Do England Miss The Pace Of Welsh Wizard Simon Jones ?

[The Masterplan]

Are you nuts?

Well how many other current English bowlers do you know who can touch 90 mph ? Jimmy Anderson maybe but he's not exactly reliable at test level...

 

[Richard]

You place too much importance on topping 90mph. It's utterly useless if you can't hit the right areas, never mind come so far from hitting them as Mahmood usually does.

 

[Richard]

Harsh. Exceptionally harsh is the "not even close to being a county-standard bowler"!

Go on, then, tell me... which of these are NOT better than him:
Glen Chapple
Dominic Cork
Andrew Flintoff
James Anderson
Tom Smith
Kyle Hogg

None, for mine. Certainly none of the first 4.

Admittedly his accuracy is his main stumbling block and quite an important one at that. However, I hope he is not made, as so many England quicks are, into a fast-medium pace bowler that is a touch more accurate. Let him go, let him rip, ok he may go for a few runs, but at his pace, he is equally as likely to pick up a wicket.

I don't think he is, TBH. When you're as wayward as he is, you'll rarely pick-up wickets other than through poor strokes.

 

[Woodster]

I think you can place too much emphasis on both bowling quick or being accurate. Neither are necessarily match winning components on their own, you need some of both and other factors thrown in.

 

[Richard]

No, neither of them will impact too much unless you can move the ball sideways but accuracy >>>>> 90mph speed. An accurate bowler at 80mph will offer you far more than a very wayward one at 90.

 

[Woodster]

Go on, then, tell me... which of these are NOT better than him:
Glen Chapple
Dominic Cork
Andrew Flintoff
James Anderson
Tom Smith
Kyle Hogg

None, for mine. Certainly none of the first 4.

I don't think he is, TBH. When you're as wayward as he is, you'll rarely pick-up wickets other than through poor strokes.

Well that depends if your trying to develop a naturally fast bowler in the hope of him appearing for England in the future, or continually wheeling out 35+ year old players. Personally I would select Mahmood for Lancs ahead of most of those players - Chapple, Cork, Hogg. Mahmood alongside Smith, Anderson, Flintoff isn't a bad county line-up surely ?

 

[Richard]

Sorry, I'll never ever countenance the thought that Mahmood can ever be as good as Chapple or Cork, who are both excellent bowlers, even if they are 35.

I'll be truly astounded if Mahmood is ever as good as either of them have been. You can't turn a player from an awful one into a good one just by picking him. In any case, Mahmood is 26 now, hardly a youngster.

 

[Woodster]

No, neither of them will impact too much unless you can move the ball sideways but accuracy >>>>> 90mph speed. An accurate bowler at 80mph will offer you far more than a very wayward one at 90.

Certainly more important you're far more accurate at 80mph. Of course you want to be accurate whatever pace you bowl.

 

[Woodster]

Sorry, I'll never ever countenance the thought that Mahmood can ever be as good as Chapple or Cork, who are both excellent bowlers, even if they are 35.

I'll be truly astounded if Mahmood is ever as good as either of them have been. You can't turn a player from an awful one into a good one just by picking him.

Of course it is only your opinion that thinks he's awful, not necessarily mine, so I would pick him.

Chapple and Cork were both excellent bowlers, but I'd prefer to see someone that may potentially play for England in the future in a county side (whether you agree or not, he has more chance of playing for England than those two) than Chapple and Cork.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, fair noof, but as I say - I just think Mahmood is so awful that he should never have played for England and never should. With that in mind, I'd pick Chapple and Cork ahead of him for Lancs.

I'll be very, very surprised if Mahmood ever amounts to anything of note. I just don't think he's very good.

 

[Woodster]

Thats fair enough if thats what you think. We shall watch with anticipation the development of Saj Mahmoods performances........

 

[James_W]

Lee last season was as good as they've ever been. But had Shoaib and Bond had continued fitness, their careers would almost certainly by now be greater than anything Lee would ever be able to achieve this late in his career.

I'd agree with that.

 

[Top_Cat]

Interesting the Mahmood hate here. England cricket, I think, has a very poor attitude towards their out-and-out pace bowlers. Alex Tudor was similarly cast aside and only really came back into the fold when he cut his pace. They're rarely given a chance to excell because as soon as they have one bad inning, they're back to county cricket with negative platitudes about their accuracy, fitness, etc. Dev Malcolm was treated similarly. It's often usually after a few long spells where after 4 overs of express pace, the next 4 are rubbish because they can't maintain their line and express pace and they're usually judged on the latter part of their spells.

Successive English cricket captains seem unable to unstand the concept of short, sharp spells and instead bowl express bowlers into the ground until they're dead/injured. Suddenly they're injury-prone too. You just can't expect a bloke to bowl 10 overs of 90mph+ and expect them to be seam-up, outside off-stump the whole spell, especially if they're already carrying an injury of some sort which bowlers of that speed usually are. English cricket as a whole doesn't seem to grasp that bowling 90mph+ is harder on the body than seam-up 80mph. Pace bowlers get treated and judged as stock bowlers which is unfair and ignores that they'd be more effective with smarter management. I know people will bring up Brett Lee but as far as lack of injuries go and overall fitness, he's a very rare players.

As for Saj Mahmood himself, sure there were lulls in his Aussie tour but there were some really nasty short spells which checked fairly rampant Aussie batsmen too and I don't think it's a coincidence that another quick pace bowler, Andy Flintoff, was in charge.

Saj Mahmood will never be an accurate bowler to the degree a seam-up type will be and it's pointless trying to change that. What he does have is a rare ability to bowl 90+mph and that can be used effectively. He's showed some glimpses in short spells so it's there, just needs to be used right.

Unrelated, it's interesting the dichotomy between Aussie and English cricket. English cricket attempts to change their speedsters into stock bowlers to their detriment and Aussie cricket attempts to change their seam-up types into speedsters to their detriment (you're basically not going to get a game as an Aussie state bowler without a demonstrated ability to bowl 140km/h+; witness the willful non-selection of guys like Matthew Inness for Australia, despite consistently putting up great numbers for Victoria).

 

[Richard]

Don't think Mahmood is remotely comparable to Tudor. Malcolm maybe, but still I very much doubt Mahmood could've taken Test nine-fors and ten-fors.

Alex Tudor was a class bowler, he had accuracy the like of which Mahmood can only dream of. Not McGrath-esque or anything, but not that much worse than a Cork or Gough. The only thing that stopped him having a substantial Test career was the ostentus pubis (something like that - I have been corrected on CW.n before now on that note ) which meant he was more injured than not. Tudor had his bad games (like he inevitably would) but he'd have played so much more had he been able to stay fit.

Mahmood simply isn't very good, IMO. I think you can use him however you want, the only way he's ever going to get wickets is if the batting's poor. Amazingly enough, that's exactly what happened in Australia. Even then, he still barely bowled - because Flintoff, an average captain (heaven knows how little a good captain would've bowled him), didn't trust him. Mahmood took 2 top-order wickets in Australia, both in a game-over situation.

I think England of late has indeed had a poor attitude towards out-and-out pace. It's been a case of "if he can bowl at 90mph, pick him regardless of how rubbish he is". Being able to bowl at 90mph doesn't mean you've neccessarily got a chance to be a Test-class bowler. I doubt Mahmood would have got beyond 2nd grade in Australia, I doubt he'd have got into Franchise cricket in South Africa, I doubt he'd have got near international cricket in Pakistan. He might have made the professional level in Sri Lanka, West Indies of modern times, New Zealand or India, but he'd still never have made any of their Test teams stronger had they been made enough to pick him.

As for Malcolm - he was awful a lot, perhaps as bad as Mahmood of times, but had two utterly sensational matches. I cannot conceive Mahmood will ever be able to come close to Malcolm's deeds of T&T 1990 or The Oval 1994.

 

[tooextracool]

Don't think Mahmood is remotely comparable to Tudor. Malcolm maybe, but still I very much doubt Mahmood could've taken Test nine-fors and ten-fors.

Alex Tudor was a class bowler, he had accuracy the like of which Mahmood can only dream of. Not McGrath-esque or anything, but not that much worse than a Cork or Gough. The only thing that stopped him having a substantial Test career was the ostentus pubis (something like that - I have been corrected on CW.n before now on that note ) which meant he was more injured than not. Tudor had his bad games (like he inevitably would) but he'd have played so much more had he been able to stay fit.

Mahmood simply isn't very good, IMO. I think you can use him however you want, the only way he's ever going to get wickets is if the batting's poor. Amazingly enough, that's exactly what happened in Australia. Even then, he still barely bowled - because Flintoff, an average captain (heaven knows how little a good captain would've bowled him), didn't trust him. Mahmood took 2 top-order wickets in Australia, both in a game-over situation.

I think England of late has indeed had a poor attitude towards out-and-out pace. It's been a case of "if he can bowl at 90mph, pick him regardless of how rubbish he is". Being able to bowl at 90mph doesn't mean you've neccessarily got a chance to be a Test-class bowler. I doubt Mahmood would have got beyond 2nd grade in Australia, I doubt he'd have got into Franchise cricket in South Africa, I doubt he'd have got near international cricket in Pakistan. He might have made the professional level in Sri Lanka, West Indies of modern times, New Zealand or India, but he'd still never have made any of their Test teams stronger had they been made enough to pick him.

As for Malcolm - he was awful a lot, perhaps as bad as Mahmood of times, but had two utterly sensational matches. I cannot conceive Mahmood will ever be able to come close to Malcolm's deeds of T&T 1990 or The Oval 1994.

Whilst I do agree with you that Mahmood has been little short of extraordinarily poor at the international level, to suggest that he is completely incapable of taking test 9 fors ad 10fors given his attributes is rather ludicrous. There is a reason why he has taken 27 wickets at 20 odd for the England A side while touring in some of the most grueling places like India, SL and WI. For mine he is very much like Harmison, possessing some great natural gifts but the inability to maintain radar and fitness.

 

[tooextracool]

If Simon Jones had an injury free career, there is very little doubt in my mind that he would be the best bowler going around in the world at the present moment. There is no one in international cricket that is capable of reverse swinging the ball both ways in the manner in which he did, let alone doing so at nearly 90mph and also possessing the ability to swing the ball conventionally. If there is any bowler bar Mohammad Asif that was able to maintain a more upright seam position after delivery, please keep me aware.

 

[Richard]

Only one who immediately comes to mind is Jason Gillespie, he was pretty damn brilliant in that respect most of the time.

 

[Richard]

Whilst I do agree with you that Mahmood has been little short of extraordinarily poor at the international level, to suggest that he is completely incapable of taking test 9 fors ad 10fors given his attributes is rather ludicrous. There is a reason why he has taken 27 wickets at 20 odd for the England A side while touring in some of the most grueling places like India, SL and WI. For mine he is very much like Harmison, possessing some great natural gifts but the inability to maintain radar and fitness.

I'd actually forgotten about Mahmood's England A record TBH, though I didn't see the games in question so I can't know if he actually bowled well or the batting was just poor. Don't even remember the figures off the top of my head either.

From what I have seen of him, I don't think he'd be capable of maintaining bowling in the right areas enough to take very large bags of wickets. The best I would expect of him would be 4 or 5 wickets in a very short space of time, say 10 or 12 overs. Even that is not something I'm holding-out for with any confidence, and I doubt too many others would be. This is something I reckon he would be capable of at his very best.

 

[Goughy]

Tudor was ok but he wasnt that quick. Certainly more than a couple of steps below big Dev in pace.

Saj is quick but he isnt rapid and certainly not quick enough to paper over his obvious faults and failures. If he was bowling 150 kph instead of 140 kph then Id pay more attention.

As has been said many times, Saj isnt yet a good County cricketer. A successful jump to Test cricket is so far beyond him ATM it is on the horizen.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Tudor was ok but he wasnt that quick. Certainly more than a couple of steps below big Dev in pace.

Saj is quick but he isnt rapid and certainly not quick enough to paper over his obvious faults and failures. If he was bowling 150 kph instead of 140 kph then Id pay more attention.

As has been said many times, Saj isnt yet a good County cricketer. A successful jump to Test cricket is so far beyond him ATM it is on the horizen.

Indeed, I saw him getting hit for 22 in successive overs by Johan van der Wath in a CC match, still dire.