Starc vs Pattinson vs Cummins

[Top_Cat]

Gotta say, I think there's some serious paranoia about the quicks and injuries at the minute and I can only imagine it's because we have so many young ones getting attention right now so it looks like an epidemic. < 25, you're going to be regularly injured, especially if they're going balls-out all the time.

Which brings up another point. Until only recently, all the best quicks had a short run-up game. Ostensibly, from what I remember, was so they could ensure they could play as many games as they could and as long as it didn't affect their wicket-taking, was nothing unusual about it. The last 10 years have seen more of a focus on bowling as quick as possible as often as possible and I guess it's no surprise we're seeing more injuries on top of the usual growing pains. I wonder why quicks bowling off 10 steps became so unfashionable.

I mean, I just wonder whether 'only got 55 days at high intensity' thing is wrong-headed. Why do bowlers have to bowl at high-intensity every time they're on the park? Surely there are some situations where backing off is a better wicket-taking option, a 40+ stinker or a green pinger come to mind.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

Yeah but is a T20 warmup match up counted equally as bowling 25 overs in a day in Test Cricket?

Basically I disagree with the amount of days and would rather see a maximum amount of overs instead. Would be a farce if a captain didn't bowl someone mid match due to it though, lol.

Bowling four overs in a T20 probably wouldn't count as "high intensity".

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Gotta say, I think there's some serious paranoia about the quicks and injuries at the minute and I can only imagine it's because we have so many young ones getting attention right now so it looks like an epidemic. < 25, you're going to be regularly injured, especially if they're going balls-out all the time.

Which brings up another point. Until only recently, all the best quicks had a short run-up game. Ostensibly, from what I remember, was so they could ensure they could play as many games as they could and as long as it didn't affect their wicket-taking, was nothing unusual about it. The last 10 years have seen more of a focus on bowling as quick as possible as often as possible and I guess it's no surprise we're seeing more injuries on top of the usual growing pains. I wonder why quicks bowling off 10 steps became so unfashionable.

I mean, I just wonder whether 'only got 55 days at high intensity' thing is wrong-headed. Why do bowlers have to bowl at high-intensity every time they're on the park? Surely there are some situations where backing off is a better wicket-taking option, a 40+ stinker or a green pinger come to mind.

****s used to come off the fence in the 70's and 80's ****.

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

Yeah but is a T20 warmup match up counted equally as bowling 25 overs in a day in Test Cricket?

Basically I disagree with the amount of days and would rather see a maximum amount of overs instead. Would be a farce if a captain didn't bowl someone mid match due to it though, lol.

They'd have a threshold of what constitutes high intensity. If they make it past a certain output then they tick the box.

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Bowling four overs in a T20 probably wouldn't count as "high intensity".

Originally Posted by benchmark00

They'd have a threshold of what constitutes high intensity. If they make it past a certain output then they tick the box.

Still too wishy-washy for mine. And as if Siddle can only bowl 75 days high intensity, more like 275.

Cummins one Test per summer is even worse. Say he dominates like he did in SA and pulls up fine before a deciding last test of an important series, are we going to just rule him out?

Its ageism at its finest.

[Monk]

Just get the best three quicks fit and on the park. Then have three more ready in case they break down.

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by Monk

Being a left arm quick doesn't automatically mean he'll be a soft cock just because Johnson's a soft cock and a left arm quick....

Yeah of course, but he just looks like one. He's a bit like Broad and Finn to me, not much emotion or a sense of purpose to his bowling.

The whole rotation thing is stupid.

[LongHopCassidy]

Originally Posted by Spark

Cummins isn't that consistent.

In fairness, he's bowled consistently over his entire Test career.

[LongHopCassidy]

I love the idea of Starc in the side, even putting bowling form/potential aside - he can make some huge footmarks right in Lyon's bowling zone and there's endless chances for Game of Thrones puns.

Tends to overdo it with the sunscreen though. Even more profligate than Huss.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by LongHopCassidy

I love the idea of Starc in the side, even putting bowling form/potential aside - he can make some huge footmarks right in Lyon's bowling zone and there's endless chances for Game of Thrones puns.

Tends to overdo it with the sunscreen though. Even more profligate than Huss.

Rank amateur compared to Billy McDermott.



Agree Starc should be tried in Tests at some point, though. He's bowling well in ODI's but it's the way he's knocking ****s over. Will take Test poles at the minute.

[vic_orthdox]

Cracker.

[SeamUp]

^^ That is a cracker

Pity, the excessive zinc seems to have gone out of the game. Starc is trying to revive it but only slightly.

McDermott & Donald were kings of it in more recent times.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Rank amateur compared to Billy McDermott.



Agree Starc should be tried in Tests at some point, though. He's bowling well in ODI's but it's the way he's knocking ****s over. Will take Test poles at the minute.

Rangas do it tough in cricket.

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by Bailey on Cummins

"He is a bit different. I spoke to him after the West Indies game and felt like I was babying him a bit too much. This game [against India], I gave him a licence to bowl to his plans a lot more. He is a good thinker, he has got great execution, he's got good skills; he is someone who, in a short space of time, you learn to trust to execute exactly what the team needs.

Exactly what I said.

[Kylez]

Originally Posted by TumTum

Yeah of course, but he just looks like one. He's a bit like Broad and Finn to me, not much emotion or a sense of purpose to his bowling.

The whole rotation thing is stupid.

No purpose to his bowling? He's trying to get the ****ing batsmen out just like every other bowler. I'd say Starc is one of the more feisty fast bowlers going around at the moment as well.