limitations make bowlers great

[Kirkut]

McGrath was in the 140s at the start of his career. Dropped to 130-135 for most of it though. Was bowling at 125 by his retirement.

Never needed pace

 

[NotMcKenzie]

IT is why the fuller balls are ALWAYS recorded much faster than the shorter balls.

Does not apply to Archer's bouncers

 

[Starfighter]

McGrath had well and truly slowed down by '99. Apparently he was quicker (~140kph) when he started out, like pre-1995 but I never saw it.

I don't blame vcs for mis-remembering Hazlewood's speeds either, he seems like he bowls a lot slower than he actually does

Tony Greig mentioned in the commentary on McGrath's debut that he had been timed at 130 (in training I think, this was years before speedguns were used in matches and displayed on the telly here). Certainly he was capable of faster but I don't think he was ever a proper 140 bowler outside the odd spell.

Haze has some variations. IIRC he bowled quite quick in the ODI series against SA in 2014, regularly reaching 145, slowed down until he was low 130s against Pakistan in 16/17 - that was when he was bowling really well. Then against India in '18 he was faster again and bowled absolute piss.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

There is such a thing as too much talent or ability. ... Dinesh Karthik ...

Nah. That sounds to me like more a lack of (commensurate) mental discipline than too much talent per se.

 

[DriveClub]

Don't agree shoaib is dumb in cricketing sense, he knew how to work out a batsman and lived for the contest. Def dumb in managing his career esp regarding fitness, managing injuries etc. Could have done with slowing down to prolong his career but wanted to burn the candle at both ends. Was a comical sight to see him huffing and puffing in 2011 wc and still sending it down at 140

 

[Burgey]

I'm not sure I agree with the premise of this thread. I'm a very limited bowler, and I can tell you I'm ****ing terrible. Wouldn't get a bowl in a Chinese restaurant.

 

[Burgey]

McGrath was one dimensional but he perfected what he did. Then there was Allan Donald who also was one dimensional but he was as good as the pace he bowled at.

He was one-dimensional only if that dimension was having perfect control, the ability to deck the ball both ways at will, a good bouncer, decent yorker, reverse swing and being awesome around and over the wicket to both left and right handers on every pitch from a green top to a dust bowl. .

 

[honestbharani]

Nah. That sounds to me like more a lack of (commensurate) mental discipline than too much talent per se.

In a way, yes. My point was more like someone who had a very defined set of skills and knew what they can and cannot do, would find it easier to make better split second decisions which is what a lot of cricket can be, especially batting and bowling. Being spoilt for choice can actually lead to bad choices, I guess.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

I don't think it is something one can state as a rule. Choosing shots is a skill independent of the size of one's repertoire, and being limited in shots can also make one less effective for obvious reasons.

 

[vcs]

Never needed pace

That Pakistan batting lineup is like lambs to the slaughter. Some woeful techniques there.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't think it is something one can state as a rule. Choosing shots is a skill independent of the size of one's repertoire, and being limited in shots can also make one less effective for obvious reasons.

Oh yeah, its not a rule, I agree and its better to have shots in the repertoire and not use them than to not have them. Just that it is a legitimate thing that someone could be "too talented" for their own good. Like I said, I don't think it is any sort of rule and I don''t think phlegm helped himself with the examples he has chosen.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Incidentally, Flem was talking about bowlers

(Oh)

 

[honestbharani]

I know, but I just could not think of the bowling equivalents. Maybe Murali in his early days when he could not control how much he got the ball to spin? Donald refusing to use the white new ball coz it swung too much?

 

[NotMcKenzie]

For example, lack of height is only a limitation if one thinks in terms of the pox on modern bowling, the short-of-a-length hit-the-deck style. If one watches enough older footage (pre-70s), one notices that fast bowlers used to pitch the ball much further up most of the time, and that type of bowling so predominant these days simply wasn't a thing. If one does not need to bang the ball in all the time, height is not so advantageous.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

I know, but I just could not think of the bowling equivalents. Maybe Murali in his early days when he could not control how much he got the ball to spin? Donald refusing to use the white new ball coz it swung too much?

In the case of Murali, one could put it down to inexperience. I haven't heard of the Donald thing; one could cast it as a limitation though, one of control.

I'll say that I'm not closed to the idea that one can get into difficulties because of having too many shots to choose from or other analogous situations, although this has to be done case-by-case. Casting it as 'limitations make bowlers great,' (to use the OP) or being 'too talented' is misleading. We could get into debates on what talent means, but I think that implicitly excluding decisiveness, discipline and control is too narrow a circumscription.

To return to the two cases you mentioned, one could proffer alternative explanations that are not really dependent on a talent judgement at all. I think it would be difficult to come up with unambiguous examples of what Flem claims.

 

[Engle]

Imagine watching Lee and McGrath open the attack for the 1st time.

Lee - fast run up, furious, athletic, snarling ...
McGrath - slower, measured, lacking ferocity ...

Lee would seem to be the perfect embodiment of a fast bowler, yet it is McGrath who is getting wickets in buckets despite limitations.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, I am definitely in the camp that this is not a "rule" just that there seem to be enough cases to not cast it away as an exception either. I mean, it happens more often than many think is as far as I would go.

 

[Kirkut]

He was one-dimensional only if that dimension was having perfect control, the ability to deck the ball both ways at will, a good bouncer, decent yorker, reverse swing and being awesome around and over the wicket to both left and right handers on every pitch from a green top to a dust bowl. .

That's more Asif than McGrath.

 

[trundler]

Not only was Asif likened to McGrath, he's called him his role model and said he wanted to emulate him.

 

[Kirkut]

Imagine watching Lee and McGrath open the attack for the 1st time.

Lee - fast run up, furious, athletic, snarling ...
McGrath - slower, measured, lacking ferocity ...

Lee would seem to be the perfect embodiment of a fast bowler, yet it is McGrath who is getting wickets in buckets despite limitations.

It's all precision for McGrath. As a batter you might be sure that the ball will go over the stumps instead it crashes into your pads lbw, or that the line of ball is definitely on stumps only for you to edge it to the keeper/slips. That over to Nasser Hussain on youtube is a good example.