Speeds and Performances of Pacers and Spinners

[Mosher]

3 hours ago, express bowling said:

 

 

Great. !!

 

Now look at the pacers with best bowling averages in the last 50 years in the 2 longer formats. 

 

Most pacers averaging 26 or less have been either fast bowlers or tall bounce bowlers.

 

This means, if we want really good quality pacers who are high on performance ... we must look for GOOD quality pacers who are either 140 k+ or are really tall and bouncy. 

 

Short medium pacers are very very rare in these 2 lists.

 

TESTS ....

 

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?bowling_pacespin=1;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_average;qualmin1=100;qualval1=wickets;spanmax1=30+Mar+2021;spanmin1=30+Mar+1971;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

 

 

ODIs ....

 

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?bowling_pacespin=1;class=2;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_average;qualmin1=100;qualval1=wickets;spanmax1=30+Mar+2021;spanmin1=30+Mar+1971;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

 

 

 

A)    Pacers who are quick have access to a much wider range of skills for taking wickets compared to shorter medium pacers.

 

Skills available to short or medium height medium pacers for the purpose of taking wickets are ...

 

1)  Outswingers and seaming away balls

2)  Inswingers and seaming in balls

3)  Slower balls

 

 

Skills available to GOOD quality fast bowlers for taking wickets are ...

 

1)  Outswingers and seaming away balls

2)  Inswingers and seaming in balls

3)  Slower balls

4)  Stump directed zippy quick balls.

5)  Short of length bouncing snorters around off stump.

6)  Quick bouncers.

7)  Quick yorkers.

 

If the ball is not moving ... which is often ... then the quick or bouncy bowlers are really needed.

 

 

B)   Another very important factor is the intimidation factor. Cricket is played with a hard ball and quick deliveries hitting the hand, head, body or legs make batsmen very uncomfortable. 

 

Batsmen feel psychological pressure when facing teams with multiple hostile quick bowlers. 

 

All super dominating teams in history have had multiple hostile bowlers who are either 140 k+ or very tall and bouncy.

 

If we want to be a super dominating team, we need multiple hostile pacers.

 

 

C)  Multiple Medium pacers are ok only in T20s and even there, having good quick bowlers help.

 

There can of course be a place for 1 highly skilled medium pacer  ... but not more than 1.

 

 

Keep these points in mind before coming up with such emotional statements.

 

 

Bruh why don't you talk about Bhuvi

 

[Vilander]

7 hours ago, New guy said:

I Identify only and only with performances.

If that is the case then look at top 3 India pacers from last 5 years I am sure they are 140+ accurate pacers. 

[Vilander]

8 hours ago, New guy said:

Some of you  guys need to grow the freak up. Your speed gun worship is like the teenage boy discovering internet porn for the first time. There is a lot more to life than jerking off to one thing that pleases you. 

Again very emotional..its wierd

[msb1991]

Gosh this argument is as old as time over here and I've been on both sides. 

 

You should probably give more opportunities to taller, quicker bowlers at international level - i.e. one Test match was enough to see Vinay Kumar was not the answer in that format but maybe worth giving someone like Saini a couple more opportunities, especially as a fourth pacer whose main job is to bowl quick and get wickets. However, if you are tall / quick and cannot get plenty of wickets in Indian domestic cricket then you must not be an international standard bowler. Especially because pitches seem to be supportive for pacers these days (I live in UK so I don't watch but judging by scorecards). 

 

[msb1991]

5 hours ago, express bowling said:

There can of course be a place for 1 highly skilled medium pacer  ... but not more than 1.

 

Agree. There's always exceptions though. For example Walsh and Ambrose in England in 2000 were total class and rarely crossed 82mph. Philander was a great bowler, McGrath was never quick (as much as people love to pretend otherwise), Richard Hadlee was by all accounts medium-fast. Etc, etc.  But these bowlers had huge skill and dominated FC cricket as well as Test cricket. If there was a bowler of such quality, you'd be able to see it in their A Team performances. Heck, Siraj is probably the closest to that, but he's a tad quicker than medium-fast, more of a fast-medium. 

 

Also I think Neil Wagner has shown that the bouncer can be a weapon for anyone above 130kph. 

 

But it is all nuance, I think both sides of this debate probably agree more than will be openly admitted. 

[express bowling]

1 hour ago, msb1991 said:

 

Agree. There's always exceptions though. For example Walsh and Ambrose in England in 2000 were total class and rarely crossed 82mph. Philander was a great bowler, McGrath was never quick (as much as people love to pretend otherwise), Richard Hadlee was by all accounts medium-fast. Etc, etc.  But these bowlers had huge skill and dominated FC cricket as well as Test cricket. If there was a bowler of such quality, you'd be able to see it in their A Team performances. Heck, Siraj is probably the closest to that, but he's a tad quicker than medium-fast, more of a fast-medium. 

 

Also I think Neil Wagner has shown that the bouncer can be a weapon for anyone above 130kph. 

 

But it is all nuance, I think both sides of this debate probably agree more than will be openly admitted. 

 

 

I had specifically covered the really tall bounce bowlers in the post you quoted. They do well even if they are not quick. Because they hurry batsmen with steep bounce. It helps even more if they are really experienced.

 

McGrath, Old Ambrose, Old Walsh, Pollock,

Old Ishant, Old Anderson all come under this category.

 

Philander had a very poor record in Asia. Such bowlers won't help us.

 

Wagner is a freak. Although he is medium height, he gets bounce like a tall bowler. Hurries batsmen with bounce all the time. 

 

Hadlee was sharp in his hey days. 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2021 by express bowling

[Vilander]

1 hour ago, msb1991 said:

There's always exceptions though. For example Walsh and Ambrose in England in 2000 were total class and rarely crossed 82mph.

Walsh and Ambrose were 2 meters + their angle made 135 k sufficient in terms of pace and variation at the batsman's end, this has been acknowledged look at Ishant 2.0 easily slower than his previous version but 2 times the bowler in returns - no one denies it. in a swinging condition someone with control and in spongy condition someone that takes paceoff skillfully will do well - ofcourse but in good test wickets you need an optimal pace and control bowler.

Edited March 30, 2021 by Vilander

[Vilander]

1 hour ago, msb1991 said:

I think both sides of this debate probably agree more than will be openly admitted. 

 

there is no both sides here that you need to mediate.  just a bunch of posters who follow 'fast bowlers' and their skills and some one that over simplifies the previous groups exuberance as ' speed gun porn addiction '.  It has been sufficiently pointed out  that a bowler who can increase pace to test a batsman's reaction time has multiple other variations as a result that fetch him results - its simple game plan and physics. Not some emotional identity issue. heck half the uncles who follow Indian pace bowlers cant complete one full over at 120 k and Bhuvi probably can bowl all day at 132 - its not abt that really.  It is often descends into a low quality troll worthy discussion , having to give the same explanation that its not about speed gun readings alone - it is also about the speed gun readings among more important variables.

[msb1991]

3 hours ago, express bowling said:

 

 

I had specifically covered the really tall bounce bowlers in the post you quoted. They do well even if they are not quick. Because they hurry batsmen with steep bounce. It helps even more if they are really experienced.

 

McGrath, Old Ambrose, Old Walsh, Pollock,

Old Ishant, Old Anderson all come under this category.

 

Philander had a very poor record in Asia. Such bowlers won't help us.

 

Wagner is a freak. Although he is medium height, he gets bounce like a tall bowler. Hurries batsmen with bounce all the time. 

 

Hadlee was sharp in his hey days. 

 

 

Perhaps you're right. I just think the world is complex. Heuristics help to understand the complexity of the world but there will always be exceptions. 'Freak' and 'sharp in his hey days' might be true or they might be rationalisations to make the exceptions fit the rule. 

[msb1991]

3 hours ago, Vilander said:

Walsh and Ambrose were 2 meters + their angle made 135 k sufficient in terms of pace and variation at the batsman's end, this has been acknowledged look at Ishant 2.0 easily slower than his previous version but 2 times the bowler in returns - no one denies it. in a swinging condition someone with control and in spongy condition someone that takes paceoff skillfully will do well - ofcourse but in good test wickets you need an optimal pace and control bowler.

That series, they were closer to 125kph. But both tall, absolutely. 

[msb1991]

3 hours ago, Vilander said:

 

there is no both sides here that you need to mediate.  just a bunch of posters who follow 'fast bowlers' and their skills and some one that over simplifies the previous groups exuberance as ' speed gun porn addiction '.  It has been sufficiently pointed out  that a bowler who can increase pace to test a batsman's reaction time has multiple other variations as a result that fetch him results - its simple game plan and physics. Not some emotional identity issue. heck half the uncles who follow Indian pace bowlers cant complete one full over at 120 k and Bhuvi probably can bowl all day at 132 - its not abt that really.  It is often descends into a low quality troll worthy discussion , having to give the same explanation that its not about speed gun readings alone - it is also about the speed gun readings among more important variables.

Yes of course - there is no need for me to mediate, I'm just posting like anyone else. 

[express bowling]

21 minutes ago, msb1991 said:

Perhaps you're right. I just think the world is complex. Heuristics help to understand the complexity of the world but there will always be exceptions. 'Freak' and 'sharp in his hey days' might be true or they might be rationalisations to make the exceptions fit the rule. 

 

 

I am not denying exceptions ... which is why I said in my original post that 1 exceptionally skilled medium pacer is ok. But we should not fill our teams with short medium pacers.

 

Generally speaking, either pace or bounce is needed as the basic minimum.

 

Wagner gets consistent bounce. So, he ticks the box.

 

 

[express bowling]

@msb1991

 

The point I am making may become clearer if we study Bhuvi's case.  He has exceptional game sense ... great ability to set up batsmen  ... pinpoint accuracy  ... ability to move the ball both ways ... can bowl defensive yorkers ... great slower balls.

 

Basically everything else is there at a very high level except pace and bounce.

 

But such an exceptionally skilful seamer has had a middling career. 

 

He has been around for 8 years now but has been picked in very few tests. Averages 34 in ODIs.  T20 is his strongest format where he had a good average of 26.7 but has just 45 wickets from 48 T20Is.

 

Bhuvi has an exceptional temperament and is an honest trier. No one can question his commitment.  But despite so many positive attributes he is not considered as a great bowler. 

 

If he could bowl 135 k to 145 k and got more bounce ... Bhuvi would have been an ATG.

 

In a nutshell ... it is very very difficult for a pacer to be a top bowler if he lacks both pace and bounce.  (  Possible but very difficult  )

 

And if we want really top notch pacers, it would be easier if we looked for good pacers with pace and / or bounce.

 

P.S -- Bhuvi definitely deserves a place in our LOI teams. This post is not about that. 

Edited March 30, 2021 by express bowling

[Vilander]

54 minutes ago, msb1991 said:

Yes of course - there is no need for me to mediate, I'm just posting like anyone else. 

oh yeah when i read it again ,that sounded like an attack from me, not my intention. Leave that mediate bit. The point below is relevant, i dont have express bowling skill to make a point civil lol. 

[Vilander]

2 hours ago, msb1991 said:

That series, they were closer to 125kph. But both tall, absolutely. 

this adds an other interesting layer, something i always wondered and observed.

Looking at speed of ball at batsmen's end.  May be there is less dramatic diff when compared to bowler end. Imagine a 120 k slowing down to 110k in a fast wicket and a 145 slowing down to 125. Imagine a 125 to 100 and a 145 to 115 in a slow wicket.

Theoretically a ball that skids on should lose less speed compared to a ball that hits the deck hard, then the angle comes into picture. A raising ball (from a tall bounce bowler) deviates appreciably in three dimensions at the batsman's end seam/swing(lateral ln mvmt) + bounce (lngth) + pace/reaction time, a skidding delivery will seam/swing +pace/reaction but will have predictable or manageable bounce variable - so batsman can get 'set' that much quicker to those deliveries and meet them under the eye. Imagine a medium bowler like bhuv varying his speed his skill will mean he can conceal his arm etc and really fool the batsman but a good batsman will still react well to it due to the lack of pace on the ball ( say bhuv goes from 138 to 125) imagine a shami or 'Yadav - India version' doing the same with a faster delivery he can do it from 148 to 135 - so he has the same ability  to play with the pace element but will examine a good batsman's reaction so much more, now bring in Cummins he does all what shami does and he can extract a fair bit of the third variable too.

Its really physics Bhuvi can never hope to replicate Cummins success - its not possible and Cummins uses three dimensions , vs Bhuvs 2 and bhuv also does not use one of 2 well enough due to his lesser actual pace probably relies on the lateral movement variable of which he is clearly a master and ahead of Cummins. But Prasidh, or Afridi those lads have every ingredient that is necessary just not the skill- so i am more excited to see them bowl.  Comparing someone like Bhuv to someone like Anderson is also informative , too bad they dont play together in test - but anderson is an England successful version of what India hoped Bhuv will be but never was, Anderson is 6'1 and often bowled 140+ when in prime, and is a master of lateral movement and accuracy.  Why do you think Bhuv did not achieve something similar to time in career or some comparable level in tests ?

There are great bowlers who did not tick all three boxes though steyn, ambrose , mcgrath ( did steyn get multiple wickets with bounce to head no Morkel did the work there, did Mcgrath beat people for pace no dizzy and Bret lee and did that work) several examples that's were probably batsman end speed and degree of variance and consistent career in helpful conditions/ team composition comes into picture imo.

Edited March 30, 2021 by Vilander

[Jay]

2 hours ago, Vilander said:

this adds an other interesting layer, something i always wondered and observed.

Looking at speed of ball at batsmen's end.  May be there is less dramatic diff when compared to bowler end. Imagine a 120 k slowing down to 110k in a fast wicket and a 145 slowing down to 125. Imagine a 125 to 100 and a 145 to 115 in a slow wicket.

Theoretically a ball that skids on should lose less speed compared to a ball that hits the deck hard, then the angle comes into picture. A raising ball (from a tall bounce bowler) deviates appreciably in three dimensions at the batsman's end seam/swing(lateral ln mvmt) + bounce (lngth) + pace/reaction time, a skidding delivery will seam/swing +pace/reaction but will have predictable or manageable bounce variable - so batsman can get 'set' that much quicker to those deliveries and meet them under the eye. Imagine a medium bowler like bhuv varying his speed his skill will mean he can conceal his arm etc and really fool the batsman but a good batsman will still react well to it due to the lack of pace on the ball ( say bhuv goes from 138 to 125) imagine a shami or 'Yadav - India version' doing the same with a faster delivery he can do it from 148 to 135 - so he has the same ability  to play with the pace element but will examine a good batsman's reaction so much more, now bring in Cummins he does all what shami does and he can extract a fair bit of the third variable too.

Its really physics Bhuvi can never hope to replicate Cummins success - its not possible and Cummins uses three dimensions , vs Bhuvs 2 and bhuv also does not use one of 2 well enough due to his lesser actual pace probably relies on the lateral movement variable of which he is clearly a master and ahead of Cummins. But Prasidh, or Afridi those lads have every ingredient that is necessary just not the skill- so i am more excited to see them bowl.  Comparing someone like Bhuv to someone like Anderson is also informative , too bad they dont play together in test - but anderson is an England successful version of what India hoped Bhuv will be but never was, Anderson is 6'1 and often bowled 140+ when in prime, and is a master of lateral movement and accuracy.  Why do you think Bhuv did not achieve something similar to time in career or some comparable level in tests ?

There are great bowlers who did not tick all three boxes though steyn, ambrose , mcgrath ( did steyn get multiple wickets with bounce to head no Morkel did the work there, did Mcgrath beat people for pace no dizzy and Bret lee and did that work) several examples that's were probably batsman end speed and degree of variance and consistent career in helpful conditions/ team composition comes into picture imo.

That's why Shami bumrah and Ishant, Bhuvi or Umesh work so brilliantly. 

 

Shami and bumrah both have great pace 136-145. Both get good bounce and have excellent seam positions. 

 

Bhuvi offers the variation with swing. Ishant offers the variation with bounce from a high angle. 

 

Best attack in the world. Period. 

 

[New guy]

Just to show how far we have come in bowling. Check when each bowler debuted, how **** we were in the late 90s  early 2000s and what we have now 

 

 

This will be Kohlis biggest legacy 

Edited April 1, 2021 by New guy

[msb1991]

Agree with the overall trend but I think the numbers do not tell the whole story. Kumble and Harbhajan were class bowlers and I think Ashwin and Jadeja have bowled in an era of worse batting. 

[Rightarmfast]

Hasnain bowls at 144 and 147 already

[Rightarmfast]

Hasnain is fast  but doesnt seem to have any quality. Is not hurrying the batsmen and has a very lazy run up and a very insynchronous action, even at the release. As I write this, Hasnain takes a wicket at 136k's. 

Pakistani bowling attack is quick.  I give them that!