Anil
Well-known member
What is the cricketing definition of a strike bowler?Gotchya said:Glenn and Gillespie are not strike bowlers in the sense Brett Lee, Shoaib AKhtar and Thomspon are/were. I am sure you can comprehend that. Sure Pollock, Wasim, Murali an co. are strike bowlers for their teams, but their methods are drastically different from those of the aforementioned bowlers. Lee and Shoaib will look to blast oppositions off, whereas Wasim, Vaas, Pollock will depend lagely on swing or seam or both.
With these bowlers, it either heaven or its hell. Rarely are they able to put in a moderate performance. Either way, 5 wickets for 55 perhaps just won you the game, or no wicket for 60 could cost you the game. Thats a gamble you have to put up with men like Brett Lee and Shoaib Akhtar. You dont have one in your team as of now, I am sure you'll get the hang of things once you get one !
As for the noise, I would have thought you people would get used to all the clamour by now ? Lee's not the first one to do loud talking is he ? Just dont try to dig up excuses to get back at the Aussies ! criticism is welcome but not unfounded. Lee may not be the best Australian bowler at current form, he's certainly better then many other nationals. (Same point I made earlier)
AFAIK, a strike bowler/s is/are the one/s the team looks to take the bulk of the opposition wickets and the supporting bowlers bowl around him/them, get energy off him/them, keep it tight and do the clean-up job. Is there anything wrong or incomplete with my definition? If there is, please let me know. So, moving ahead with that definition, there is no "strike bowler" in a different sense as you put it. That's why Murali inspite of being a spinner is called a strike bowler. That's why Brett Lee can't be called one. I know that he has been taken in the team as a strike bowler, but on the strength of his performances so far, he just doesn't qualify to be one while McGrath does, Warne does, Gillespie is starting to.
Looking at the past, let's take the West Indian quicks of the 80s and early 90s like Roberts, Holding, Marshall, Ambrose......They were lightning fast, with aggressive in-your-face attitudes on the field and took wickets by the truckload, blowing away the opposition(as you like to put it). Would they qualify as strike bowlers in your book? Do you know some of the special qualities they shared? Accuracy and consistency. Do you know what Brett Lee lacks? Accuracy and consistency.
Secondly, even if there was one such fast bowler purporting to be a "strike bowler" in the Indian team, my opinion still would not change.
Thirdly, who do you mean by "you people"? What clamour should "we people" be getting used to? Lee is definitely not the only one talking loud and not walking the talk, that's an ever lengthening list. I have no wish to "get back at the Aussies". Where did you get that? I have every respect and admiration for their team. If you still feel that this is unfounded cricticism, well...there is really very little I can say. I have laid as much of a foundation for my criticism as I can. Lee is better than many other nationals?? which nationals? Aussie, Indian or otherwise? I agree that Lee is probably good enough to be in the Indian team or some of the other teams, but my point is that the Aussie pin-up boy just hasn't shown that he is good enough to play for Australia.