Ryan Sidebottom

[NUFAN]

I can see Sidebottom being around for a while but he won't be going on and getting 400 wickets.

Not many bowlers do manage 400 wickets!

 

[Goughy]

The whole reason swing-bowling is so useful is because it has nothing to do with the pitch. Sidebottom has bowled excellently on flat pitches by his use of swing - in both directions.

Let's hope his reverse-swing is as good as his conventional.

DWTA. Different pitches wear the ball differently and thus may make it harder to keep the shine on one side. In addition some may wear the ball more and make it more conducive to reverse swing. Pitch has almost as much to do with swing bowling as atmospheric conditions, imo.

TBH I was surprised Goughy missed that, unless he agrees

Nah I dont agree with Richards point, though I see where he is coming from.

However, the pitch is important for swing for 2 reasons.

1) It helps keep the shine on the ball as mentioned above. Larwood mentioned the rough dry nature of Austrailan pitches taking the shine off the ball after 3-4 overs (and therefore stopping swing) as a cause of looking to other tacitics which eventually led to Bodyline.

2) A green track helps the swing bowler as the ball swings and then carries on off the pitch exaggerating the movement and making it harder to play.

 

[Goughy]

As for Sidebottom, I will not be jumping on any bandwagon any time soon.

I dont doubt he can do a semi-decent job at Test level (as he is a good county player) but he isnt going to be a great del of help in the long run if England want to win tough series.

He is unlikely to dominate or intimidate good batting line-ups and isnt capable of being much more than a complimentary bowler chipping in with a few wickets here and there.

Players like Sidebottom (Bicknell, Illott, Cowans etc) are not what a team needs to win games against strong batting lineups.

Its almost like a thowback to the bad old days where a guy does ok without doing anything special cements a place and the steady, steady is favoured.

On the flip side, Id rather him in the team than a Plunkett or Saj.

I hope though he is just keeping a place warm for someone with more about them to take his Test place.

As for ODIs, I think he has a role to play. I hadnt realised his domestic record was so good and I see him doing a job in that format.

 

[Chemosit]

He's turned out to be a pretty handy bowler for England. Puts me in mind of Fraggle Rock.

Why we don't have smilies with dreadlocks or a mullet. World has definitely gone to the dogs.

 

[Richard]

As for Sidebottom, I will not be jumping on any bandwagon any time soon.

I dont doubt he can do a semi-decent job at Test level (as he is a good county player) but he isnt going to be a great del of help in the long run if England want to win tough series.

He is unlikely to dominate or intimidate good batting line-ups and isnt capable of being much more than a complimentary bowler chipping in with a few wickets here and there.

Players like Sidebottom (Bicknell, Illott, Cowans etc) are not what a team needs to win games against strong batting lineups.

Its almost like a thowback to the bad old days where a guy does ok without doing anything special cements a place and the steady, steady is favoured.

That's all quite true, but TBH - do you see a Flintoff (or even Simon Jones) or Fraser type bowler emerging again any time in the immediate future?

I'm not for a second championing Sidebottom as the next Fraser - though as I said in my opening post it's possible he might be able to become as almost good as Fraser ended-up being due to his injury problems. But do you see any seamers around currently who you think can do a better job? The fact that the Plunketts and Mahmoods have played Test-cricket in the none-too-distant past shows how bare the barrel is at present.

 

[Richard]

Although he has his height and accuracy it is still his first year and as Anderson found out batsmen do get to know your bowling and after that it becomes much harder

TBH, Anderson never really had any initial success - his first real Test series was against South Africa and he struggled there. He just wasn't that good a bowler early on in his career - promising, undoubtedly, but people got too excited, too soon. He had a ODI golden-arm and that faded after his first winter and summer, and that's about it.

The first time he started to look the real deal was in India in early 2006, and of course he promptly got injured for 6 months again thereafter.

 

[Richard]

DWTA. Different pitches wear the ball differently and thus may make it harder to keep the shine on one side. In addition some may wear the ball more and make it more conducive to reverse swing. Pitch has almost as much to do with swing bowling as atmospheric conditions, imo.

However, the pitch is important for swing for 2 reasons.

1) It helps keep the shine on the ball as mentioned above. Larwood mentioned the rough dry nature of Austrailan pitches taking the shine off the ball after 3-4 overs (and therefore stopping swing) as a cause of looking to other tacitics which eventually led to Bodyline.

TBH I've always believed this aspect is overrated - the ball spends a split second on the pitch. The state of the outfield has far more bearing on how easy it is to keep the ball in good condition - if it's a lush outfield you can keep a ball swinging conventionally for the full 80 overs, and I've seen it happen.

Also, the fact that's often overlooked is that the period where you can achieve neither conventional nor reverse swing is pretty short - usually no more than 10 or 15 overs (and it's not remotely difficult to leave your swing-bowlers grazing for that time and bowl either a stock-bowler or a spinner or whatever). If you shine a ball well, you can keep it swinging conventionally for a decent length of time, and shortly after it stops going conventionally it'll start going reverse.

This, of course, is presuming it's a good ball - some balls, like the Kookaburra, are just not conducive to swing at all. Hence, I dislike these balls.

2) A green track helps the swing bowler as the ball swings and then carries on off the pitch exaggerating the movement and making it harder to play.

Agree completely with this BTW.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

sidebottom will never be better than hoggard. hoggard has been consistently englands best seamer for a long time now and just because he has missed a summer everyone seems to forget just how good he was.

And? How does Hoggard being very good prevent Sidebottom from being better?

 

[Goughy]

And? How does Hoggard being very good prevent Sidebottom from being better?

Are you debating a point or do you actually believe Sidebottom is or could be better than Hoggard?

 

[steds]

No matter how much I watch him, I'll only ever see the Ryan Sidebottom who bowled 7 wides in 8 overs (with the umpires being rather generous too) at Old Trafford.

 

[Richard]

This one?

That of course being the first game that I became truly aware of Hutchison and his potential... such a shame he never came close to realising it.

So far as Sidebottom wides go, though, this game is even more astonishing.

 

[FBU]

TBH, Anderson never really had any initial success - his first real Test series was against South Africa and he struggled there. He just wasn't that good a bowler early on in his career - promising, undoubtedly, but people got too excited, too soon. He had a ODI golden-arm and that faded after his first winter and summer, and that's about it.

The first time he started to look the real deal was in India in early 2006, and of course he promptly got injured for 6 months again thereafter.

He did have a ODI golden-arm early on and I had a look at other bowlers after 25 ODIs

215.2 overs 939 runs 47 wickets 19.97 econ 4.36 s/r 27.48 - Bond
211.2 overs 980 runs 45 wickets 21.77 econ 4.63 s/r 28.17 - Anderson
203.5 overs 880 runs 43 wickets 20.46 econ 4.31 s/r 28.44 - Ahktar
207.2 overs 995 runs 41 wickets 24.26 econ 4.79 s/r 30.34 - Taylor
217.1 overs 1057 runs 41 wickets 25.78 econ 4.86 s/r 31.78 - Lee
193.0 overs 985 runs 40 wickets 24.63 econ 5.10 s/r 28.95 - Mitchell Johnson
210.5 overs 998 runs 39 wickets 25.58 econ 4.73 s/r 32.43 - Malinga
187.2 overs 962 runs 39 wickets 29.46 econ 5.13 s/r 28.82 - Fernando
208.2 overs 845 runs 38 wickets 22.23 econ 4.15 s/r 32.10 - Bracken
216.5 overs 1028 runs 35 wickets 29.37 econ 4.74 s/r 27.17 - Khan
203.0 overs 1114 runs 35 wickets 31.82 econ 5.48 s/r 34.80 - Clark
193.1 overs 813 runs 34 wickets 23.91 econ 4.20 s/r 34.08 - Ntini
232.1 overs 916 runs 33 wickets 27.75 econ 3.94 s/r 42.21 - Pollock
199.3 overs 927 runs 33 wickets 28.09 econ 4.64 s/r 36.27 - Edwards
213.3 overs 1031 runs 33 wickets 31.24 econ 4.84 s/r 38.80 - Harmison
209.4 overs 1093 runs 32 wickets 34.15 econ 5.21 s/r 39.31 - Hoggard
201.3 overs 1179 runs 32 wickets 36.84 econ 5.85 s/r 37.78 - Sreesanth
195.1 overs 1163 runs 32 wickets 36.34 econ 5.95 s/r 36.59 - Plunkett
183.0 overs 891 runs 31 wickets 28.74 econ 4.86 s/r 35.41 - RPSingh
196.0 overs 755 runs 30 wickets 25.16 econ 3.85 s/r 39.20 - Vaas
175.2 overs 781 runs 29 wickets 26.93 econ 4.45 s/r 36.27 - Maharoof
192.3 overs 1128 runs 29 wickets 38.89 econ 5.85 s/r 39.82 - Mahmood
220.0 overs 1076 runs 28 wickets 38.42 econ 4.89 s/r 47.14 - Powell


Retired
232.4 overs 895 runs 38 wickets 23.55 econ 3.84 s/r 36.73 - Donald
224.5 overs 837 runs 35 wickets 23.91 econ 3.72 s/r 38.54 - McGrath
240.4 overs 900 runs 34 wickets 26.47 econ 3.73 s/r42.47 - Gough
214.2 overs 840 runs 28 wickets 30.00 econ 3.91 s/r 45.92 - Walsh

Reasons he had a good start -

1. Had Hussain as a captain
2. Wasn't in and out of the side
3. Not too worried about giving away runs to get wickets
4. Had experienced settled opening partner first in Caddick and then Gough
5. Didn't have injury worries and change of bowling action.
6. Opened the bowling for the first 25 matches and from then it was 1st change.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Are you debating a point or do you actually believe Sidebottom is or could be better than Hoggard?

Both really.

Hoggard is a really good bowler, but a better workhorse. I think Sidebottom has the potential to be a better bowler.

 

[NUFAN]

Great Stats FBU love it.

 

[shortpitched713]

TBH I've always believed this aspect is overrated - the ball spends a split second on the pitch. The state of the outfield has far more bearing on how easy it is to keep the ball in good condition - if it's a lush outfield you can keep a ball swinging conventionally for the full 80 overs, and I've seen it happen.

Not doubting that the outfield plays a major role, maybe even more so than the pitch. But to say that that aspect is overrated because the ball spends only a split second on the pitch is fallacious. The force at which the ball makes impact with the pitch is much, much greater than the force at which the ball makes contact with the outfield. Therefore there is a greater scope for alteration of the ball due to contact with the pitch than the outfield. Hence the reason that the effects of the pitch and even the bat are often very evident on a white ball in limited overs cricket. The pitch can make unalterable changes to the condition of the ball.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Not doubting that the outfield plays a major role, maybe even more so than the pitch. But to say that that aspect is overrated because the ball spends only a split second on the pitch is fallacious. The force at which the ball makes impact with the pitch is much, much greater than the force at which the ball makes contact with the outfield. Therefore there is a greater scope for alteration of the ball due to contact with the pitch than the outfield. Hence the reason that the effects of the pitch and even the bat are often very evident on a white ball in limited overs cricket. The pitch can make unalterable changes to the condition of the ball.

Bingo.

 

[Perm]

Bingo.

Yeah, was just thinking that. The dry pitch will scuff up the ball more than a green one, can't see how anybody could debate that.

 

[Richard]

Not doubting that the outfield plays a major role, maybe even more so than the pitch. But to say that that aspect is overrated because the ball spends only a split second on the pitch is fallacious. The force at which the ball makes impact with the pitch is much, much greater than the force at which the ball makes contact with the outfield. Therefore there is a greater scope for alteration of the ball due to contact with the pitch than the outfield. Hence the reason that the effects of the pitch and even the bat are often very evident on a white ball in limited overs cricket. The pitch can make unalterable changes to the condition of the ball.

Kidding, right? Batsmen slam balls into the outfield far, far more often than not when it hits the bat. In fact, the ball can travel faster off the bat than it does into the pitch.

 

[Purple_Forg]

anyone thought about any other english bowlers? always rated stuart broad

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Kidding, right? Batsmen slam balls into the outfield far, far more often than not when it hits the bat. In fact, the ball can travel faster off the bat than it does into the pitch.

Yet the ball hits the pitch with every delivery. It does not hit the bat with every delivery. And then not every delivery that hits the bat hits the outfield with any significant force. It's common sense, really.