It’s all about bowling dot balls now: Frank Tyson

It’s all about bowling dot balls now: Tyson

Saturday, April 15, 2006 00:01 IST

MUMBAI: There must be something wrong with fast bowling nowadays, for Frank Tyson, arguably the fastest bowler in the history of the game, struggles to pick five tearaway pacemen of his choice from the current lot.

After a bit of coaxing, Tyson hones in on South African Shaun Pollock, who is set to play his 100th Test against New Zealand on Saturday. Though Pollock can no more be termed genuinely quick, he has managed to create an impression in Tyson’s mind.

Steve Harmison, Brett Lee, Shane Bond and Shoaib Akhtar are picked after some thought by the man better known as ‘Typhoon’. “If it’s only pace, then it is more or less these four,” Tyson says, adding that Akhtar’s temperament is discounted when he makes the grade.

Tyson, however, believes the quality of fast bowling has taken a beating. “There has been a clear decline in the standard of fast bowling,” he says, adding that it’s because of the one-day game. “They are so heavily loaded in favour of the batsmen and that has forced a change in a fast bolwer’s role,” he feels.

“It’s all about bowling dot balls now,” Tyson laments. “The influence of one-day cricket is such that the role of a bowler is not to get people out.”

The fast bowling legend decries the lack of effort in modern cricket, especially one-dayers, to look at the weaknesses of batsmen and striving at ways and means of getting them out. “One-day cricket is all about bits and pieces players,” he says.

He wonders if some of the one-day stars of today would have been able to find a place in a Test squad a decade ago. “I wonder if we have lost sight of the objective of cricket,” he goes philosophical. “Is it about genuine competition or entertainment?”

Mention the record-breaking one-day game at the Wanderers in March, where South Africa notched up 438 to beat Australia by one wicket and Tyson nearly grimaces.

“Over 800 hundred runs... It all has to do with poor bowling,” he says. “It was a case of bowlers producing balls that has ‘hit me’ written all over them.”

The placidity of the pitches produced these days are a bane for fast bowling, the Englishman, now settled in Australia, feels.

According to Tyson, India does not produce pacemen because of the strips that are apologies for cricket wickets.

However, much the game has changed since his heyday in the mid-fifties, Tyson believes a fast bowler must never compromise. “You cannot compromise on pace. You can’t switch it on and off — bowl fast one day and then only focus on line and length,” is his opinion.

Source - http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1024262

:-(

Agree with Tyson wholeheartedly!

Hear, hear..!

One day internationals do seem to have had a more positive impact on batsmen than bowlers.

Whereas batsmen seem to have become more innovative, positive and adventurous in attitude, bowlers have seemed to become less ambitious and more concerned with restriction and containment.

If batting is more assertive now, bowling appears to be more attritional in orientation.

On the Old PP i had once started a thread on the negative influence of Glen and was chastised except by a few learned ones. That same is coming back to haunt us with additional dimensions added to its sphere.

indeed, glen has done more damage to fast bowling than he could possibly benefit it

I guess bowlers like Flintoff, Harmisson, Jones, McGrath, Hoggard etc - all they do is to try and bowl "dot balls". I also guess the last Ashes never happened - at least it didn't happen in the land where Tyson seems to be living. These old "back in my days" kind of guys can be so hilarious.

He doesn't stop here though. I read another gem:

"According to Tyson, India does not produce pacemen because of the strips that are apologies for cricket wickets. "

So how does Pakistan produce quality pace bowlers?

He is not altogether wrong.

What needs to be taken into account as well is the cultural icons of a given country.

Of course it not just bowling, it is captaincy too, which seems to have more pre-occupied with being restrictive. The 7-2 field which is now often set by captains is reflective of this attitude.

Two fine captains of previous generations - Mike Brearley and Ian Chappell - have also commented on the modern trend of giving away easy singles, with men placed in the deep to prevent 4's.

He didn't talk about cultural icons - though I would disagree with that point as well.

He said it was because of the pitches.

Anyhow there is too much nonsense in the above write up. Too much of the "back in my days" thing.

Depends on the match situation really. Sometimes you have to set more attacking fields and sometimes you have to have more defensive fields. Smart captains (like Vaughan for example) seem to know when to do exactly what.

The general trend has been for captains to have become more restrictive in thinking. That was the point.

True, but that has to do with the batsmen these days, who tend to play more scoring shots than "back in my days". You would not find too many Tavares out there these days. Test cricket is played at a faster scoring rate and there are more results than boring draws.

cricular argument. you cannot say that defensive fields are the result of attacking batsman if attacking batsman are acknowledged as the result of defensive fields.

Actually it is not a circular argument. The same ball, bowled with the same field, to say, Tavare or Boycott ,as compared to any average batsman these days (not even taking about the best ones like Ponting), would result in two different outcomes.

and you've also missed the point. Well done.

Choking the opposition can certainly work. If batsman are not scoring then they will often be frustrated out.

But sometimes that attitude is taken too far. The best form of containment is still to take wickets.



The interesting thing is though, when Bradman scored 300 in one day, there were still 3 slips in place towards the end of the day.

Widely-believed now. And the first skipper to vehemently pronounce and implement this approach was Imran Khan.

What did they do before Imran invented this approach? Wait until the batsmen trod on their own stumps out of sheer boredom?

It's not that Imran invented this approach, but he brought it to the fore and it became widely-recognized as the standard.

Prior to that, in ODIs, the notion was generally to restrict the flow of runs and not have attacking fields. He revamped it completely for Pakistan and directed bowlers to go for dismissals rather than to save runs. Bowlers like Wasim who could be erratic when going flat out in those days were encouraged to bowl fast and up at the wicket.

Also I believe, he underlined the need to look at other factors too and not just insert the opposition in when you win the toss in an ODI. I remember he came in for some flak from his few critics in Pak in mid-80s who could not get round to the idea of not opting to chase regardless of the pitch conditions etc. To be able to chase a set target was considered to be a major advantage then.

Ahh we're talking pyjamas again.

Sorry, I tend to automatically presume we're talking test matches.

And look at how well that worked out for the fielding side ;0

Well, it was mainly ODIs where that approach got in the limelight. But he was an aggressive skipper in Tests too, not afraid of experimenting.

Imran was hardly the first one who sought to take wickets in ODIs. West Indies did it much better.

Anyhow this discussion was about test cricket, or so I thought. Great teams over the years have been distiguished by the right balance b/w attack and defence, and having the skills do it in the right manner.

What has he done exactly? He is the most accurate fast bowler of all time and it's damaged the game? Obviously you don't watch him. You cannot call him a defensive bowler. The way he bowlers to left handers especially. He bowls a combination of inswing and outswing in the corridor of uncertainty looking for an edge or the lbws and bowleds. He is a true genius. Right handers he bowls the same line more often but then he bowls the special ball like the off/ leg cutter, yorker, slower which completely bamboozle the batsmen. Watching Glenn McGrath bowling has probably shown more people the way bowling should be bowled. He has help the game immensly. If he was Pakistani you'd be praising him to the hills.

Hey McGrath doesn't have those long flowing hairs. He doesn't bowl at 125 miles/hr. He doesn't bowl at fine leg. I can think of so many other reasons why he is not liked....

it is not the acheivements of mcgrath that harm fast bowling. It is his legacy.

Just to give some examples, in addition to the 7-2 field, of the attitude being taken too far: last year in the 4th Ashes Test, for Geraint Jones facing his first ball of an innings, Ponting had already put a sweeper out. Jones duly played the ball to the sweeper and got an easy single.

In Pakistan, I thought England gave too many easy singles to Inzamam and Yousuf. They merley worked the ball around and waited for the bad ball. Inzamam too often was not put under enough pressure by England early on, because of the easy singles available.

On the other hand having sweepers worked better for England against Australia in the Ashes, because the Australian batsmen had a more 'bully' like attitude.

What is this ******** about McGrath's legacy damaing fast bowling?

What should he have done then? Give up cricket the moment he realised he was never going to bowl at 100mph?

or was going to be deadly accurate ;)

big mac read carefully - it's his LEGACY (legacy, L-E-G-A-C-Y). Got it? Now think about it and then post a suitable reply.

ignore.

Yeah and what exactly is his L-E-G-A-C-Y?

Be the best bowler you can be? What should McGrath have done differently to make sure he left a legacy - that's L-E-G-A-C-Y - that you would find more palatable?

It has nothing to do with what mcgrath could/should have done. Keep thinking about it.....

You didn't answer the first part, what is his legacy and what's wrong with it?

Big Mac - after seeing McGrath (not knocing his abilities at all here), aspiring quick bowlers will see how effective his medium paced corridor of uncertainty, waiting to see who blinks first strategy and take that up rather than try to bowl the batsman out. We're already seeing that in Pakistan where guys like Rao, Riaz Afridi etc get picked ahead of bowlers like Irshad or Yasir Ali.

What's wrong with that? Not everybody can bowl at 95mph, not everybody is 6'10. You make the most of your abilities and it's interesting to note that McGrath still has a better strike rate than the likes of Imran Khan, Dennis Lillee and Curtley Ambrose. Not a bad legacy is it?

How has that legacy "done more damage to fast bowling than he could possibly benefit it"?

We see countless young Pakistani bowlers trying to bowl like McGrath and we see the selectors picking 2 or 3 of them in our team in the hope that they all end up like McGrath rather than looking to see if Irshad, Yasir Ali and the like make the grad. Its standardizing bowler types and cricket as a game is poorer

The question isnt about how good McGrath is - hes definetely a great bowler but with all these young bowlers trying to hit a length and see how long it takes for the batsman to lose his concentration (and possibly even more annoying) - the selectors obsession with packing the team with these sorts of bowlers is an example of McGrath's legacy

with this age of batsmen induced madness mostt bowler's around the world are afraid to pitch the ball up.And that's understandable.Too many bowler's are getting pasted.It's not like the 90s where we had decent test match strips.Balls conducive to seam and swing etc.So that sends a message to the bowler.Bowl short of a length and don't go for runs.

Its because of the attitude that he projects. Aspiring fast bowlers see McGrath bowling his corridor of uncertainty forever and on and because of McGrath's success they will themselves adopt the defensive mentality of waiting for the opposition batsman to make a mistake.
Also, it isn't important for a bowler to bowl at 95mph to be a fast bowler. It is in the attitude. If most young bowlers adopt the attitude of McGrath and wait for mistakes then the attacking, snarling, bouncing, yorking image of a fast bowler goes straight out of the window regardless of their speed and height.

I understand your point that McGrath could have done no different, but it his example that will change fast bowling.

z10,

u can call mcgrath anything.But calling him defensive is taking the p***.He's australia best new ball bowler.His strike rate is anything but defensive.

ofcourse not. You're missing the point, elan. It is the image he portrays. Bowling in the corridor is usually seen as defensive by all bowlers but because McGrath can do it so well it is an atttacking option for him. Others are perhaps not as gifted a metronome as him and hence they will see it as a defensive approach.

I bet every kid in Pakistan wants to bowl like Shoaib and Waqar but they can't all do it. A guy like McGrath gives the rest of them something to aim for. What should they do instead, decide McGrath's too boring and still try and bowl quick even after it's obvious they can't do it?

His legacy is one that pace isn't the be all and end all of 'fast' bowling. There's still a place at the top level for people who do the basics well and rely on skill and brains rather than just raw talent and athletic ability.



Haha, Glenn's so shy and retiring isn't he?

You keep missing the point, BM. To put it simply Glen has found a niche and is good enough to keep it. Others not as accurate as him will suffer using his approach.

Yeah but guys like Sami, Tino Best, Andre Nel run in and cuss and snarl and be as attacking as possible and get carted all over the place.

At the end of the day it comes down to skill and has nothing to do with this legacy crap.

You're missing my point. Its one thing young bowlers trying to emulate him. Its another thing when the selectors try to pack the team with young McGrath wannabees rather than see if we can find a long term successor for Shoaib

z10,bowling in the corridor means bowling on or just outside off.mcgrath does not bowl most of his balls outside off.He bowls them on top off or just abit outside it.The batsman just don't know whether it's going to hit off and they tend to play a shot regardless.

But yes it may look defensive to the unskilled.Then again you need skill to pull it off.Just like you need skill to bowl full and straight without getting carted thesedays

BM, i think wat zee and dee are trying to say here is that a kid who is potentially capable of bowling like shoaiby or waqar will hesitate to do so now that he has seen mcgrath. instead, he will likely wanna bowl corridor stuff which he probably isnt suited for and will throw away his potential as an out-and-out quick pacer.

of course, this is not implying that bowling corridor of uncertainty stuff is bad, but its not the best option for all types of bowlers.

Guys like Irshad will get their chance soon enough, why should he get a chance ahead of some bowlers who may be having a much better domestic season? If these medium pacers aren't good enough they'll be found out and discarded soon enough. Besides if Asif is going to carry on bowling like he is and becomes the next McGrath for the next decade I don't mind if we have to wait a few years for the next Waqar.

You think any kid playing tapeball cricket in Pakistan will try and emulate McGrath before they've even attempted to bowl at full pace? Honestly?

Asif is great but he is a different bowler to McGrath. He gets most wickets by bowling the batsman out. While someone like Rao, you can tell just by seeing him in ODIs that hes an honest tryer and certainly wont amount to anything in Tests. Yet the selectors packed our team with Asif and two McGrath types in Rao and Gul

I read the statements by Tyson three times over ... I read each reply at least twice and I am still not sure what Mcgrath's legacy has to do with this .... And what baffles me even more is that even for a second if I assume that Mcgrath plays 'who blinks first' on a cricket field then who in his sane mind can say that Shaun Pollock bowls more wicket taking deliveries than Mcgrath does ....

Look its pretty simple , the standard of pitches the world over has vastly improved over the years , we now have a much better technology at hand which can tell us almost everything about the batsman to millimeter's precision.

With all this technology available , you dont need an IQ of 200 to conclude that the present generation of batters s*ck pretty badly at their jobs. All you need is to keep it tight for an over or two and they'll certainly gift you their wicket away ... ( this claim can be proved if someone digs out the percentage of successfuly saved test matches on last days grouped by decades... I am pretty sure that this percentage would find itself plummeted to a nadir in the last few decades. )

So if a bowler does a good length bowling , manages to keep the batsmen quiet and is awarded by the wicket after an over or two then where is a need and a scope for a Plan - B. And hence where is the scope of trying something new.

The only solution to this problem is to have batsmen with more resolve. Not having the skill to negotiate for too long with a moving ball , is not the answer. A few of the present generation of batsmen remind me of Mustafa the spy of Austin Powers who could not resist the same question being asked thrice.

Tyson is not wrong when he says that the bowlers of today dont look ominous but the truth is that they dont need to.

but tape ball is different though. you can't bowl line and length in tape ball because its simply no good...you will get carted around like there is no tomorrow (i speak from experience! and no i was not the batsman ).

besides, its not just about kids from pakistan. its about kids from all over the place.

Erm no, Asif is just like McGrath. Bowl on or a couple of inches outside offstump and try to make the batsmen play at everything. Land it on the seam and let the ball do the work.

McGrath gets more bounce so won't hit the stumps quite as often but the principle is exactly the same.

BM, the 5-test-old Asif is drastically different than the 5-test-old McGrath (circa '94/95). McGrath didn't even master reverse swing until the beginning of this century.

edit: and also, Asif is not afraid of pitching the ball up to the batsman when the ball is new and doing a bit (which should explain a lot of the clean bowls and LBWs), whereas IIRC McGrath didn't do that in the beginning and middle of his career. Now of course, he pitches it up a lot more and is much more dangerous than ever before...

Glenn McGrath is special. As captain of the fielding team, there couldn't be a better bowler to have. You don't have to worry about him bowling a bad spell - he will come on and make things difficult for the batsmen in every spell. If he doesnt take a wicket, he will be very tight and put doubts in the mind of the batsmen, which make it more likely for wickets to fall at the other end, or after he goes off.

McGrath is like some kind of robot, or bowling machine. There are more thrilling bowlers to watch maybe, more attractive attackers of the stumps, but in terms of just being the best, it's got to be him

Nonsense about McGrath.
In the 1980s most bowlers used to bowl plenty of short ones - didnt stop Waqar Younis coming through and doing what he did.

That is an individual case and, therefore, you've also missed the point.

and mcgrath isnt an individual case either.

the point is zany that there will always be genuine quick bowlers as there will always be old fashioned finger spinners too!

yes but the successful ones will inspire. Ask any kid in Pakistan in the 90s and they aspired to be fast bowlers just like Wasim and Waqar.

id argue richard hadlee was the best bowler of 1980s and we still got a plethora of good out and out quicks in the 90s