So......was Richard Dickinson right about Harmo and Graeme Smith ?

[Pratters]

As Clark showed earlier in the year, that statement may not be false on certain pitches...

I really do not think we are going any where here. I wouldn't say the South Africans are poor players of pace bowling based on Clark. The South Africans are definitely poor players of spin bowling but the batsman are not poor against the seamers for me.

Whoa whoa....back up here. When did I say it was not a good effort? When did this change from 'top class' to 'good effort'?

Again, definitions. I would put it as what I stated first again - top class for a series.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

So you have to average 13 to be considered top class for a series? I am not arguing whether Sreesanth is top class or not because such debates are redundant for me - a player who is top class over time will perform series after series and most people will be convinced regarding them latter if not sooner.

However, 13 is too strict a standard for a series. Any thing below 20 in a series and you know the bowler has usually done a top job for his team.

It's not really about the averages. It's about the way a bowler has bowled. Top class is the top of the gauge. It means you've bowled pretty much superbly throughout the series, even given the odd poor spell down to human error.

Sreesanth has had a very series or perhaps even an excellent series, but he's also bowled a sufficient amount of rubbish spells in between his brilliance to keep him away from the top of the heap. I wouldn't say any bowler has been top class in this series.

 

[Pratters]

It's not really about the averages. It's about the way a bowler has bowled. Top class is the top of the gauge. It means you've bowled pretty much superbly throughout the series, even given the odd poor spell down to human error.

Sreesanth has had a very series or perhaps even an excellent series, but he's also bowled a sufficient amount of rubbish spells in between his brilliance to keep him away from the top of the heap. I wouldn't say any bowler has been top class in this series.

It is all about definitions. I agree with you no one has been brilliant in this series like say a Curtley Amrbose would be in a series.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Averaging around 20 in a series certainly shows there might have been bad spells to some one who hasn't even watched a game of the series.

Having seen a fair amount of the series though, I can state with confidence that Sreesanth has not been as epic as some give him credit for.

 

[silentstriker]

It is all about definitions. I agree with you no one has been brilliant in this series like say a Curtley Amrbose would be in a series.

Well, IMO thats my definition of top class.

 

[silentstriker]

The thing that keeps him from that dominating tag is that when he comes on to bowl you aren't sure if it will be one of his great spells of bowling, or one of his 12 runs an over with three no balls type of spell.

 

[Pratters]

Having seen a fair amount of the series though, I can state with confidence that Sreesanth has not been as epic as some give him credit for.

I wasn't really discussing regarding Sreesanth. I was arguing regarding SS's point that you have to have an average of around 13 to be top class in a series. Again it comes down to what some one considers the definition of top class in a series.

As far as Sreesanth is concerned, he has very good seam control and swing. However, he is not consistent with his line and temperament. While I do not think his line will be any where near Munaf's over his career, he will get better when his temperament improves with experience. In any case, I would say Sreesanth has a long way to go but am very pleased with the way he is developing (has certainly shown improvement in the series in various aspects) and that would be that.

 

[silentstriker]

I wasn't really discussing regarding Sreesanth. I was arguing regarding SS's point that you have to have an average of around 13 to be top class in a series. Again it comes down to what some one considers the definition of top class in a series.

Um, that was never my point. I said, Pollock averages 13 and he is the more likely candidate for top class. In fact, I said that if this series was the Pakistan series last year, an average of 25 would be top class.

In any case, I would say Sreesanth has a long way to go but be very pleased with the way he is developing (has certainly shown improvement in the series in various aspects) and that would be that.

Then almost by admission, he cannot have bowled top class, if he still has a long way to go even in this series?

 

[Pratters]

Then almost by admission, he cannot have bowled top class, if he still has a long way to go even after this series?

Erm, not really. Even if some one has a long way to go, he can be top class in a series. Also, for the nth time, it comes down to what one considers top class in a series.

 

[silentstriker]

Also, for the nth time, it comes down to what one considers top class in a series.

Flintoff/Jones in Ashes '05. Warne in Ashes '05. Akhtar in Pak-Eng (in Pak) last year. Clark vs SA in SA. Murali in England.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

As I said before, averages mean little in my opinion of how well a bowler has bowled. Sure, a good average over a long period of time almost unerringly states that a bowler is doing more things right than he is wrong, but there's also a fair share of luck that goes around in this, and any other sport. Some days you get it and some days you don't. It's not a superstitious thing. It's just life. You're not always rewarded fairly for effort expended.

One of the best examples of this in modern cricket is Corey Collymore. It was generally agreed and blatantly obvious that he bowled superbly in the recent series against Pakistan, but still only took 7 wickets in the 3 Tests at an average of 43podd. He beat the bat consistently and IIRC had a couple of catches floored off his bowling. It may be argued that despite the lack of results in the series, he bowled closer to top class than Sreesanth has in this series, because Collymore was a consistent threat.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Flintoff/Jones in Ashes '05. Warne in Ashes '05. Akhtar in Pak-Eng (in Pak) last year. Clark vs SA in SA. Murali in England.

Jones bowled his share of rubbish in the early going of that Ashes series. Flintoff > Jones in that series IMO, because though Jones bowled some seemingly unplayable spells, especially later on in the series, Flintoff was consistently outstanding after the first Test.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Erm, not really. Even if some one has a long way to go, he can be top class in a series.

Agreed. Daren Powell may not have been top class in the 2005 series against Sri Lanka, but he was certainly darn good. And he certainly is far from a top class bowler.

 

[Beleg]

Jono,

I watched the second test. Pollock bowled superbly in that. His duels with Tendulkar were amazing, and just a great example of a champion batsman and bowler going at it tooth and nail. He bowled moderately long spells in the humid Durban weather despite which his line or length hardly ever wavered, not only did it force the batsmen into a defensive shell, it also increased the pressure on them to score more from the other end, resulting in wickets. Would those bowlers have gotten the wickets had Pollock not applied the brakes so efficently? I daresay that wouldn't have been the case. For my money, Pollock was easily the best bowler of the test closely followed by Nel. Both of them were 'top-class'.

It was hardly a 'bowling paradise'. Overall, it was a good cricketing pitch with something for both the bowlers and batsmen. Some of you people's prespectives here definitely have been screwed up by the profileration of roads in cricket.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It was hardly a 'bowling paradise'. Overall, it was a good cricketing pitch with something for both the bowlers and batsmen. Some of you people's prespectives here definitely have been screwed up by the profileration of roads in cricket.

There's also something to be said for the ability of batsmen, accustomed to such a proliferation of roads, to struggle a great deal more than they should on pitches that offer even mild assistance to the bowlers.

 

[Craig]

Does every thread have to revolve around India's bowlers, and whether or not they a 'Top class' or whatever?

 

[Jono]

Jono,

I watched the second test. Pollock bowled superbly in that. His duels with Tendulkar were amazing, and just a great example of a champion batsman and bowler going at it tooth and nail. He bowled moderately long spells in the humid Durban weather despite which his line or length hardly ever wavered, not only did it force the batsmen into a defensive shell, it also increased the pressure on them to score more from the other end, resulting in wickets. Would those bowlers have gotten the wickets had Pollock not applied the brakes so efficently? I daresay that wouldn't have been the case. For my money, Pollock was easily the best bowler of the test closely followed by Nel. Both of them were 'top-class'.

It was hardly a 'bowling paradise'. Overall, it was a good cricketing pitch with something for both the bowlers and batsmen. Some of you people's prespectives here definitely have been screwed up by the profileration of roads in cricket.

I never said that Pollock didn't bowl well, because that would be stupid. I didn't think he was too good in the 2nd innings though. Should be noted that him keeping it tight in that innings wasn't that great an accomplishment, because India were never looking to score runs and chase the total down.

Also, SA never bowled in the heat, if I remember correctly they were lucky that everytime they bowled it was fairly overcast and cool, and India only got one session in those conditions (late on day 3, which ironically resulted in them getting no wickets).

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Does every thread have to revolve around India's bowlers, and whether or not they a 'Top class' or whatever?

Only the good ones.

 

[roseboy64]

Didn't this thread start off about Harmison and Smith?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Was it the thread title that tipped it off?