Stability or Rotation of Test bowlers

[Manee]

Upon seeing India's second string medium pace bowling attack (Ishant Sharma and Pathan) bowl well against Australia, it came to my mind whether India (as an example) should rotate their bowlers more often.

However, this rotation should not be random. I was thinking that perhaps bowlers could not play in countries that they do not excel in. This would include dropping the much loved Zaheer Khan for home Tests, in which he averages 40.09 with the ball; and picking people who have better stamina and possible domestic performers who have excelled at bowling in India.

Another example would be playing Irfan Pathan against Bangladesh, against whom he has 18 wickets in 2 games or Pakistan, against whom he has 27 wickets in 10 games, despite the exeedingly flat pitches.

However, I was wondering if you think that such a rotation of players would upset the stability of a bowling attack and whether it would create unrest in a squad of players or whether the agressive rotation of bowlers could be a step forward in Test match selection strategy. Naturally, the rotation of fast bowlers would help deal with the hectic international schedule as a further benefit.

 

[Richard]

I've always believed you pick your best bowling-attack for the conditions you appear to see. If you think a bowler who is a king in one place will be a pauper elsewhere, you leave him out - it's as simple as that.

Sometimes you can try to get too clever, of course, but the basic principle is one I'm often baffled people don't see more. Too many people think that your best bowlers are your best bowlers, and there's no circumstances under which this ever changes. Well, I'm afraid some bowlers' calibre does depend greatly on conditions of pitch, outfield, atmosphere, etc. And you should always look to select your team with this in mind.

 

[Captain Cricket]

Well basically it works like this:

If your team has a bowler who is bowling very well then he'll get picked next Test. But if a bowler's bowling bad he'll get dropped.

I understand what you mean by persisting with one player (like India is doing with Jaffer in terms of batting) but it all depends on the conditions and the availbility of certain players. I am a sole supporter of bringing in in-form players and booting out players in poor form. If I was an Indian selector I would have brought Sehwag in on the second Test and kicked Sharma out this current Test, perhaps playing Harbhajan and opting for Pathan too.

Stability is also important, but don't expect your bowlers to 'improve' during the course of a match, expect them to find form during tour matches and training, then consider them in the nation team.

 

[Manee]

I've always believed you pick your best bowling-attack for the conditions you appear to see. If you think a bowler who is a king in one place will be a pauper elsewhere, you leave him out - it's as simple as that.

Sometimes you can try to get too clever, of course, but the basic principle is one I'm often baffled people don't see more. Too many people think that your best bowlers are your best bowlers, and there's no circumstances under which this ever changes. Well, I'm afraid some bowlers' calibre does depend greatly on conditions of pitch, outfield, atmosphere, etc. And you should always look to select your team with this in mind.

You echo my point of view, but I guess we must consider the importance of a stable attack with bowlers having confidence in their place in the side, without playing in fear.

 

[Richard]

Sure, not playing in fear is important.

But if a seamer has exploited fast, bouncy green-tops time and again, and proven inept on slower non-seaming surfaces time and again, I'd hope he'd not be playing worried of being left-out on a non-seamer when confronted with a green-top.

Or similarly, I'd hope a fingerspinner wouldn't be worrying about when he'd be left-out on the slow green-top up next when he was confronted with a raging turning, bouncing surface.

I'd hope both bowlers knew their limitations and were hence more keen to exploit what they could without worrying about what they could not.

 

[Matt79]

Its a fine line. You want team members, not just bowlers, to have confidence that one poor performance isn't going to cost them their place. You also would need to look pretty carefully at what the exact conditions were before chopping and changing to match them, and bear in mind that sometimes conditions turn out different from what was expected - eg. the current test at the WACA looks like having quite good conditions for spin, contrary to the 'fast-bowler's paradise' predictions. But all that being said, there can be an argument for it. Two cases I can think of are Terry Alderman being picked to tour England, and Tom Moody being picked for the 99 WC.

 

[Captain Cricket]

Alderman could swing anything though...

 

[Matt79]

Alderman could swing anything though...

He'd be a walk-up in any All-Time Tour of England team.

 

[NUFAN]

The problem with your point Manee is that some players can improve in conditions that they aren't currently good in.

An example of this would be not picking Ricky Ponting in India. i know your talking about bowling, but you get the point, players can improve and if there not given a chance how will they be able to have a good record in a certain condition?

 

[Manee]

The problem with your point Manee is that some players can improve in conditions that they aren't currently good in.

An example of this would be not picking Ricky Ponting in India. i know your talking about bowling, but you get the point, players can improve and if there not given a chance how will they be able to have a good record in a certain condition?

True, this is an important point. But I was thinking more about people who have long records in areas, for example Zaheer Khan has played 18 Tests in India, this is far more than enough to gauge his talent in India. That being said, he should always be in India's squad and so will get chances to perform in the event of an injury.

 

[Richard]

He'd be a walk-up in any All-Time Tour of England team.

This is the thing that's always frustrated me about Alderman - I'm very confident he'd have had a career of plenty of note in places other than over here, too. In fact, around the time of both his England tours, he also had good matches elsewhere.

Not like his record for WA was poor.

I honestly believe had he not chosen to take the Rebel tour route he'd be very firmly ensconced in Australia's second tier of bowlers, behind the Lindwalls, Millers, Lillees and McGraths. And very possibly right at the head of the line, too - ahead of such merchants as the McDermotts, Johnstones, Walkers, Hugheses, Lawsons, Reids, Flemings, Reiffels, Gillespies, etc.

 

[fatbury]

I love a bit of stability ... I think if you look at the Australian attack it rarely changes - best example really!

 

[Richard]

That's because the likes of McGrath are good bowlers in all conditions.

 

[pasag]

I've always believed you pick your best bowling-attack for the conditions you appear to see. If you think a bowler who is a king in one place will be a pauper elsewhere, you leave him out - it's as simple as that.

Sometimes you can try to get too clever, of course, but the basic principle is one I'm often baffled people don't see more. Too many people think that your best bowlers are your best bowlers, and there's no circumstances under which this ever changes. Well, I'm afraid some bowlers' calibre does depend greatly on conditions of pitch, outfield, atmosphere, etc. And you should always look to select your team with this in mind.

Yeah pretty much my thoughts. Obviously you need to pick your attack with the pitch and conditions in mind, but at the same time selectors shouldn't fall into the trap of being too creative or clever which could backfire badly. Nice thread Manee.

 

[sledger]

I love a bit of stability

voltman-esque joke to appear here shortly.