Unpopular Cricket Opinions

[sabso]

For me the greatest bowler ever is Kent leg spinner Alfred Percy Freeman.

3776 first class wickets in 592 matches
1673 wickets between 1928 and 1933 including 304 in 1928
140 ten wicket matches, a strike rate of 23.6%. Cf muralis exceptional test record of 22 in 132 - this works out at just 16.6% (exactly 1 in 6).
A sequence between 1929 and 1933 where he took 1004 wickets in 210 innings - 4.78 wickets per innings . This sequence started when he was 41 (I think)
One of two bowlers to take ten in an innings three times
Though he only played 12 tests (12 times as many as the almost equally great Charlie Parker) he took 66 wickets with 3 ten fors.

What a bloody legend.

Tich Freeman Profile - Cricket Player England | Stats, Records, Video

Read about Tich Freeman cricket player from England profile, stats, rankings, records, videos, photos at ESPNcricinfo

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[monty1104]

A thread for all your unpopular cricket opinions to satisfy us during the Champions trophy and the winter doldrums. I'll kick us off.

I think Pat Cummins XI would hold up fairly well against post 2000 and on Ricky Ponting's XI, with McGrath, Lee, Kasper and Warne. Hayden might have been more prolific towards the end, but the slow slide of Ponting, Martin and the mid career slump of Clarke would struggle against a highly effective and deep pace quartet in Cummins, Hazlewood, Starc and Boland, and blokes going after Lyon is how they go out to him. Smith relishes pace bowling, Khawaja's specific weakness to Bumrah isn't evident in that bowling lineup, and Head against that cohort would have any prospective viewer licking their lips; Head vs Warne would be a spectacular battle. There's also that this particular lineup is arguably better against spin than Ponting's is, given just how many tours they had to play the best spinners in India's history away. Carey's arguably a superior keeper to Gilly even if he's not as destructive a bat, but he's no mug. And Glenn McGrath can target Cummins as much as he likes; this side's pretty resiliant.

I think you get less centuries at all levels of Australian cricket since the widespread Australianisation of McDonalds. To make a ton, you've got to be fit enough to stay out there for long periods of time; to develop that kind of stamina, you need to be able to last even when a kid, when you can't hit 4s reliably and need to rotate the strike. That Maccas has become such a core part of the Australian identity has lead to a decreased level of fitness and thus more kids going for boundaries ahead of strike rotation, and thus less centuries.

And one more: that Glenn Maxwell has only a single test century and no home tests is a failure of selectors, the Australian coaching fraternity around the team at the time, and CA in general.

Go nuts, and feel free to provide your unpopular opinions or to disagree with my objectively correct ones.

Out of curiosity, why Kasper ahead of Gillsespie? Gillespie played more than twice the tests Kasper did from 2000 onwards. Kasper averaged over 40 with the ball in 3 of the 4 calendar years beyond 2000 he played. Gillespie did that in just one of the 7 years but averaged below 25 in four of those years.

But I suppose this is the unpopular opinions thread…

 

[Gethelred]

Out of curiosity, why Kasper ahead of Gillsespie? Gillespie played more than twice the tests Kasper did from 2000 onwards. Kasper averaged over 40 with the ball in 3 of the 4 calendar years beyond 2000 he played. Gillespie did that in just one of the 7 years but averaged below 25 in four of those years.

But I suppose this is the unpopular opinions thread…

Because I am sufficiently young enough to not have any memories of Gillespie bowling well. I remember the tail end of his career, when he was much less effective and I didn't rate him all that much.

I can remember Kasper, though. Underrated, bowled a heavy ball. Like Stuart Clark, was a decent cricketer overshadowed by the all time greats around him.

 

[PhatBoy]

Because I am sufficiently young enough to not have any memories of Gillespie bowling well. I remember the tail end of his career, when he was much less effective and I didn't rate him all that much.

I can remember Kasper, though. Underrated, bowled a heavy ball. Like Stuart Clark, was a decent cricketer overshadowed by the all time greats around him.

Kasper was a good bowler. A really good bowler. Reliable, smart, and like you say bowled a heavy ball a rarely ever bad. And you’re correct that Gillespie was more or less ‘bad’ towards the end.

But for a good portion of his career Gillespie wasn’t just reliable or smart or decent.

He was either very good, excellent, or a shade below the absolute very, very best. He had mid 140s pace, bowled full, swung the ball beautifully like James Anderson and just had the most lovely action and rhythm

 

[monty1104]

Because I am sufficiently young enough to not have any memories of Gillespie bowling well. I remember the tail end of his career, when he was much less effective and I didn't rate him all that much.

I can remember Kasper, though. Underrated, bowled a heavy ball. Like Stuart Clark, was a decent cricketer overshadowed by the all time greats around him.

Fair enough. Kasper was a good bowler, no doubt. He and Andy Bichel seemed to be the perennial backups over the late 90s, early 00s. Probably would’ve been in most Australian starting lineups over the years. Like Scott Boland, just unlucky career timing.

 

[revo333]

At test level Gillespie was one of the most unluckiest bowlers I've ever seen.

Same with Hilfenhaus.

 

[revo333]

Fair enough. Kasper was a good bowler, no doubt. He and Andy Bichel seemed to be the perennial backups over the late 90s, early 00s. Probably would’ve been in most Australian starting lineups over the years. Like Scott Boland, just unlucky career timing.

They were back ups for a reason.

At test level they could keep it tidy up one end but for most of the time I never thought they looked too threatening.

 

[sabso]

At test level Gillespie was one of the most unluckiest bowlers I've ever seen.

Same with Hilfenhaus.

Freddie flintoff in his pomp as well. Horrendously unlucky.

 

[Black Diamond]

McGrath is Australia’s greatest bowler of any discipline.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

What does 'bowled a heavy ball' mean?

Serious question.

 

[Cleavy]

What does 'bowled a heavy ball' mean?

Serious question.

"Heavy ball means when a delivery is bowled quicker than it looks and hits the bat harder or higher than is expected'

 

[mouncey2franklin]

How can a ball be quicker than it looks?

 

[Black Diamond]

How can a ball be quicker than it looks?

Typically from a taller bowler who is much harder to pick length from.

Harder to see therefore seems faster.

More bounce which hits above the middle of the bat.

 

[DaRick]

At test level Gillespie was one of the most unluckiest bowlers I've ever seen.

Same with Hilfenhaus.

Freddie flintoff in his pomp as well. Horrendously unlucky.

All three tended to bowl a little too short of a length a lot of the time. Ishant Sharma was similar, which is why he only began fulfilling his potential a decade into his career.

When Hilfenhaus bowled fuller and swung the ball later he could be brilliant (2011/12), but for much of his career he struggled with niggling injuries which affected his action.

They were back ups for a reason.

At test level they could keep it tidy up one end but for most of the time I never thought they looked too threatening.

Unpopular opinion: Bichel was overrated, and inferior to Kaspr. Both were awful at their worst, but I found Bichel to be more erratic and inconsistent, even though he could move the ball away from right-handers more consistently. Hence why he didn't put together a good year at the highest level like Kaspr did (2004). But Bichel's a great guy, so people tend to think he was unlucky, even though he wasn't actually better than Lee/Kaspr.

I loved Kaspr, but he played 40 Tests, so you couldn't say he didn't get a fair crack. Underused in ODIs, though.

McGrath is Australia’s greatest bowler of any discipline.

Actually, many Indians would agree with you.

IMO Warne and Lillee were obviously much more charismatic, but McGrath may have been more effective than either.

But you're basically debating which legend is more legendary - all three are Top 5 post-WSC cricketers for Australia. Another poster said that it was like debating Hendrix vs Clapton (and presumably Beck/Page/Blackmore).

Unpopular opinion: Stuart MacGill is like the Richie Sambora of Australian bowlers - he's so underrated that he's become overrated again.

Nathan Lyon could never match MacGill's grandeur, but I'd prefer him against a batting lineup that plays spin competently because he can utilise both sidespin and overspin (the latter making him more difficult to sweep and cut effectively, as Alastair Cook repeatedly found out), bowls quicker through the air so it's harder to use your feet against him, and coughs up fewer four balls. Bad Lyon tends to be innocuous; bad MacGill was a liability. Also Lyon's a significantly better fielder and batsman.

TBF MacGill was a bit underrated as a fielder. He looked poor in an outstanding fielding side, but he could pull off the odd spectacular take. Different from the likes of Marcus Harris, who just looked poor.

 

[revo333]

Unpopular opinion: Bichel was overrated, and inferior to Kaspr. Both were awful at their worst, but I found Bichel to be more erratic and inconsistent, even though he could move the ball away from right-handers more consistently. Hence why he didn't put together a good year at the highest level like Kaspr did (2004). But Bichel's a great guy, so people tend to think he was unlucky, even though he wasn't actually better than Lee/Kaspr.

I loved Kaspr, but he played 40 Tests, so you couldn't say he didn't get a fair crack. Underused in ODIs, though.



Unpopular opinion: Stuart MacGill is like the Richie Sambora of Australian bowlers - he's so underrated that he's become overrated again.

Not sure we win the 2003 World Cup without Bichel , so he gets credit over Kasper for that. Both had a good shot at being regulars in the test team but against the very best teams I thought they both looked a bit off from test cricket. But for back up bowlers they were very good quality and better than most teams.

Spot on about MacGill, now people talk about him like Warne stopped him for automatically taking 600 test wickets.

Unfair on Sambora though, watch Bon Jovi live in their prime and he is doing lead guitar and back up vocals flawless for most of the show

 

[mouncey2franklin]

Typically from a taller bowler who is much harder to pick length from.

Harder to see therefore seems faster.

More bounce which hits above the middle of the bat.

Okay but Kasper is listed at 1.94, that is not tall for a fast bowler.

So this 'heavy ball' theory is still not making much sense, is it?

 

[Black Diamond]

Okay but Kasper is listed at 1.94, that is not tall for a fast bowler.

So this 'heavy ball' theory is still not making much sense, is it?

1.94 is reasonably tall, particularly in his era.

The point is it is bowlers who can hit the splice or toe often, so it feels like the ball is heavier on the bat.

 

[DaRick]

Not sure we win the 2003 World Cup without Bichel , so he gets credit over Kasper for that. Both had a good shot at being regulars in the test team but against the very best teams I thought they both looked a bit off from test cricket. But for back up bowlers they were very good quality and better than most teams.

I forgot about his 2003 WC exploits, so good point there. TBF though, Kaspr helped us win series in SL and IND.

Spot on about MacGill, now people talk about him like Warne stopped him for automatically taking 600 test wickets.

Unfair on Sambora though, watch Bon Jovi live in their prime and he is doing lead guitar and back up vocals flawless for most of the show

Sambora is a pretty competent guitarist, much like MacGill was a pretty competent legspinner.

And honestly, whatever you think about their output, Bon Jovi are pretty underrated technically. Bon Jovi's a very good vocalist, Tico Torres is a decent drummer and there's Sambora himself.

But when everyone says that X is underrated, you have to wonder...

Okay but Kasper is listed at 1.94, that is not tall for a fast bowler.

So this 'heavy ball' theory is still not making much sense, is it?

I just interpreted a 'heavy ball' as an effort ball which can rear up on the batsman.

Boland's done that before (notably to Jadeja at the MCG). Siddle was also known for it.

I remember Kaspr more for his offcutters and reverse swing, though.

 

[Gethelred]

How can a ball be quicker than it looks?

Seems to skid on faster than it was in the air, and you can feel it hit the bat harder than other bowlers.

 

[DaRick]

Seems to skid on faster than it was in the air, and you can feel it hit the bat harder than other bowlers.

Also, bowlers with awkward actions are trickier to face because you can't see the ball as early.

For example, while peak Mitch Johnson operated in the low 150s, he had an awkward action which made picking the ball up very difficult, so it seemed like he was bowling faster than the speed gun indicated.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

So Mitchell Johnson (6'2 which is relatively short for an Aus fast bowler) also bowled a 'heavy ball'?

And if the ball 'skids on more' than other bowlers, is there a physical explanation for this?

Or any data which supports the theory?

 

[Gethelred]

So Mitchell Johnson (6'2 which is relatively short for an Aus fast bowler) also bowled a 'heavy ball'?

He also bowled with a very round arm.

And if the ball 'skids on more' than other bowlers, is there a physical explanation for this?

Or any data which supports the theory?

It's a feel thing as much as anything else.

 

[revo333]

Also, bowlers with awkward actions are trickier to face because you can't see the ball as early.

Yep, I didn't mind facing the fastest bowler in the comp I played because I could see the ball straight away as he delivered it.

 

[DaRick]

So Mitchell Johnson (6'2 which is relatively short for an Aus fast bowler) also bowled a 'heavy ball'?

By my own definition, most certainly. Ask Jacques Kallis.

And if the ball 'skids on more' than other bowlers, is there a physical explanation for this?

Well, I agree that a heavy ball 'skidding on more' is a paradox.

I would say shorter bowlers (Steyn) would be skiddier, because taller bowlers extract more bounce without trying.

Or any data which supports the theory?

Not data per se, but seemingly has a basis in reality:

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/a-glossary-of-cricket-terms-239756

Heavy ball - When a delivery is quicker than it looks and hits the bat harder or higher than is expected

 

[sabso]

By my own definition, most certainly. Ask Jacques Kallis.

Jacques Kallis’s ‘heavy ball’ had nothing to do with his height