England's strike bowler options

[marc71178]

The notion that "pressure" can be built to take wickets is also a very strange one indeed. Good batsmen won't be worried by a slow scoring-rate so there is no pressure there. Accurate bowling in itself won't lead to wickets against a good batting-line-up. You've got to move the ball the pose a threat.

So how come the build-up of pressure on a batsman frequently induces false shots and wickets then?

 

[iamdavid]

The notion that "pressure" can be built to take wickets is also a very strange one indeed

:O

 

[Richard]

Old Trafford 2002 - SL Test.

What, when he took 7 wickets for not many in the match and England won at about 7:30PM?
He didn't bowl particularly well, but that was one of his better Tests so far as figures were concerned.

 

[Richard]

So how come the build-up of pressure on a batsman frequently induces false shots and wickets then?

It doesn't.
It happens every now and then, with poor batsmen, but not with good ones.
The good ones just wait, and don't try to change their style of play to keep-up the scoring-rate.

 

[marc71178]

What, when he took 7 wickets for not many in the match and England won at about 7:30PM?

Yes, Hoggard was bowling himself into the ground, the ball was thrown to Tudor, who complained about a "niggle" so Hoggard had to run in again.

 

[Richard]

Well, forgive me, I was playing that night (taking 0-2 off 1 and getting a DNB). So I didn't see that.

 

[Arjun]

About Peter Martin, I had includd him in that poll since I was trying out every single option. I'm rather surprised someone actually voted for him!

Looks like Harmison will open the bowling with anyone out of Caddick, Anderson and Kirtley. Really strange results. Hopefully they'll take a lot of wickets.

Harmison seems to be wasting his pace and power. If he can watch some of the best fast bowlers of all time, who had real pace, and could take a lot of wickets, he could help himself a lot. He bowls too many wide balls. If he sticks to a good line and length and bowls the odd bouncer, he can improve his figures against non-minnow teams. One of those bowlers who can make things happen.

Kirtley is slow, slow, slow! Nothing really special. Looks like he needs tailor-made pitches for his bowling, since he's not likely to do much on pitches away from England and NZ, is he? Same for Hoggard and Johnson, though both are slightly faster. Bowlers like him cannot afford to be inconsistent.

Flintoff, the most talked about player on message boards, just has to keep fit and, like all the bowlers in question, Tudor included stop bowling all those short deliveries.

Would Cork make a good opening bowler? Not much has been said about him.

What about Martin Saggers? He was in the frame for selection for the Bangladesh and SL tours.

 

[Langeveldt]

Id say Anderson, although there is hardly an embaressment of riches at the moment...

I like Kirtley, but he wont take many wickets in the wrong conditions, he isnt penetrating enough.. And id take Saggers over Harmison any day...

 

[Richard]

Harmison seems to be wasting his pace and power. If he can watch some of the best fast bowlers of all time, who had real pace, and could take a lot of wickets, he could help himself a lot. He bowls too many wide balls. If he sticks to a good line and length and bowls the odd bouncer, he can improve his figures against non-minnow teams. One of those bowlers who can make things happen.

Do you really think Harmison is deliberately bowling wide, bowling poor lines? No, he'd have to be belief-defyingly stupid to do that. The fact is, he simply isn't good enough to bowl the line and length needed. Anyway, even if he was, he'd still have to be able to seam and cut the ball (which he not-often and almost-never does respectively) otherwise he still wouldn't make anything happen.

Kirtley is slow, slow, slow! Nothing really special. Looks like he needs tailor-made pitches for his bowling, since he's not likely to do much on pitches away from England and NZ, is he? Same for Hoggard and Johnson, though both are slightly faster. Bowlers like him cannot afford to be inconsistent.

Flintoff, the most talked about player on message boards, just has to keep fit and, like all the bowlers in question, Tudor included stop bowling all those short deliveries.

Would Cork make a good opening bowler? Not much has been said about him.

What about Martin Saggers? He was in the frame for selection for the Bangladesh and SL tours.

Johnson is almost exactly the same pace as Flintoff and Harmison (perhaps 1 or 2 mph difference between the three).
Any bowler needs tailor-made conditions for their bowling - just for some bowlers, this gives a wider scope than others. Indeed, for some bowlers any conditions are favourable. Kirtley's neccessary conditions haven't occurred very often in the last couple of years, even in England. Amazingly, two of the occasions they have, he has managed to get in the side.
And regarding the short bowling, read above. It takes ability, not just nous, to bowl in the right place.
Yes, Cork would make a good opening bowler - when bowling like he can. When not, he wouldn't make a good bowler any time, just like Chaminda.

 

[Arjun]

Do you really think Harmison is deliberately bowling wide, bowling poor lines? No, he'd have to be belief-defyingly stupid to do that.

He just takes too many risks.

The fact is, he simply isn't good enough to bowl the line and length needed. Anyway, even if he was, he'd still have to be able to seam and cut the ball (which he not-often and almost-never does respectively) otherwise he still wouldn't make anything happen.

Someone named Graham Dilley should fix that. Or some expert from the past, who has bowled well. Bob Willis, or Ian Botham, especially him, since he's been Harmison's biggest supporter.

Johnson is almost exactly the same pace as Flintoff and Harmison (perhaps 1 or 2 mph difference between the three).

Slightly faster than medium? Or capable of bowling more often in the 140's? Then why does CricInfo list him as RM? Besides, he bowls in the 130's quite often.

Yes, Cork would make a good opening bowler - when bowling like he can. When not, he wouldn't make a good bowler any time, just like Chaminda.

Bowling like he can?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Slightly faster than medium? Or capable of bowling more often in the 140's? Then why does CricInfo list him as RM? Besides, he bowls in the 130's quite often.

Same reason it has Vasbert Drakes as RF - because it's full of mistakes!

 

[Richard]

He just takes too many risks.

Someone named Graham Dilley should fix that. Or some expert from the past, who has bowled well. Bob Willis, or Ian Botham, especially him, since he's been Harmison's biggest supporter.

Slightly faster than medium? Or capable of bowling more often in the 140's? Then why does CricInfo list him as RM? Besides, he bowls in the 130's quite often.

Bowling like he can?

Sorry? Don't understand.
Graham Dilley or anyone else can't make Harmison a better bowler than he is. There's nothing anyone can do to change his talent. All they can do is help him make the most of it.
Real Neil.
Yes, bowling like he can. Have you ever seen Corkie on top form? If not, you should - I find it hugely entertaining.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Felt like bumping this in order to make people look daft

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Felt like bumping this in order to make people look daft

It certainly worked...but some people dont need to be made to look daft as they are already there

 

[luckyeddie]

On the day that Steve Wayward-Harmison made it to number 1 in the PwC list, I decided to cast my vote in this poll.

Only Corky wasn't there.

 

[marc71178]

Felt like bumping this in order to make people look daft

Care to find that post that someone made saying Gayle wouldn't make runs in England?

I believe he made more than any Englishman in that series...

 

[Son Of Coco]

Age this, age that - it's a load of cadswallop.

If he is still the best bowler in the country, you have to pick him.

None of the youngsters have done anything yet to knock him of his perch - he is still a level above.

As for his record against Australia, look up his stats - you will be suprised.

Regarding ODI cricket - your speaking of taking 20 wickets, so I assumed you meant Tests.

As for Botham, it's all well and good he wants a young team, but they still need an experianced head to learn the ropes of international cricket - this has been noticed with Anderson in particluar - when he leads the attack he is in trouble.

Is this serious? I thought you were joking when you suggested Caddick!? You mean the guy who does a lot of his best bowling in the second innings when things are pretty much done and dusted?

 

[Son Of Coco]

He was not a dissappointment in the last tour fo Australia. he was Englands best bowler (no bias, ask anyone who ectually rememebrs the series and knows what they are talking about)

Personally, I wouldn't choose England's best bowler from the last series for this one - it doesn't say much about the so-called bowlers who turned up last time that the best was an all-rounder. At least these young guys might be fresher of mind and have a shot.

 

[Son Of Coco]

The notion that "pressure" can be built to take wickets is also a very strange one indeed. Good batsmen won't be worried by a slow scoring-rate so there is no pressure there. Accurate bowling in itself won't lead to wickets against a good batting-line-up. You've got to move the ball the pose a threat.

Sometimes Richard, the notion that you actually play cricket seems to be a very strange one indeed. (Don't worry though, I've read other posts and I know that you do.)

A bowler bowling dot balls in a game places a great amount of pressure on the batsman to score (that is what he's there for after all). Whilst straight accurate bowling may not always take wickets, if it's on a good length and keeps the batsman from rotating the strike/getting runs then there's a fair chance that eventually there'll only be one winner (admittedly moving it around will help even more). Every dot ball places greater pressure on a batsman to score, and the chances are that every batsman (no matter how good he is) is let down by one area of his game. It only takes a semi-decent bowler so long to work this out before he tries to hone in on this area (I'm a bowler, and I don't like going for runs, consequently I do my best to bowl in areas where I won't get hit) and if he's accurate enough generally he'll get results. There's an area called "short of a length" - which is a fairly broad hint as to what's a good spot to bowl to most bats (just outside off-stump also helps).

If pressure couldn't be built to take wickets then you probably wouldn't see quite so many of those "bad shots" you've been talking about.

 

[Son Of Coco]

If England ever seriously consider picking Gough, Caddick, White etc again then they might as well not bother playing. While they've got the core of a good team in the current players they should try to encourage their improvement rather than look back to players who have been largely ineffective in the past (with Gough being the exception, I'm a big fan of how he played and the bowler he was......but he's not that bowler any longer).

I'm sure that if the team was announced and included Caddick and White at the expense of someone from the current team the Aussies would be rubbing their hands together with glee. I don't think the English team can afford to carry a couple of players who have failed in an Ashes series in the past into next years series, they'll need to be playing very good cricket as it is.