Clean bowled dismissals - The Major Difference

[Pakprideuk]

Lately, I've been watching videos of the likes of Waqar , Wasim, Ambrose etc. bowl and even bowlers who weren't as good as those named above and one thing that struck me was how these bowlers would ball yorkers to dismiss batsmen in Test Cricket, or bowl a batsmen with an inswinging good-length delivery.

Today, however we hardly see fast bowlers of the highest caliber out and out clean bowl batsmen or run through line-ups, especially in the past 6-8 years. I mean it is very rare, yes there may be the odd occasion but its a rarity. I tend to watch most test matches and I've noticed that a lot of batsmen get caught nicking off to the slips, or get trapped lbw with reverse-swing in the subcontinent and recently there's been a trend of aggressive short-bowling getting batsmen out too.

As exciting as it is seeing a batsmen getting bounced out or bullied through short-bowling, we don't see a set batsmen yorked mid-way through his innings out of nowhere. My question is what is the reason behind this?

1. Is it a case of simply the bowlers of this era not being up to the skill level of those in the 80s and 90s? OR

2. Are the batsmen of today far more capable of playing the yorker length inswinging delivery? OR

3. Were the bowlers in the 90s far quicker than the bowlers we have today? OR

4. Are the pitches and outfields simply not conducive to the sort of reverse swing that was available to those in the 80s/90s?

Feel free to put forward any other reasons!

 

[BD-fan]

A wicket is a wicket no matter how you get it. Fast bowlers have slip region for a reason. The Bowler must ploy and stick to the plan to get a wicket. Case and point Chris Broad's recent success. Most are catches and catches at the slips.

So, 1) is the strategy the teams have.
2) Broad-Anderson, Boult-Southee, Starc-Hasting/???, Steyn-Rabada no matter good they are, they are not the Ws. Matter of fact I haven't seen any 80% Waqar after him.
3) The batsmen are better to pick up them slow Yorkers.

 

[BD-fan]

Johnson could be 75% Waqar at best.

People use to fear Waqar. Batmen would worry about their toes. The Nasty rising short balls would surprise them as well (on dead pitches). Just by watching highlights doesn't capture the atmosphere.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

I think batsmen back then sucked. Also probably had to deal with sporting wickets and smaller bats. Granted I can only base this off highlights, but apart from Wasim and Waqar, very few quicks moved the ball.

Tendulkar was the best batsman of the 90s and he averaged around 60. As bad as people make todays bowlers out to be, he should be expected to average around 80 on todays flat tracks. But I doubt that.

That being said, I think we are in for a golden era of fast bowling for the next 10 years.

Established quicks like Philander, Hazelwood...

Then you have Rabada, Joseph, Cummins, Pattinson, Mustafiz all have the potential to be world class quicks if not ATGs. Then you have Chameera, Yadav, Starc, who could be very good. Then established guys like Broad, Morkel, Boult, and Southee. Thats a good 12-15 quicks that could all average under 30 in Test cricket.

 

[Pakprideuk]

I think batsmen back then sucked. Also probably had to deal with sporting wickets and smaller bats. Granted I can only base this off highlights, but apart from Wasim and Waqar, very few quicks moved the ball.

Tendulkar was the best batsman of the 90s and he averaged around 60. As bad as people make todays bowlers out to be, he should be expected to average around 80 on todays flat tracks. But I doubt that.

That being said, I think we are in for a golden era of fast bowling for the next 10 years.

Established quicks like Philander, Hazelwood...

Then you have Rabada, Joseph, Cummins, Pattinson, Mustafiz all have the potential to be world class quicks if not ATGs. Then you have Chameera, Yadav, Starc, who could be very good. Then established guys like Broad, Morkel, Boult, and Southee. Thats a good 12-15 quicks that could all average under 30 in Test cricket.

I agree with the bowlers you've named that they could be ATGs or high quality bowlers at the international level but I don't see any of those bowlers apart from Starc who you think could bowl a yorker in a test match on a dead wicket under the hot sun and knock a top batsmen over!

Its for this reason, I don't think averages always hold weight for top fast bowlers.

 

[Suleiman]

They were quicker.

 

[AFM]

Part of the reason is that videos available for those bowlers tend to be highlights - giving the impression they would clean bowl every batsman every ball they bowled.

Here is a similar video I found of Steyn - http://youtu.be/gd6_q9B9slI

Wasim and Waqar are known for their yorkers - but there mode of dismissal with the new ball would be the same as everyone else - edge behind. Of course there would be exemptions to this rule, but modern bowlers are also capable of the same. I remember Anderson bowled Braithawite with the new ball last year - http://youtu.be/SSAfj2S-dHs

 

[Gilly]

Its always been that a player gets much better the longer he has been retired. A lot of the players I watched in the late 70's and early 80's are much better players now than they were then.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Lately, I've been watching videos of the likes of Waqar , Wasim, Ambrose etc. bowl and even bowlers who weren't as good as those named above and one thing that struck me was how these bowlers would ball yorkers to dismiss batsmen in Test Cricket, or bowl a batsmen with an inswinging good-length delivery.

Today, however we hardly see fast bowlers of the highest caliber out and out clean bowl batsmen or run through line-ups, especially in the past 6-8 years. I mean it is very rare, yes there may be the odd occasion but its a rarity. I tend to watch most test matches and I've noticed that a lot of batsmen get caught nicking off to the slips, or get trapped lbw with reverse-swing in the subcontinent and recently there's been a trend of aggressive short-bowling getting batsmen out too.

As exciting as it is seeing a batsmen getting bounced out or bullied through short-bowling, we don't see a set batsmen yorked mid-way through his innings out of nowhere. My question is what is the reason behind this?

1. Is it a case of simply the bowlers of this era not being up to the skill level of those in the 80s and 90s? OR

2. Are the batsmen of today far more capable of playing the yorker length inswinging delivery? OR

3. Were the bowlers in the 90s far quicker than the bowlers we have today? OR

4. Are the pitches and outfields simply not conducive to the sort of reverse swing that was available to those in the 80s/90s?

Feel free to put forward any other reasons!

Batsmen are better, bowlers are better. Batsmen have improved more. As a result, people conclude nobody bowls well anymore.

Fielding is viewed alone and thus everyone realizes just how much it has improved.

 

[Tusker]

Batsmen are better, bowlers are better. Batsmen have improved more. As a result, people conclude nobody bowls well anymore.

Fielding is viewed alone and thus everyone realizes just how much it has improved.

Exactly. Very well said . To add to this there is the nostalgia element and invariably it is heavily biased towards players who were playing during our formative years.

 

[Buffet]

Steyn is the only ATG bowler in this era.

Now Steyn has 21.7% wickets as bowled.
Wasim had 24.6% wickets as bowled.

Difference is less than 3% here without going into camera not following bowlers in those days. Just to put it in perspective, McGrath had 13.5% of his wickets as bowled due to different style of bowling.

Generalization doesn't stand up very well when you look some data.

 

[Red Devil]

Steyn is the only ATG bowler in this era.

Now Steyn has 21.7% wickets as bowled.
Wasim had 24.6% wickets as bowled.

Difference is less than 3% here without going into camera not following bowlers in those days. Just to put it in perspective, McGrath had 13.5% of his wickets as bowled due to different style of bowling.

Generalization doesn't stand up very well when you look some data.

This.

Plus, watching compilation videos will obviously give you a skewed perspective.

Watch a Youtube video of Mitch Starc and you'll find lots of clean bowleds.

 

[hk031992]

Batsmen are better, bowlers are better. Batsmen have improved more. As a result, people conclude nobody bowls well anymore.

Fielding is viewed alone and thus everyone realizes just how much it has improved.

in what universe are bowlers better? Nostalgia and overrating the present are two sides of the same coin. There is no evidence that bowlers are better now than they were in the past.

 

[hk031992]

Exactly. Very well said . To add to this there is the nostalgia element and invariably it is heavily biased towards players who were playing during our formative years.

and yet there are those like you who automatically dismiss the past just because it was the past. There were world class players in the 80's and 90's who would still be world class today just like there are world class players today who would still be world class in that era. Dismissing the past is beyond silly.

Who are the bowlers today that are better than Ambrose, Donald, McGrath and the two W's? The only one i can think of is Steyn. Who are the leg spinners who are better than Warne? Who are the offies better than Murali or even Saqlain? You need to offer a better argument than simply stating that bowlers are better.

 

[street cricketer]

Fast bowlers have always taken most of their wickets caught in the slips, except in Asia.

In the 1990s the only partial exceptions were Waqar Younis and Wasim Akram, and 90% of that was down to the fact that ball-tampering enabled them to use their supreme skills to bowl people. But watch Waqar in South Africa in 1998 - a slip catch-athon!

We are now in an era in which the batsmen and bowlers have inferior techniques. Or rather, the batsmen are much better at scientific slogging on flat tracks, but much worse at leaving the ball outside off-stump.

But these batsmen are incredibly loose outside off-stump. So again, Australia, England and South Africa can easily dismiss the opposition at home even on flattish tracks by dangling the ball outside off-stump.

I recently read about the Test series of Pakistan in England in 92 in guardian article. It talked about English middle order collapses in that series (and others), Waqar's fantastic spell at Headingley and Lords and also alluded that the series was marred by several controversies.

Apparently there are two sides to the story. What really happened then?

I'm asking you because you would've watched the series and I'm hoping you would be neutral with Pakistan and England

 

[Acricketfan]

Batsmen are better, bowlers are better. Batsmen have improved more. As a result, people conclude nobody bowls well anymore.

Fielding is viewed alone and thus everyone realizes just how much it has improved.

Utter non sense.

 

[Tusker]

and yet there are those like you who automatically dismiss the past just because it was the past.

You are confusing my take on the really old era's ( before 1970s ) to the post 70s. My take is that the Cricket took a long time to get rid of the Amateur status. It is very clearly evident if you look at the footage's. But you will have to leave your bias at the door step.

And no I don't automatically dismiss anything from the past or the present. I present valid points to back my opinion. Few examples are Jack Hobbs, Bedser, Tyson. Yet to see anyone argue that Jack Hobbs had the perfect technique that he is renowned for after seeing that clip.

There were world class players in the 80's and 90's who would still be world class today just like there are world class players today who would still be world class in that era. Dismissing the past is beyond silly.

Who are the bowlers today that are better than Ambrose, Donald, McGrath and the two W's? The only one i can think of is Steyn. Who are the leg spinners who are better than Warne? Who are the offies better than Murali or even Saqlain? You need to offer a better argument than simply stating that bowlers are better.

Never said anything to the effect that these bowlers werent world class. But to answer your question ... Starc, Hazlewood, Ryan Harris, Johnson, Amir, Anderson, Broad, Morkel, Rabada etc would have also done very well if they played in the 70s and 80s. This is were most die-hard fans of the past era's get bent out of shape

 

[hk031992]

Do i think Starc, Rabada, Amir, Hazelewoood etc would have done well in the past? Absolutely. But my disagreement is with the argument that somehow these guys are better than past bowlers. All of these guys are a work in progress, i doubt any of them have reached their primes yet (though Starc is getting there). I don't see any evidence that they are better than past great bowlers.

Johnson, Harris, Anderson, Broad and Morkel- i agree the would have done well although out of this group i think only Harris and Johnson had all time great potential barring injuries. Anderson is too reliant on swing and while he has improved in recent years away from home, his performances are a little underwhelming for me to say that he could have been an ATG in another era.

Would these guys have done well? Yes. Does that make them better than Holding, Marshall, Imran, Hadlee, Lillee etc? No. Atleast not yet. Although if Starc, Rabada, Amir, Hazlewood, Boult all perform well and fulfill their potential, we could have another golden era of fast bowling.

Regarding players from before the 70's, my knowledge of them is obviously limited and i have seen very little footage. I don't think its neessarily fair to judge them by just using video clips. Those clips do not necessarily respresent the entire careers of these players and are not necessarily an accurate reflection of their abilities. While i don't believe in the myths around them, i would not dismiss them either.

 

[Pete Rose]

I could be wrong but visual memory tells that asif had a lot of top order batsmen bowled

 

[Tusker]

Do i think Starc, Rabada, Amir, Hazelewoood etc would have done well in the past? Absolutely. But my disagreement is with the argument that somehow these guys are better than past bowlers. All of these guys are a work in progress, i doubt any of them have reached their primes yet (though Starc is getting there). I don't see any evidence that they are better than past great bowlers.

Johnson, Harris, Anderson, Broad and Morkel- i agree the would have done well although out of this group i think only Harris and Johnson had all time great potential barring injuries. Anderson is too reliant on swing and while he has improved in recent years away from home, his performances are a little underwhelming for me to say that he could have been an ATG in another era.

Would these guys have done well? Yes. Does that make them better than Holding, Marshall, Imran, Hadlee, Lillee etc? No. Atleast not yet. Although if Starc, Rabada, Amir, Hazlewood, Boult all perform well and fulfill their potential, we could have another golden era of fast bowling.

Watch the batting techniques of batsmen facing Holding, MArshall etc and then you will realize why it was easier for them. As an example take a look at the famous Boycott vs Holding footage and watch his footwork.

Regarding players from before the 70's, my knowledge of them is obviously limited and i have seen very little footage. I don't think its neessarily fair to judge them by just using video clips. Those clips do not necessarily respresent the entire careers of these players and are not necessarily an accurate reflection of their abilities. While i don't believe in the myths around them, i would not dismiss them either.

What do you mean ? Did Hobbs have a different batting technique in those other matches that werent recorded ? Did Bedser bowl like true strike bowler that we now associate with a opening fast bowler ? Is this what you are trying to imply?

 

[Big Mac]

347 tests in the 1990s
1776 batsmen bowled

5.12 batsmen bowled per test.

402 tests in the last ten years
2124 batsmen bowled

5.28 batsmen bowled per test

So more batsmen are bowled nowadays than in the 1990s

 

[hk031992]

Watch the batting techniques of batsmen facing Holding, MArshall etc and then you will realize why it was easier for them. As an example take a look at the famous Boycott vs Holding footage and watch his footwork.




What do you mean ? Did Hobbs have a different batting technique in those other matches that werent recorded ? Did Bedser bowl like true strike bowler that we now associate with a opening fast bowler ? Is this what you are trying to imply?

I am not sure what you mean by batting techniques. Someone like Gavaskar for example had a better batting technique (test cricket wise) than any opener today barring possibly Cook.Batters back then were generally less agressive with their stroke making but also generally had smaller gaps between bat and pad. Guys today tend to leave big gaps between bat and pad. If you are going to argue that (generally) batsmen today are more adventerous in their stroke making, i will agree with you on that. If you think that batters today are better defensively, i don't agree with that.


No, that isn't what i was trying to imply. I meant that everyone has off days and days where they do not perform at anywhere near their best level. I think you need a decent amount of footage to judge players appropriately and i do not think a few clips can give you that.

 

[Tusker]

I am not sure what you mean by batting techniques. Someone like Gavaskar for example had a better batting technique (test cricket wise) than any opener today barring possibly Cook.Batters back then were generally less agressive with their stroke making but also generally had smaller gaps between bat and pad. Guys today tend to leave big gaps between bat and pad. If you are going to argue that (generally) batsmen today are more adventerous in their stroke making, i will agree with you on that. If you think that batters today are better defensively, i don't agree with that.

What Iam trying to say is not all batsmen from the 70s and 80s had great defensive technique like Sunny. Also not true is that most batsmen have bad techniques today. What Iam saying is by and large batting techniques to play fast bowling were still evolving in the 80s. Batsmen used to fear a lot of bowlers and this extended throughout their careers. Bowlers like Marshall and Co were rarely ever attacked which made their lives soo much easier. Pretty sure if Marshall were to be bowling to todays batsmen he would have had a much tougher time because that part of the game was never tested. The game has changed significantly in the last 30-40 yrs. Most oldies will not recognize that and prefer to blow their own horn and like to live in their own delusional world where the world has regressed since they stopped playing. This is a very common human tendency one that is borne out of insecurity and the need to be relevant. A great example is Geoff Boycott.

No, that isn't what i was trying to imply. I meant that everyone has off days and days where they do not perform at anywhere near their best level. I think you need a decent amount of footage to judge players appropriately and i do not think a few clips can give you that.

Well the Hobbs video was a scripted piece work created with the explicit purpose of teaching and documenting what was then considered to be perfect batting technique as demonstrated by then No.1 Batsman. Why would he be displaying anything but the best on that film ? If anything footage from live matches would be worse.

And I have looked at all footage of Bedser from different periods in his career and they are all the same. As for Tyson the footage I posted was from his very Best test performance which defined his reputation.

 

[Yossarian]

Steyn is the only ATG bowler in this era.

Now Steyn has 21.7% wickets as bowled.
Wasim had 24.6% wickets as bowled.

Difference is less than 3% here without going into camera not following bowlers in those days. Just to put it in perspective, McGrath had 13.5% of his wickets as bowled due to different style of bowling.

Generalization doesn't stand up very well when you look some data.

Waqar Younis
Bowled: 27.3%
LBW: 29.5%
Total Bowled + LBW (ie hitting wicket, or pads stopped hitting wicket): 56.8%

Akram[/B]
Bowled: 24.6%
LBW: 28.7%
Total Bowled + LBW (ie hitting wicket, or pads stopped hitting wicket): 53.3%

Steyn
Bowled: 21.7%
LBW: 14.8%
Total Bowled + LBW (ie hitting wicket, or pads stopped hitting wicket): 36.5%


Now that tells a completely different story!
Not a 3% difference, but almost 20% versus Waqar, and almost 17% versus Akram.

(of course that may have a lot to do with dropped catches by Pakistani fielders!)

 

[James]

Its always been that a player gets much better the longer he has been retired. A lot of the players I watched in the late 70's and early 80's are much better players now than they were then.

Well said.

A wicket is a wicket. Splattering the stumps undoubtedly looks wonderful, but objectively every wicket is equally good, equally hard-earned, and of equal value.

 

[Buffet]

347 tests in the 1990s
1776 batsmen bowled

5.12 batsmen bowled per test.

402 tests in the last ten years
2124 batsmen bowled

5.28 batsmen bowled per test

So more batsmen are bowled nowadays than in the 1990s

This should end this debate then.

 

[DRS]

In my opinion, the only reason is that wickets prepared, in the current time, favor the batsmen more than bowler and rightly so, the crowd get charged up more when a bowler is dispatched for six and TRP go sky rocketing. Hence, when the batsmen grt get unfair advantage over a span of time, the bowler would automatically lose the art of clean bowling the batsmen.

Sent from my SM-J500F using Tapatalk

 

[Big Mac]

This should end this debate then.

You know it won't.

Someone would have to make a nice big graph to grab everyone's attention.

So I guess that's what I'll do.

 

[Big Mac]

Two things to note:

1) Batsmen are bowled more often this decade than in the 1990s, so the thread is built on a faulty premise.

2) You can see the effect that covered pitches (Starting in the late 1960s) had on bowled dismissals.

 

[Tusker]

You know it won't.

Someone would have to make a nice big graph to grab everyone's attention.

So I guess that's what I'll do.

haha ... great work !! Is it possible to plot LBW + Bowled ? Thanks.

 

[Big Mac]

haha ... great work !! Is it possible to plot LBW + Bowled ? Thanks.

I thought about doing that but its late and I felt lazy. I might do it tomorrow if I can be bothered.

 

[SandyB]

I think with the advent of T20 batsmen have been forced to improve their batting especially at playing the yorker better. Even the lower order batsmen sometimes try and score of yorkers instead of just trying to defend it as they used to do in the past . So bowlers tend to use it less these days . If I remember , the 2 W used to get a lot of lower order wickets with their yorkers back then.

 

[Junaids]

I recently read about the Test series of Pakistan in England in 92 in guardian article. It talked about English middle order collapses in that series (and others), Waqar's fantastic spell at Headingley and Lords and also alluded that the series was marred by several controversies.

Apparently there are two sides to the story. What really happened then?

I'm asking you because you would've watched the series and I'm hoping you would be neutral with Pakistan and England

Thanks for asking!

My take is simple, but ask also [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1842]James[/MENTION] .

The recurrent England collapses were because Wasim and Waqar (but not Aaqib Javed) were supreme exponents of obtaining late reverse swing from a doctored ball.

The English top order of Atherton and Stewart was better than their averages seem by modern standards, and they were fairly effective at getting England off to a good start. But Pakistan - and you all know that I have a massive soft spot for Pakistan - then used the dark arts to scratch one side of the ball. There is a famous scene of Aaqib Javed being caught taking a great big chunk out of the ball with his fingernail, at which point Richie Benaud exclaims "Steady On!"

Waqar was a brilliant right-arm express reverse swing bowler. He was like a better version of Shoaib Akhtar. But it wasn't until around 1997 that he became as good at conventional swing as Imran Khan had been.

There are two reasons why I'm so quick to attribute the clean bowleds and LBWs of Wasim and Waqar to ball tampering. They were my cricketing heroes (Lancashire was my home club, and Surrey was my London club while I was at university). But everybody knew what they did - and a number of well-known players have told me so personally - and we welcomed it and our own players tried to copy it - and indeed Yorkshire's Darren Gough became an expert at reversing a doctored ball.

But ultimately it was cheating, just like what Murali and Ajmal did with their chucking.

It goes in cycles. People chuck or ball tamper, then for a while there is a crackdown, then people start doing it again.

Pakistan has only ball-tampered in small quantities in recent years. But other teams do it much more.

South Africa was actually caught and punished doing it during their years at the top, and I attribute much of their success outside Asia to the fact that they were tampering and that Dale Steyn is like Waqar was and Aaqib wasn't - he has the skills to move a damaged ball.

I would add that India in their last home Test against South Africa and Australia all summer against New Zealand were obtaining late swing that their opponents were not. There are only two possible explanations. Either their bowlers are better (like Waqar compared with Aaqib) or the team is tampering with the ball more than their opponents. You decide.

Personally I would say this. I have my suspicions about Australia and about the reverse swing that Anderson, Stokes and Finn excel at. If Pakistan don't increase their ball tampering this year, they deserve a moral pat on the back but they are fools.

 

[proud_pakistani]

If you ask me I think bowlers are not as quick any more and reason for that being we did not play as much cricket before. Fast bowlers used to come in and give it their all during a test match whereas now they would much rather save their pace for T20 games and let it rip in the T20s.

No one is really concerned about tearing away batting line ups in the Test arena.

 

[Big Mac]

[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION]

 

[Tusker]

Brilliant work Big Mac ... pretty fascinating and this should surely settle the debate . Great to see the LBW's have shot up since the 70s and the bowled's have dipped sharply from the 1950's. Indicating change in lbw rules and overall improvement in batting techniques.

 

[Big Mac]

Brilliant work Big Mac ... pretty fascinating and this should surely settle the debate . Great to see the LBW's have shot up since the 70s and the bowled's have dipped sharply from the 1950's. Indicating change in lbw rules and overall improvement in batting techniques.

The dip in bowled dismissals around the sixties and seventies isn't an improvement in technique as much as it is a result of covered pitches tbh

LBW rule changed to the modern version in the seventies and then the adoption of neutral umpires in the nineties gave a little bump to the LBW numbers.

 

[Hawkeye]

Brilliant work Big Mac ... pretty fascinating and this should surely settle the debate . Great to see the LBW's have shot up since the 70s and the bowled's have dipped sharply from the 1950's. Indicating change in lbw rules and overall improvement in batting techniques.

OPs point still remains valid partially.

The prominent bowlers, whose wickets most end up remembering, were getting more clean bowled/LBW dismissals than today's top bowlers.

In fact - it was twice as much, while not so much today. Asif had that art.

 

[Tusker]

The dip in bowled dismissals around the sixties and seventies isn't an improvement in technique as much as it is a result of covered pitches tbh

LBW rule changed to the modern version in the seventies and then the adoption of neutral umpires in the nineties gave a little bump to the LBW numbers.

Yes I forgot about covered pitches and umpires. Also important is the change in mindset with arrival of Hawk-Eye's ball tracking technology. Lot many umpires are willing to go in favor of the umpire.

OPs point still remains valid partially.

The prominent bowlers, whose wickets most end up remembering, were getting more clean bowled/LBW dismissals than today's top bowlers.

In fact - it was twice as much, while not so much today. Asif had that art.

The OP was trying to generalize the situation using Wasim and Waqar as the bench mark ... which is incorrect. Or atleast thats how I interpreted it.

But in any case as we can see the overall situation is pretty much the same.

 

[Big Mac]

Yes I forgot about covered pitches and umpires. Also important is the change in mindset with arrival of Hawk-Eye's ball tracking technology. Lot many umpires are willing to go in favor of the umpire.

Yeah, TV replays and especially hawkeye means you don't automatically get the benefit of the doubt just because you took a big stride down the pitch. Spinners, in particular, have benefited from this.

OPs point still remains valid partially.

The prominent bowlers, whose wickets most end up remembering, were getting more clean bowled/LBW dismissals than today's top bowlers.

In fact - it was twice as much, while not so much today. Asif had that art.

Not really. Test batsmen have been bowled more regularly in the last six years than they were in the previous two decades which is literally the opposite of what the OP claims.

Just because you can't remember it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

 

[nextover666666]

Most clean bowled wickets

I am a fan of great bowling and love when a player is clean bowled than again who doesn't it I looked into too see the records for most cleaned bowled it was Interesting

For most clean bowled in test cricket it was Muttiah Muralitharan with 167 cleaned bowled wickets

For ODI it's Wasim Akram who has 176 cleaned bowled wickets to his name

In T20I it's Shahid Afridi who has 39 bowled wickets

In all formats combined it's Muttiah Muralitharan with 290 bowled wickets

 

[sweep_shot]

Nice stats.

It is always a treat to watch when an express pacer (someone like Shoaib Akthar or Brett Lee) knocks stumps out.

 

[kingusama92]

It's always a great sight.

 

[Abid Z]

I’d love to see this stat developed a bit more. Just anecdotal evidence suggests (from memory) great bowlers like McGrath getting a lot of caught behinds or in slip but not as much bowled or lbw. But others like Waqar getting more bowled or lbw. Pak fielding being what it is you’d have to get wickets by not relying on fielding.

 

[topspin]

It would be fascinating to know who holds the highest % of clean bowled wickets (out of those with 250+ international wickets).

 

[nextover666666]

Nice stats.

It is always a treat to watch when an express pacer (someone like Shoaib Akthar or Brett Lee) knocks stumps out.

It always is man I also love saying a spinner get a batsman out clean bowled with an outstanding Ball as well

Also I was suprised afridi Was the most in t20 I know he played a lot of t20 and picked up a lot of wickets for Pakistan in that format but I always thought it was Malinga

 

[wrongun]

I’d love to see this stat developed a bit more. Just anecdotal evidence suggests (from memory) great bowlers like McGrath getting a lot of caught behinds or in slip but not as much bowled or lbw. But others like Waqar getting more bowled or lbw. Pak fielding being what it is you’d have to get wickets by not relying on fielding.

Yes, style of bowling too.

McGrath with his height relied more on accuracy, bounce & could move it away if he chose. A great recipe for testing batsman's skill around off stump & nicking them off. Or pinning them back with the bounce & nicking off/slipping one back at the pads for lbw.

Waqar of course with much more pace & that inswing/reverse swing yorker is going to hit the stumps a lot more. Less bounce available for him so nicking off from sheer bounce is slightly less available to him so targeting those stumps makes sense.

Interesting that Murali has so many bowled - I guess brining the ball back in as an off spinner helps target the stumps. Plus no one could read him. Just beating guys all ends up.

 

[Abid Z]

Op list of bowled and lbw?

 

[nextover666666]

Op list of bowled and lbw?

Most LBW wickets only

Anil Kumble for test cricket with 156

Wasim Akram for ODI cricket with 92

All formats combine m Muralitharan with 216 wickets

 

[nextover666666]

For the LBW forgot to mention that in t20 cricket it's Rashid khan with the most who has 17 wickets

 

[Red Devil]

Waqar must be very high up on that list. Expected him to be on top instead of Wasim tbh.

 

[silent ischemia]

When I read the title only one name came to my mind "The Burewala Express Waqar Younis"

 

[nextover666666]

Waqar must be very high up on that list. Expected him to be on top instead of Wasim tbh.

In ODI cricket he is second on the list with 151 clean bowled wickets

In test cricket he has 102 clean bowled wickets

In both formats combined he sits 3rd on the list with a total of 253 wickets

 

[nextover666666]

At the time of this Thread Shahid Afridi had the Most Clean Bowled wickets in T20 internationals at 39.
However Malinga is the Leader Currently with 43 Bowled wickets.

 

[gazza619]

I just wonder, could it be that batters of today have gotten better against pace because of available technology including bowling machines in the nets?

You can now at will face 90 mph in the nets if you wanted to. This option was not available in the olden days.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

A wicket is a wicket no matter how you get it. Fast bowlers have slip region for a reason. The Bowler must ploy and stick to the plan to get a wicket. Case and point Chris Broad's recent success. Most are catches and catches at the slips.

So, 1) is the strategy the teams have.
2) Broad-Anderson, Boult-Southee, Starc-Hasting/???, Steyn-Rabada no matter good they are, they are not the Ws. Matter of fact I haven't seen any 80% Waqar after him.
3) The batsmen are better to pick up them slow Yorkers.

A combination of factors.
First and foremost, the amount of cricket that a fast bowlers plays these days, creates too much of a load on their delicate bodies. It's almost impossible to maintain such a high potency in bowling in a long run. So they must strike a balance between astronomical amount of workload and avoiding injuries to maintain longevity in playing.

Second, is obviously the modern day laws that are heavily biased in favor of the batsman.
Kids watching a game. The fast bowler runs up to his mark, starts to charge in, and delivers a bouncer that targets the batsman's nose. Batsman ducks down to save his life, the ball takes the edge of a tree trunk in the name of a modern day cricket bat, and lands outside the boundary line for a six in a ground that is smaller than my kitchen.
And at the end of the over, the pace bowler has been battered and smacked like an astray dog with 3 fours and two sixes in the over.

Ask the kids, who wants to become a fast bowler? And you will have zero hands raised.

There was an era of supreme pace bowlers all over the world. You had the black thunder of WI in Caribbean, The Imrans and Lillies and Hadlees and Thompsons to counter with.

But now you hardly have one or at the most two, good pace bowlers shortly appear in the international scene and soon become trundlers. I think Dale Steyn was perhaps the last one of this extinct breed after the two W's and Shoaib Akhtar hanged their shoes.

These tamasha leagues have literally killed the art of pace bowling.
In modern day cricket, a team's bowling force is medium pace or slow/spin with focus on line and length to avoid mainly one thing - how to avoid getting smacked for 6 sixes in an over?

But since these tamasha leagues pay good money, bowlers are ready to take the extra load on their bodies and trade it off on losing aggression and passion.

Hardly anyone plays for pride these days, it's all about money. Nothing else matters.

 

[shamaan]

A combination of factors.
First and foremost, the amount of cricket that a fast bowlers plays these days, creates too much of a load on their delicate bodies. It's almost impossible to maintain such a high potency in bowling in a long run. So they must strike a balance between astronomical amount of workload and avoiding injuries to maintain longevity in playing.

Second, is obviously the modern day laws that are heavily biased in favor of the batsman.
Kids watching a game. The fast bowler runs up to his mark, starts to charge in, and delivers a bouncer that targets the batsman's nose. Batsman ducks down to save his life, the ball takes the edge of a tree trunk in the name of a modern day cricket bat, and lands outside the boundary line for a six in a ground that is smaller than my kitchen.
And at the end of the over, the pace bowler has been battered and smacked like an astray dog with 3 fours and two sixes in the over.

Ask the kids, who wants to become a fast bowler? And you will have zero hands raised.

There was an era of supreme pace bowlers all over the world. You had the black thunder of WI in Caribbean, The Imrans and Lillies and Hadlees and Thompsons to counter with.

But now you hardly have one or at the most two, good pace bowlers shortly appear in the international scene and soon become trundlers. I think Dale Steyn was perhaps the last one of this extinct breed after the two W's and Shoaib Akhtar hanged their shoes.

These tamasha leagues have literally killed the art of pace bowling.
In modern day cricket, a team's bowling force is medium pace or slow/spin with focus on line and length to avoid mainly one thing - how to avoid getting smacked for 6 sixes in an over?

But since these tamasha leagues pay good money, bowlers are ready to take the extra load on their bodies and trade it off on losing aggression and passion.

Hardly anyone plays for pride these days, it's all about money. Nothing else matters.

Pakistan will continue producing fast bowlers who bowl at high speeds thou.