spoken to who've actually faced ambrose said that he wasnt the fastest, but definitely the bounciest and most awkwardest to play against. Batsmen are hurried not just by pace, but also by bounce. When a ball pitches on good length, cuts in and bounces chest high, or hell, with Ambrose, often times he'd pitch it up to half volley length and still get it to bounce past your waist, it does hurry you for the stroke, for its extremely hard to play deliveries from that length at that bounce. For comparison, give me a Waqar Younis good length delivery from good length at 95mph over Ambrose's 85mph hr one because i can assure you, i'd play the faster less bouncing ball from that length better. Akram by his own words stopped bowling faster than 85-87mph because that is the ideal swing range he found. McGrath played for years in the speed gun era, so did Pollock and they were not breaking 140kph either on a consistent basis. Err, Akram was not a hit the deck bowler. he was mostly a fuller length bowler, along with Waqar. Most strike bowlers you;ve named have far more skillsets than Indian pacers, not pace in every case. As i said, watch Ambrose in his last series. Guy barely broke 80mph. Yet the guy got less than 20 average with the ball. What does that tell you ?? Fast bowling is not just about bowling fast. Its about movement, line, length, consistency and above all, control. By Manjrekar's model, we'd have the 'standard' Indian bowler being a Zaheer Khan/Chaminda Vaas. If at any given time India has atleast 2 such bowlers available, we will consistently win virtually anywhere in the world. And to be these type of bowlers with success, you need movement both ways and consistency. What the Indian public wants, is a gaggle of bowlers bowling as fast as we can, due to some sort of inferiority complex, and end up with 20 Mohammed samis for 1 Shoaib Akhtar every 10 years or so.

Some Speed gun readings showed taller bowlers like ishant and lee bowling at 145k/h in 2008 cb series.Ishant lost much less pace than lee.

[Number]

Look, whats holding back Bhuvi is not the extra 5kph in stock ball speed. Whats holding him back is: a) he is not extremely accurate b) he is largely a one trick pony- moves the ball in viciously to a rightie but can't move it out even half as much c) does not have disconcerting bounce. If Bhuvi could pitch six balls on a penny anywhere on the pitch and moved it out half as much as he brings it in, he would quite easily put up 300 wickets at sub 25 average. Something that gaining extra 5kph won't do for him.

Speed would've surely helped him. Although I don't want him to change his action to get more pace and all that experimental crap which was done with Ishant and Pathan. Control over swing and accuracy will come with time, will take years.

[express bowling]

You are putting the cart before the horse. Having a bowler do nothing but hit the deck hard gets you Ishant like numbers. Ability to sing and seam the ball is not a big plus, it is an ABSOLUTE MUST. Ability to consistently bowl at 140kph or more is the plus. As my examples show you, you dont need extreme pace to succeed. But you do need extreme control and movement both ways/bounce to succeed. If someone comes with extra pace with that, thats a bonus, not a necessity.

1) If you have read my posts in this thread, I have categorically stated that strike bowlers need to have movement, control as well as pace. You are assuming that pace means 140 k + always. 135 to 142 k is also good pace for a skilled bowler or bouncy bowler. If I guy is shorter then it is better if he is really quick. A taller bowler with bounce, accuracy and cut can afford to have a slightly lesser release pace. He will still look pacy. 2) Akram bowler a nice mix of pitched up swingers and hit the deck bouncers or cutters. I have watched Akram a lot. 3) It is much more difficult to convert a dibbly-dobbly medium pacer to a quicker bowler than teach a faster bowler control and some movement. Any bowling coach will tell you that. That is why, in most countries with good pace attacks, they pick bowlers who bowl with effort and some pace and teach them control and movement. 4) In a nutshell, Don't assume that by pace we are referring to just 140 k + pacers.Even 135 k+ is considered to be good pace if the bowler is bowling with effort and extracting life from the pitch. Also, Don't refer to the pace of pacers who have enormous experience. Huge experience can be a replacement for pace. We are discussing new pacers here. .

[express bowling]

@ SachinLara 1) This thread was about Manju suggesting that India should use Bhuvneshwar as an Indian pace bowler prototype. Many people have opposed that part. It is not about people on this forum wanting the quickest bowlers in the world or choosing unskilled fast bowlers like Md. Sami, as you have suggested. 2) Most people here want skilled bowlers who are reasonably pacy too. Atleast one genuine quick in the attack is desirable. Not many posters here want the attack to consist of unskilled quicks only, so please stop trying to argue that point. ( Just read the pace threads to see how many posters have wanted Pankaj Singh, perceiving him to be skilled and bouncy ). 3) Please stop thinking that Bhuvneshwar is a similar kind of a bowler to Ambrose, Walsh or even Akram; and if you don't think so then Don't bring them up. I don't think anybody in this forum would oppose if a young Ambrose or Walsh or Akram is made the future Indian pacer prototype.

[Marut]

What a load of rubbish. Imran & Marshall were once-in-a-lifetime bowlers, so was Waqar (though Waqar was too inconsistent for me to rate him amongst the best, despite his early career numbers) and i am yet to hear a batsman who fears Akhtar more than they fear Ambrose and i can assure you, Ambrose even with his nostrils flared and breathing fire at Steve Waugh in 1995 never bowled within touching distance of Akhtar. Indian bowlers lose their way because too many of them think they can bowl as fast as they can without loss of control and instead of refining their craft of seam bowling at 22 years old, decide to try and bowl consistently at 90mph due to populist pressures. Thats what happened to Zaheer, Ishant, Irfan and practically everyone else. As for medium pacers needing helpful conditions, i can assure you that for 95% of his life Akram didn't bowl faster than 85-86mph and got results everywhere. Pollock was not very fast either and he too succeeded everywhere, so did Ambrose, McGrath, ectc. who were Ishant Sharma/Umesh Yadav in speed. You don't need to be fast to succeed everywhere, but you must be accurate to a penny and either swing the ball both ways or get disconcerting bounce. Accuracy is a must, which Indian pacers have been mediocre at (except Kapil) and we've never had a pacer who could move the ball both ways or get disconcerting bounce everywhere.

Well, these are the reasons India has one of the worst W/L records. As a youngster you have to learn to bowl fast, and retaining the speed, learn to be accurate also. All the bowlers you mentioned had express deliveries. And most of the these bowlers were very tall and had steep bounce and lethal yorkers bowled from that height. Indian bowlers are usually not that tall, and Indian pitches are not very favourable to pace, so good luck with your "need not bowl fast to succeed". When we play abroad also, any of the bowlers like BK will be outbowled by their Australian and South African counterparts due to their speed even if they are equally accurate. That we cannot produce those once in generation bowlers from a billion population is a lame excuse. BCCI has enough money and facilities and is in a position to unearth these type of bowlers if they really want to. Akhtar was an intimidating bowler when in full flow, much more than any Indian bowler ever has been. He did not have the discipline and work ethic to be as successful as some other Pakistani bowlers. Indian bowlers pale out more due to loss of pace than loss of accuracy. Within their first two or three years of international apperance nearly every Indian bowler loose upto 10kph speed and this is a well documented fact. That is one of the main reasons they fizzle away. Pace, swing and control are all important. Indian bowlers score poorly on the first count and have never ever been world class. In any selection of a World XI, Indian bowlers are never even considered even in the first list because there have been no really good bowlers ever. Infact, only express pace bowlers (with some exceptions like McGrath) make it to these lists.

[bharat297]

There's nothing to say that lack of pace equates to less wickets. The only thing about lack of pace is you have to be able to counter batsmen coming well forward (and in some cases out of their crease). They will especially do that if you are a 130km/h swing bowler to try to counter the swing. It's a lot harder to do that to a 145km/h swing bowler. So if you're a 130km/h bowler then you have to have a couple of other things in your arsenal to counter batsmen coming down the wicket at you. In Tests, you need to have a good bouncer to keep the batsmen guessing and you need to be able to extract bounce off a length (vital). This is why bowlers like McGrath, Pollock, etc. could take so many wickets despite not being that quick. Batsmen couldn't get forward because of the steep bounce they got. They were also 6"4+ which also helped extract that bounce but even Zaheer in his prime was able to do that. Look at his opening spell to Phil Jaques in 2007 @ Melbourne as an example. Accuracy is irrelevant as a comparison as every bowler needs to be accurate. If you can't land the ball where you want to land it then you'll struggle anyway.