From: hasan@vxcrna.cern.ch 
Subject: Re: Mushtaq sets for Somerset
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 02:31:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.124341.10815@walter.bellcore.com>, shamim@.bellcore.com writes...
>In article 14AUG199208271446@vxcrna.cern.ch,  hasan@vxcrna.cern.ch  writes:
>>Another interesting thing -- and also somewhat puzzling to me -- is that while
>>the great Abdul Qadir performed so well in the Pakitan's tours of '82 and '87,
>>he was to my knowledge never sought by any English county (now I may me wrong
>>in this, so please correct me if I am ), at least not in the manner in which
>>MA has been. >
>>	Hasan
>>
> 
>Not many people are aware of this but Abdul Qadir the magician was actively and 
>heavily sought by the counties. Tony Lewis wanted him to play for Glamorgan and 
>asked him several times. There were two basic reasons why AQ didn't take any 
>of the offers. The first was his absolute conviction that if he played county cricket, 
>the batsmen of the world would be able to "read" him. Second, Imran never wanted 
>AQ to play for the same reasons and AQ and Imran are very close friends. 
> 
>The greatest weapon for a leg spinner is the ability to deceive the batsman. 
>Once you can read him (you still have to play the ball, of course) he becomes 
>a less difficult proposition. And the only way to read a leggie is to play him and 
>play him and play him. 
> 
>Unfortunately, for AQ, last year he did express a willingness to play county cricket. 
>But the demand was greatly reduced (recall that AQ had lost his test place) and 
>of course he also injured his achilles tendon.  There are some who maintain that 
>one reason for dropping AQ and playing Mushtaq is that AQ had become a known 
>commodity through familiarity. 
> 
>It is also the case that in the eighties no one believed that a spinner was useful. 
>It is only recently that spinners have made their way back into test and ODI sides. 
>Remember, Imran used to play AQ in OD games and it was considered exotic. 
>My favorite were the games where he played both AQ and Mushtaq together
>at Sharjah and won the games. Nobody could believe that two leggies were 
>being played in the same OD match!
> 
>	--SAN
> 
So now it is confirmed, as pointed out by many other nettors as well that
AQ was indeed offered a contract by more than one counties. I also vaguely 
recollect some rumours about his reluctance to play county cricket because of 
the fear that he would lose the element of surprise in his bowling by becoming
too familiar, but my sources were not very authentic.

But this raises some interesting questions. First of all, I dare say it was
a great financial sacrifice on part of AQ to refuse all those (shall I say
tempting) offers, just to maintain his wicket-taking ability for the national
side. I never heard this mentioned as such, even in many of the laudatory
articles about AQ that kept appearing in the Pakistani press. And I tell you
that Pakistani press is very "patriotic" in all these matters. It might be 
that it was mentioned somewhere but I missed it. BTW, was he compensated in
any way by the BCCP or his friend Imran to forego a decent source of income?
(fellow Pakistanis, please forgive my cynicism :-))

And now, how come our new magician is allowed to show his tricks in the 
English county arena (where batsmen from all over the world play) at the
risk of losing his magic? We should hide all our "secret weapons" from
the prying eyes of the world, not just the ones that we actually do :-)

There is no doubt, some truth in the loss_of_surprise_through_familiarity 
argument, but let's not lose a balanced perspective. A bowler of class
would always take wickets, no matter how familiar he becomes. Taking the
above argument to its extreme (as I think it was in AQ's case) would mean
that a leggie would become less and less successful with the passage of
time unless he plays against newer oppositions to whom he is not so familiar.
Apart from the vast repertoire of tricks that a good LBG bowler has in
his bag of tricks, there is the inevitable development and perfection of 
skills with experience -- to put it more poignantly, a good bowler (especially
a leggie) would always be able to spring a surprise or two. And then, even
if he becomes too familiar for the batsmen to play him with utmost care,
they are more liable to make mistakes. As it happens so many times, the
less dangerous bowler takes more wickets because the batsmen are ready to
take more chances against him.

	-Hasan