Murali - why is he still bowling the Doosra?

[Rachael]

Lots to catch up on here... but in no particular order:

{i} Warne is very slow even by slow bowling standards... giving the ball a lot of air... so always gets bite (hence turn).. but needs a lot of bounce to really trouble batsmen - which is why he has often found the subcontinental pitches very hard work. He's so accurate that he's rarely taken to the cleaners... but the truth is turning the ball square off the wrong spot at his pace will get him murdered by any decent batsman.

{ii} Murali pushes the ball through quickly... and when he gets on a dry and dusty turner (especially one with a bit of uneven bounce) this means the batsmen have a lot less time to react to him than they would to Warne (hence he's so great on the subcontinent)... but as he loops the ball less... he struggles on the "batsmen's paradise" pitches in Aus (the ball just goes pretty well straight through).

{iii} Most quality spinners land the ball on an area at least 3-4 times the area that Warne uses... and get a lot less rotation on the ball than Murali... so without fantastic guile (in the manner of Kumble) they find the odds very much stacked against them.

{iv) If the spinners DID generally find that pitches suited them better (as was routinely the case in this country when they were uncovered) then the batsmen who would prosper would be the guys who played spin well: the guys who can get right back and time the late cut off the stumps, the guys who can play the delicate glances with soft hands into seemingly non-existent gaps, the guys who can dance lightly on their toes to the pitch of the ball - in short, we'd see more of the people who make cricket worth watching.

{v} With much more spin played we'd also find that glovemen were back in fashion as wicket-takers rather than back-stops being in vogue as run-savers... which would brighten up the spectacle in the field... stop the drift towards batsmen-who-keep... and (with the quality being their behind the pegs) would mean that we would be more likely to see glovemen standing up to the fast-medium boys.

{vi) None of the above need in any way mean that grounds become less favourable to seam bowlers... who are just as happy to see the pitch deteriorate as spinners are... and if we could get to the point where every county was relying heavily on quality spinners... the top seamers would not be over-bowled.. and we might see them trying more genuine strike bowling (in short bursts) rather than stock bowling (for long spells).

I see a win-win situation myself.. not least as we'd also see an end to this reidiculous practice of relying on declarations to get a result. The only down-side (arguably) might be some games finishing earlier (with some loss of revenue to clubs)... but i think the spectators would actually come in greater numbers and pay more for the early days if the spectacle was improved - so I don't even see an argument there.

[Rachael]

Oh... am not suggesting pitches need to take spin from day one (it's always nice to see the spinners forced to struggle early on: gives a chance for real class to show through).

Re: subcontinental pitches becoming more seamer-friendly - the first match in the recent Pak - Ind series... and I think it was the second match in the recent Sri -Aus series.... saw sub-contintal tracks on which swing bowlers were having a field day... and with so many fast-medium swing bowlers coming through on the subcontinent we can reasonable hope to see that trend continue: we'll still find that as the tracks dry out the seamers find life tougher... but what's wrong with that?

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Lots to catch up on here... but in no particular order:

{i} Warne is very slow even by slow bowling standards... giving the ball a lot of air... so always gets bite (hence turn).. but needs a lot of bounce to really trouble batsmen - which is why he has often found the subcontinental pitches very hard work. He's so accurate that he's rarely taken to the cleaners... but the truth is turning the ball square off the wrong spot at his pace will get him murdered by any decent batsman.

I agree with a lot of your post.it would be great to see spinners in action again,but I would not like to see pitches dug up ,and replaced with a less compact soil.The only other option would be to leave the pitches uncovered,big gamble,the sponsers would love that.Trying to get a hard bouncy pitch is the best way to encourage leg spin,there are ways they can do that.
Just say we decided to leave the pitches uncovered,there would be more spinners into play,the match would not last five minutes,all the batsmen would be playing to early.
I take your point in using our bowlers in spells,yes they have become stock bowlers,but there is nothing we can do overnight,if spinners are to be brought more into the game,it will require a lot of planning,it could all go pear shaped.

Warne,interesting,he does bowl slow for a leggy,he is just a talent,I have never seen a bowler move the ball like him,,chaging pitches will not breed Warne`s.
I dont know why we cant get a slow bowler like Underwood,now he could keep an end tied down on any surface.

[Rich Greenfield]

You could not leave the present pitches uncovered during a match. They are made of clay and would take and age to dry to a suitable level to play cricket. Try playing and a drying pitch on a club square that has been laid in the last 15 years and from experiance a pace bowler will slide about 4-5 inches at the crease due to the wet clay in the pitch giving no grip.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Rich Greenfield

The pitches in this counrty do need to be dug up. Not just to encourage spin but to make them more consistant in bounce and pace.

I couldn't disagree more Rich: virtually every development in the game for decades, from covered pitches to heavier bats and from changes in the rules of cricket to changes in the points system for tournaments has favoured aggressive batsmen. These developments have been gradually killing the game. More consistent bounce and pace would just be the final nail in the coffin.

The logical conclusion of ever truer and faster pitches is the death of quality bowling: with the batsmen ever more on top... "containment" would become the primary objective of every bower... the glories of finger-spin and medium paced seam bowling would be lost (because there would be nothing in the pitch to exploit)... and we'd end up with a mononous fare of relentless pace and extreme turn.

[Rich Greenfield]

Yes better pitches would help batsmen but in my opinion it would help bowlers more. They would have to concentrate on getting the ball in the right areas much more. Who are the best 2 pace bowlers in cricket today? McGrath and Pollock and this is because they grew up on true wickets with pace and had to learn at an early age that you have to get the ball in the right area or you will get carted. I play Cricket in Scotland (first played in scotland) and Wales and the pitches i played on in Scotland meant that I just ran in and tried to take a wicket every ball, having played on better pitches in wales and i am now a much better bowler because i keep it much tighter while still attacking the batsmen.

[Rachael]

Final thought: quality finger spinning is just as fine an art.. and glorious a sight... as wrist spin... and should have at least as big a part to play in the game: hard bouncy pitches are not going to encourage that.

The wrist spinners are currently getting all the attention in the slow bowling department... because of the extreme turn on appallingly true wickets... in much the same way that the fast bowlers are getting all the attention in the seam department because of the extreme pace. Neither are really areas of concern.

Not a new issue: see the cricinfo write up on Jim Laker:

"Since the days of Howell and Trumble at the turn of the century, Australian wickets had become so unresponsive to finger-spin that the off-break had virtually disappeared and sides relied on pace and wrist-spin – Gregory and McDonald, Lindwall, Miller and Johnston or again Hordern, Mailey, Grimmett and O’Reilly. Against these two types of bowler the essential is to get into line, so that the bat can swing straight down the path of the ball. But the batsman who follows this principle against vicious off-spin soon finds himself reduced to an ugly jab right across the line, and the result is always likely to be an lbw or a catch to one of the close-fielders. Moreover, so accurate was Laker that these fielders could stand very close indeed. In any case this was the weakest Australian batting side for more than 60 years, with the possible exception of 1912 when four of their essential batsmen refused to come. In particular, they lacked a great attacking genius like Trumper, MacArtney or Bradman who would refuse to be dictated to and who might have disrupted the entire plan. Indeed, the Australians had had a foretaste earlier in the season of what might happen when, for Surrey at The Oval, Laker had taken 10 for 88 in the first innings, the only instance of a bowler performing the feat twice in one season. Altogether that summer he played seven times against the Australians and took 63 wickets for 10 runs each."

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Final thought: quality finger spinning is just as fine an art.. and glorious a sight... as wrist spin... and should have at least as big a part to play in the game: hard bouncy pitches are not going to encourage that.

The wrist spinners are currently getting all the attention in the slow bowling department... because of the extreme turn on appallingly true wickets... in much the same way that the fast bowlers are getting all the attention in the seam department because of the extreme pace. Neither are really areas of concern.
"

The art of finger spinning has gone,and to bring on young new finger spinners,they need a coach.

Who in England is quallified to do that job,you can teach the basics,wich
our finger spinners have,but and it is a big but,who is Quallified in England to do that job,to teach a craft,you need to have that craft yourself.

Leg spin is dead and gone in England,we just dont have the pitches,when in the older years when we did use leg spinners,they were no more than cannon fodder for the batsmen.

We have to make use off the pitches we have,and play the bowlers needed,Look at the pitch,choose the most suitables attack......Horses for courses.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rich Greenfield

You could not leave the present pitches uncovered during a match

Yes but for other reasons,going back in time is not the answere,A few year ago we played Autralia at Headingly,and some chap came in the night and watered the pitch at one end,just as if the covers had been left off reallly,back to the point,Australia on the morning ,where not chuffed,for some reason,they could not move to annother pitch,well Phil Edmunds had a field day,took quite a few wickets(,cant remember how many),on thet pitch you could have brought Lara,Tendulkar,or even the Don himself,they would not have been able to play Edmunds any better.

Leave well alone is what I say,so long as the pitch is nor dangerous,what does it matter,there are plaenty of different types of pitches round the world.

This spings tour to the West Indies is a good eg,From bowlers paradise,to a pitch on wich Lara could make 400,

What more can anyone wan?......