There has been so much written on the ball of the century in cricinfo, a phenomenon I think that is more blown out of proportion than it actually is. I mean no disrespect here but before calling me a bluff and you raise the middle finger at me, be a sport and think it over a little won’t you? Is there even such a thing called the Ball Of The Century? There could be ball of the match or may be even series, but century clearly is an exaggeration. Even if there is, one can’t fathom anyone or anything bettering Sharne Warne’s unofficially dubbed “ball of the century”, the one that bemused Mike Gatting in the Ashes, 1992 for the numero uno spot. I know there would be a few citing Wasim Akram’s world cup blitz to Allan Lamb and co to the contrary(he certainly looked a lamb didn’t he?) and on a greater note - Waqar Younis’s famous inswinger to Lara that had the great southpaw “prostrated” - being better ones compared to Warne vs Gatting.
And, look, you could write about them profusely and endlessly here since its that kind of topic. But I suspect the writers indulgence often cast a shadow on the piece, in-turn losing objectivity while making the piece look better than subject itself.(Since when did good reading became objective reading?)
Anybody with standard cricketing knowledge would agree to the fact that they are undeniably great deliveries but still, with the title being ball of the century, something or the other eluded them from being genuine contenders compared to Warne’s to Gatting. Call it sheer resonance, the enormity of the achievement or impact on the game but you get the big picture.(Add-on: I think Akram’s belonged to a different category altogether which I’m about to embark on just now. A more deserving category lets put it this way)
Aesthetics and technicalities are subjective to the person narrating the incident but since these matters are about how one recalls one moment in time, I think judicious videolog analysis shall be avoided. That’s not how you select something of that magnitude.
People talk about techniques as if they own one. If you could play cricket as well as you talk, I think we might as well play cricket up there in space too, in zero-gravity. Moreover it would be thrilling to witness a a spectacle of that kind with people like Sachin, Warne, Mcgrath, Lara and Jhonty Rhodes facing off against each other in a manner that is evocative of Stanley Kubrick’s “Space Odyssey” or Alfonso Curaon’s “Gravity”.(If Gravity is the option, I think Rhodes should play George Clooney’s role. None did a somersault up in the air and defied gravity better than Rhodes.)
Unless I just missed the point, ball of the century is never balled on a cozy sunday morning when the crowds were just about bustling into the streets with some of them even settling into their seats with a newspaper or a vuvuzela blocking their views. One would dare say with literally nobody in the stadium except the vultures up there in the media room, there may be very little to it after all. It would be like it never never existed in the first place. What if Sydney barnes had balled the ball of the century a long ago and nobody has seen it, this discussion in itself would cease to exist, seem pointless.(Note: This is unlike Kapil Devil’s heroics in the world cups, there were many who saw it and there were many who wrote about it. Just that it wasn’t broadcasted doesn’t mean it’s great.)
The one that really challenged Warne according to people is Waqar’s Yorker to Lara. So what it brought down one of the greats of the game on one knee? so what its unplayable? since its “ball of the century” the onus should be own the revolutionary aspect of all this. Have you seen the yorker before or after that? Yeah, bloody hell, yeah! Sure it was no ordinary yorker I mean no yorker is an ordinary yorker. But unlike Waqar who was a master at ditching yorkers like that time and again, Warne revolutionized the game with his genius and wizardry when he clean bowled Gatting like how Bechkham opened up realms of endless possibilities when he chipped one past Sullivan, the Wimbledon goal keeper, in 1997-98.
Which invites me to square one, to the provocation I have raised in the first paragraph of this blog - Do the ball of the century even exist? - quite frankly, No.
Nothing wrong with celebrating an anomaly but my point is, why not celebrate it on an even higher note by giving the game and its viewers something bigger(and better). There are better anomalies in cricket than ball of the century debates, unless I just missed the point.
My problem with the ball of the century is not the ball of the century - its the backdrop of it. The ball of the century never takes into consideration how the over panned out, of what has happened before or after the incident.
Believe me, take my words there is no better sight in cricket than a fast bowler steaming in with the crowd slowly but surely building up play with sounds of echo, off mild claps, hoots and whistles that eventually give way for a crescendo.(The Mexican wave is a classic example.) And there is certainly nothing greater than the bowler setting up a batsman into a false stroke by bowling into a plan. I’m talking about the over the century here not the ball of the century.
And look there are many contenders here too. Wasim Akram’s in the world cup is a great one. Shoaib Akthar to Dravid and Sachin. Irfan Pathan to Salman butt, Younis Khan and Mohammed Yusuf.
For simple explanation I just want to whittle it down to two and I promise you I’d pick one over the other.
For the first one, I’m taking you back years to Michael Holding’s spell of bowling to Geoff Boycott, the one in Kensington Oval, Barbados, in the year 1981. Like warne’s ball of the century, that one too casted a large shadow on anything that unearthed during the series. Although he had his detractors, Geoff Boycott is routinely listed among the greatest batsmen of his era, much like how Shiv Chanderpaul gets his nod from the selected few in this era. Purists would rather stop reading right away. This article was never meant for them.
The set-up was ingenious especially with two great players on both sides of the pitch namely Bocott and Holding. Looking back at the footages I feel this was certainly one of the reasons why the series was still alive and kicking at least for the spectators. For being such a dead rubber the series needed something like that to rekindle some hope. So perhaps the buzz was still around when the players took the field and the probabilities of an over like that was on the cards. The black and white images of the passionate Caribbean fans crawling into the stadium from underneath the aisles is still so vivid in memory. And so is Michael Holding’s lazy run up - “gliding into the crease”- as described by Boycott himself - that gave absolutely no clue to the opposing batsmen as to who he was and how well(and fast) he bowled.
Umpires like Dickie Bird would recite stories of how they felt like turning back while Holding was at his delivery stride. They heard nothing. Nothing at all. He was called whispering death by many for the same reason - since his run up was whispering and his impact on the game, deadly.
Regarding the over I’d say this much - it was the fastest of its kind ever! I’m not spoon feeding every detail since the idea behind this article was to create curiosity in the reader, without spoiling the fun quotient, one bit. The over contained everything a spectator could ask for(except boundaries) including bouncers, gentle looseners, jaffers and yes the one that many groups dubbed as the greatest ball they’ve ever seen in their lives.
But my winner here is certainly not Holding to boycott mind you. It was a great over but considering the fact that it was on a greentop and not a sporting wicket meant that I’ve to be biased and pick a spell that was as good, if not better than the original whispering death.
Since greatest ever debates invites generational sentiment, I think you would be fair in calling biased on this one. In any case lets stop beating around the bush and reveal the damn over.
Personally I’m a huge fan of what Flintoff did to Ponting in the Ashes, 2005. You could call that great mainly because the bowler had the batsmen out at least three or four times. Much like Boycott, I think it was ponting’s bloody luck that helped him survive the over till it lasted. The bowler had to be really patient and wily, the bowler had to have a portion of his name rhyme with one of the scariest villains of all times “Freddy” to be even considered as great. Mark Nicholas summed it up perfectly in the commentary box when he said Flintoff has completely turned the whole feeling of the occasion in England’s favor. Flintoff was on a hattrick when he began the over but I don’t think he quite realized it. So first up was this gentle loosner that slipped out of Flintoff that Langer blocked to point. Then a series of indippers and legcutters followed cue, before finally Langer and Ponting were sent packing with two marvellous legcutters that hath Freddy Krugers sharpened blades written all over it. The image of a bemused Ricky Ponting heading back to the pavilion, of the crowd going bezerk and the English players converging on a buoyant Flintoff who has his arms up in the air stirred my imagination for unlike anything. It was the series defining moment, the kind of which, that set the tone for generations to come not only in Ashes cricket but in world cricket.
What is amazing about Flintoff’s over to Ponting is that, like Holding’s you could infact sense it coming. The commentators were raving about it, it had the crowd buzzing from mild applause to big cheers to a crescendo, and the batsmen were two of the best in the opposition camp. And despite that, despite all the spectacle that unfolded afterwards, you could literally hear the nick from the stump mic that eventually got Ponting out even with all the noise in the stadium.(It was so loud and clear that even Steve Bucknor would have had his fingers raised!)
Flintoff replicated something similar when he bowled Kallis over in Edgbaston, 2008. But I prefer this one more because it was a moment so filled with great ironies and sports is about great ironies. For Flintoff and his cohorts, the moment was a case of sheer cricketing genius and euphoria. For Punter though, it was just what Wes Craven made it out to be - Nightmare on Urn street. The little urn enticed the great Aussie number three unlike anything, so near yet so far.
