Is form transferrable between different formats?

[tooextracool]

He's at least a better test bowler than Mitchell Johnson. For my money, you just described Chaminda Vaas, a successful bowler in both forms of the game. I don't believe it has been proven conclusively that Bracken can't succeed in the test format. As it stands, i probably wouldn't have him in the team, but it's still curious that someone can be ranked #1 ODI bowler in the world without even getting in the squad for tests.

Vaas has considerably more tricks up his sleeve than Bracken. I dont particularly rate Vaas, but its incredibly obvious that he has a superb off and leg cutter and he does get the ball to reverse as well occasionally. However, my real gripe with Bracken is that he simply bowls the wrong lines and lengths when the ball is not swinging. He bowls far too short and too wide and any right hand batsman with a grain of sense would do well to just let every one of his deliveries go without any worries because
a) hes too tall to bowl deliveries that would hit the stumps, unless he bowls really full, in which case he would be cannon fodder anyways.
b) when the ball isnt swinging, he does not have the ability to get the ball to come back into the right hander whatsoever.

I dont think Bracken is comparable to Vaas because they are different bowlers. The bowler most similar to Bracken is probably Alan Mullally.

 

[Uppercut]

Vaas has considerably more tricks up his sleeve than Bracken. I dont particularly rate Vaas, but its incredibly obvious that he has a superb off and leg cutter and he does get the ball to reverse as well occasionally. However, my real gripe with Bracken is that he simply bowls the wrong lines and lengths when the ball is not swinging. He bowls far too short and too wide and any right hand batsman with a grain of sense would do well to just let every one of his deliveries go without any worries because
a) hes too tall to bowl deliveries that would hit the stumps, unless he bowls really full, in which case he would be cannon fodder anyways.
b) when the ball isnt swinging, he does not have the ability to get the ball to come back into the right hander whatsoever.

How do we know Bracken can't bowl reverse, since it's all but impossible to do so in ODIs? How can you say he's been getting his lengths wrong when he's been so ridiculously successful? Does the fact that he bowls those lengths with success in ODIs mean he's incapable of changing them for tests? And again, i'm not saying that he'd be a successful test bowler, but it's interesting that he doesn't get a hint of a chance to prove himself.


Btw, "too tall to bowl deliveries that would hit the stumps" might well be the worst criticism of a bowler i've ever heard.

 

[Burgey]

How do we know Bracken can't bowl reverse, since it's all but impossible to do so in ODIs? How can you say he's been getting his lengths wrong when he's been so ridiculously successful? Does the fact that he bowls those lengths with success in ODIs mean he's incapable of changing them for tests? And again, i'm not saying that he'd be a successful test bowler, but it's interesting that he doesn't get a hint of a chance to prove himself.


Btw, "too tall to bowl deliveries that would hit the stumps" might well be the worst criticism of a bowler i've ever heard.

Garner bowled a reasonable yorker, iirc

 

[tooextracool]

How do we know Bracken can't bowl reverse, since it's all but impossible to do so in ODIs?.

Because Ive watched him in tests and its ridiculously obvious that he has absolutely no way off getting the ball to come back into the right hander when it isnt swinging. As a left hand seamer, its absolutely criminal to not be able to move the ball back into the right hander in all conditions.

How can you say he's been getting his lengths wrong when he's been so ridiculously successful? Does the fact that he bowls those lengths with success in ODIs mean he's incapable of changing them for tests? And again, i'm not saying that he'd be a successful test bowler, but it's interesting that he doesn't get a hint of a chance to prove himself..

Success in ODIs is hardly relevant to success in tests. The skills that you need to succeed in ODIs are accuracy, a good slower ball, a good yorker and thats essentially it. Bracken has all of those and he does them very well. However, none of those qualities bring wickets in tests. The lines and lengths that he bowls in ODIs are perfect, but they work only for ODIs.
And he has had a chance to prove himself in tests. Hes played 5 test matches, averaged 40 odd and looked totally and completely below the requisite standard. Bar 1 test where he got the ball to swing considerably, he never looked like taking wickets.

Btw, "too tall to bowl deliveries that would hit the stumps" might well be the worst criticism of a bowler i've ever heard.

Why not? Its not a criticism of him as its not something that he can change, but its incredibly easier to bowl wicket to wicket if you are as tall as Hoggard or Vaas than if you are as tall as Bracken. Its a similar issue to what Caddick had, or what Harmison has now, in that their height as well as where they deliver the ball from makes it almost impossible for them to hit the stumps unless they bowl a fuller length.

 

[tooextracool]

Garner bowled a reasonable yorker, iirc

That would be in the category of being too full. Honestly, is it really that hard to fathom that someone like Mark Ealham or Craig White is likely to hit the stumps at a much much shorter length than the likes of Bracken or Caddick?

 

[Uppercut]

That would be in the category of being too full. Honestly, is it really that hard to fathom that someone like Mark Ealham or Craig White is likely to hit the stumps at a much much shorter length than the likes of Bracken or Caddick?

No, but height is generally an advantage. Just ask McGrath, Ambrose, Garner etc. if their inability to hit the stumps without bowling full harmed their careers as bowlers.

 

[Burgey]

That would be in the category of being too full. Honestly, is it really that hard to fathom that someone like Mark Ealham or Craig White is likely to hit the stumps at a much much shorter length than the likes of Bracken or Caddick?

No. But good bowlers adjust their lengths accordingly. Not that I'm saying Bracken's the duck's guts as a test bowler BTW.

Likewise, is it honestly too hard to fathom that we might not want to take ourselves so seriously all the time?

 

[tooextracool]

No, but height is generally an advantage. Just ask McGrath, Ambrose, Garner etc. if their inability to hit the stumps without bowling full harmed their careers as bowlers.

Its an advantage depending on the type of bowler you are. As a left hand bowler, angling the ball away, its incredibly easier for a right hand batsman to simply leave everything you bowl with confidence because if the ball isnt swinging you can pretty much take lbw out of the equation. Almost every delivery that Bracken bowls will be going over the top off the stumps or will be too full and easily negotiated. The fact that he cant bring the ball back into the right hander means that even deliveries that land in line with the stumps will still probably miss off stump. I guess you could say that left hand bowlers are at a significant disadvantage than right hand bowlers when bowling to right hand batsman, because that wouldnt be far from the truth.

 

[Uppercut]

Its an advantage depending on the type of bowler you are. As a left hand bowler, angling the ball away, its incredibly easier for a right hand batsman to simply leave everything you bowl with confidence because if the ball isnt swinging you can pretty much take lbw out of the equation. Almost every delivery that Bracken bowls will be going over the top off the stumps or will be too full and easily negotiated. The fact that he cant bring the ball back into the right hander means that even deliveries that land in line with the stumps will still probably miss off stump. I guess you could say that left hand bowlers are at a significant disadvantage than right hand bowlers when bowling to right hand batsman, because that wouldnt be far from the truth.

They don't have to take the ball back into the right hander at all. Outswingers are far more threatening, particularly if they bowl around the wicket and angle it towards the stumps before getting it to straighten. Basically it's the reverse of what Makhaya Ntini has done to left-handers all his career with magnificent success.

 

[tooextracool]

No. But good bowlers adjust their lengths accordingly.

Yes you can adjust your lengths accordingly, but the margin for error is a lot smaller when you are a taller bowler. Like i said, in order to hit the stumps, you would constantly need to be bowling a lot fuller than a shorter bowler would.

Likewise, is it honestly too hard to fathom that we might not want to take ourselves so seriously all the time?

Point taken. Just didnt understand how a yorker was not connected to 'taller bowlers having to bowl fuller to hit the stumps'.

 

[gwo]

I would definitely agree. Not only form, but ability. Australia's used it to slowly bring in Test players by giving them experience and exposure in ODI. Gilchrist, Symonds, Watson, Hogg...plenty of examples.

As for the Pietersen example, I am not sure. How should we assume those that are already there are doing? Are the current batsmen struggling?

HUSSEYYYYYYY

If we were not dumbasses and played him instead of CATFISH katich, australia would be at least squared that series

 

[tooextracool]

They don't have to take the ball back into the right hander at all. Outswingers are far more threatening, particularly if they bowl around the wicket and angle it towards the stumps before getting it to straighten. Basically it's the reverse of what Makhaya Ntini has done to left-handers all his career with magnificent success.

Bowling around the wicket is simply not a left hander's forte. Very few of them ever bowl around the wickets, because doing so is a skill in itself. I dont doubt that Bracken would be more dangerous if he were to go around the wicket and try to take the ball away from the right hander, however, that is simply not what he does well. He tried it against India at Brisbane IIRC and it didnt work for him.

 

[Burgey]

No, but height is generally an advantage. Just ask McGrath, Ambrose, Garner etc. if their inability to hit the stumps without bowling full harmed their careers as bowlers.

Actually, this raises an interesting point about some of the "skiddier" bowlers around the traps.
I often think of how Lee has struggled in England, when objectively you'd think the conditions ought to suit him re. swinging the ball and such. I know he wasn't as good early, but I'd have thought he'd have done well there, bowling a fullish length and getting it to swing. Then there's someone like Gillespie who did better in England (05 excepted when he had nothing ), was a fair bit taller, but also a "skiddier" bowler than say a McGrath who relied on seam movement.
TEC'sa point about shorter and skiddier bowlers hitting the stumps more often generally is a fair one. With this in mind, I wonder if the pitches are, perversely, negating the effectiveness of guys like Lee and Malinga who are skidders of the ball onto the batsmen. If one looks at Marshall who also skidded the ball, his bouncer was a wicked thing, yet these days guys with a flat trajectory often bang the ball in and get pummelled.
Obviously, Marshall and, say Akram were of a different class to Lee and Malinga, but the latter are, I imagine as fast as the former, yet when they drop short seem to be treated with a contempt batsmen could only dream of vs the others.

 

[Uppercut]

Bowling around the wicket is simply not a left hander's forte. Very few of them ever bowl around the wickets, because doing so is a skill in itself. I dont doubt that Bracken would be more dangerous if he were to go around the wicket and try to take the ball away from the right hander, however, that is simply not what he does well. He tried it against India at Brisbane IIRC and it didnt work for him.

Nevertheless, it's an area he doesn't particularly need in ODIs, but if he found it was effective in tests it wouldn't be a difficult skill to learn. The only thing that makes it hard is the mental aspect, knowing where to shift your aim to and the like. His action could remain exactly the same and with a little practice the angles would come together.

The other side of the argument is, there's clear room for him in the Australian team. He could replace Mitchell Johnson, who looks like he should currently be improving in FC cricket IMO. Or he could replace Beau Casson, because on a considerably wearing pitch he'd be just as effective as Casson with his off-cutters. There's definitely an argument for giving him another shot.

 

[Uppercut]

Obviously, Marshall and, say Akram were of a different class to Lee and Malinga, but the latter are, I imagine as fast as the former, yet when they drop short seem to be treated with a contempt batsmen could only dream of vs the others.

Lee's bouncer is pretty good these days (much improved), he just overused it severely in his earlier career. Malinga also can bowl a wicked bouncer, as shown by his dismissal of Kevin Pietersen in the SL-England test series earlier this year. It's more a matter of them getting it right more often, and possibly partly the lack of bouncy pitches now, rather than a technical issue.

 

[Top_Cat]

HUSSEYYYYYYY

If we were not dumbasses and played him instead of CATFISH katich, australia would be at least squared that series

Or alternatively, he could have played, faced what was an in-form, aggressive and confident bowling line-up, failed and never be heard from again. Not to mention, the 400+ first-day head-start the Aussie bowlers gave the English batsmen made a small difference.

The Aussie lost that series and would have lost it by more if not for the rain in the 3rd Test, one batsman, for whom there was no guarantee that he would have succeeded, would not have made a difference. Accept it.

As for ODI form being transferrable, there are a multitude of examples both ways so you can't be definitive about it at all. It should definitely be considered, along with FC form, net form, what their opponents are saying about them, etc. It all comes into it.

 

[tooextracool]

Nevertheless, it's an area he doesn't particularly need in ODIs, but if he found it was effective in tests it wouldn't be a difficult skill to learn. The only thing that makes it hard is the mental aspect, knowing where to shift your aim to and the like. His action could remain exactly the same and with a little practice the angles would come together.

The other side of the argument is, there's clear room for him in the Australian team. He could replace Mitchell Johnson, who looks like he should currently be improving in FC cricket IMO. Or he could replace Beau Casson, because on a considerably wearing pitch he'd be just as effective as Casson with his off-cutters. There's definitely an argument for giving him another shot.

What about Ben Hilfenhaus? Thought we was a prospect not too long ago, yet he does not get many mentions these days.

 

[Top_Cat]

What about Ben Hilfenhaus? Thought we was a prospect not too long ago, yet he does not get many mentions these days.

I dunno but I get the feeling he's just lost his mojo a bit. Saw him live at an interstate game and didn't seem to be doing much different, just lacked a bit of zip. He stopped taking wickets in Bellerive, batsmen started going after him a bit after a really good season or two and then dropped off the radar narionally. Reckon he'll be back in the reckoning this season.

 

[honestbharani]

I agree with TEC here.


If you have selected a player, watched him over a period and decided that he is good enough for both forms of the game and then u drop him because of poor form in tests and then he goes out and proves himself and does very well in the ODIs, then it is obvious that he will be given a go in the next test series.


But there are players whom the selectors (rightly or wrongly) mark down as only fit for a certain form of the game and for those players, unless something extraordinary happens, any sort of great performance will NOT mean getting picked for the side in the other form of the game...

 

[Goughy]

Although as said in a previous post, it is a good stepping stone for younger players who are judged to be good enough for Test exposure in years to come.

I couldnt agree with that.

I dont think LO or ODI runs should be a part of the judgement of Test potential.

But for an older, experienced player that has played a lot of Test cricket then LO runs can play a role. Just feeling the bat on ball and gaining some confidence and runs under the belt can do wonders for a player regardless of the format.