Medium-pacers

[Arjun]

Ten Sports subscribers may have seen this talk show with Mike Haysman, Laxman S. and Sanjay Manjrekar, where they ranked the top 10 batsmen, bowlers and teams. When they looked at bowlers, they ranked Murali at 1, then Irfan Pathan at 2, and Balaji at 10. I heard the part about Balaji at 10, where they stressed upon the importance of a medium-pacer in the team. I didn't get to watch that segment, or the whole show.

Just how important is a medium-pacer in a team? He may get swing, but he has to get swing everywhere, but we have not seen that in most medium-pacers, have we? They're helpless outside England and NZ. The only exceptions were Wasim and Waqar, but they bowled quick. In fact, the most sucessful bowlers on all pitches are the Akhtars, Harmisons, Lees and Bonds.

Accuracy is another reason why they say a RM/LM should play, but accuracy should last a long time, shouldn't it? The only bowler who has got that right is McGrath, for as many as 40 overs.

In ODI's, the preference is always to pick slower bowlers than the faster ones. But then, they're more easily hittable by the Afridis and Sehwags, once they get used to the bowlers. A fast bowler can at least hit back with a hard one or a fast one. Some of the better seam bowlers in ODI's are fast bowlers, especially Brett Lee.

What do you think?

 

[Tim]

I think medium pacers can be good anywhere, as long as they are extremely discliplined in line & length.

I think there are very few bowlers in the world at the moment who are capable of producing 4 or 5 consecutive overs worth of tight bowling though.

 

[Tim]

Pollock & McGrath are the best examples...they are now down in the mid to low 130's & where-ever they go they can take wickets just by bowling ball after ball just outside off-stump.

 

[Dark Hunter]

Good example of a good medium pacers:
Sydney Barnes, 187 wickets in just 27 matches
Alec Bedser was pretty good as well.
But I do agree that they seem to be less important in the modern game.

 

[Arjun]

Pollock & McGrath are the best examples...they are now down in the mid to low 130's & where-ever they go they can take wickets just by bowling ball after ball just outside off-stump.

Pollock ges some swing with the new ball but is not so effective with the old one, as proven in Dhaka.

McGrath's accuracy lasts for as many as 30 overs, but the same can't be said about the Orams, Saggers, Dillons and current Indian medium-pacers who hunt in threes, though Balaji seems to be an exception.

 

[Tim]

Oram is not too bad, but he could be better.

I think Flintoff is actually pretty good at bowling back to back spells of tight bowling.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Flintoff bowls in the upper 80s (around 140) however - that's not medium pace.

Oram impressed me a lot at Lord's... Pollock doesn't just rely on swing. He also cuts the ball both ways.

 

[tooextracool]

Oram is not too bad, but he could be better.

I think Flintoff is actually pretty good at bowling back to back spells of tight bowling.

flintoff isnt a medium pacer though....definetly got more pace than oram,mcgrath etc....

 

[tooextracool]

Just how important is a medium-pacer in a team? He may get swing, but he has to get swing everywhere, but we have not seen that in most medium-pacers, have we? They're helpless outside England and NZ. The only exceptions were Wasim and Waqar, but they bowled quick.

depends on the conditions,bowling action, seam position etc....

In fact, the most sucessful bowlers on all pitches are the Akhtars, Harmisons, Lees and Bonds.

umm lee?average 31?

 

[Dark Hunter]

Only cause he follows the fast bowlers law of, if u can't get em out, Knock em out!

 

[Darrin]

I think that you need a variety of bowlers in a attack. As a fielding team you need to be constantly asking questions of batsmen. The only way that can be done is by having variety. Therefore, medium-pacers are important in the scheme of things, but no-more important than pace. Too much is made by commentators about "having bowlers of pace" they say. But NZ does not breed real pace bowlers. You could count then on one hand, bond, hadlee, petherick. We always fall back on seam based medium-fast type bowlers. Which is a fault of the current regime because their is too many right-arm medium-fast type bowlers in the squad, therefore we lack that variety.

 

[Tim]

I wish Lee would try that against the top order & not the lower order like he's been known to do.

 

[twctopcat]

I think the swing theory owes more to technique than conditions. If your a good swing bowler then you can find swing whatever the condtions (ala Fred Trueman) yet obviously cloud exaggerates this to a greater degree. I can't help but think that perhaps bowlers like Hoggard use the idea of climate as something to fall back on when they don't swing the ball, when i just think it's an incorrect technique that produces bad results. James Franklin constantly swung the ball last week even though the condtions weren't particularly favourable.

 

[SJS]

Seam bowling is fascinating and with slightly helpful conditions can be quite a handful.

I think the problem is we dont find bowlers swinging any more due the influence of the one day game. Thw wide rule in one dayers, virtually spelled the demise of percocious swing. Its sad really. Some of the greatest new ball bowlers have been those who could swing the ball in the air, speed being a secondary advantage.

 

[Loony BoB]

They're helpless outside England and NZ.

Tuffey would disagree with you on that one - just look at his figures in India.

But I do agree that they seem to be less important in the modern game.

Don't really agree with that either - I'd rather a Tuffey or an Oram over a Butler any day of the week. Butler is fast, but speed doesn't mean that much if you don't have the accuracy to back it up. I agree that a faster bowler is more useful than a slower bowler if they both have equal accuracy, but it's pretty obvious that what a medium pacer lacks in speed he should make up with in accuracy. It's a very rare thing for a fast bowler to be more accurate than a medium bowler.

 

[Raj123]

Tuffey would disagree with you on that one - just look at his figures in India.

which was bit of an exception than the norm

 

[Sanz]

I agree a medium pacer adds variet to the attack with his accuracy and swing.I think Prabhakar, Aquib Javed belong in the same category.

 

[Anil]

kapil, botham, hadlee...all were quality medium pacers for most of their careers....

 

[Arjun]

I wish Lee would try that against the top order & not the lower order like he's been known to do.

Tail cleaning is an art, and also a very vital part of the task of taking 20 wickets. If the top order have 200 runs between them, the tail should be cleaned for little, and Brett Lee has done that quite well.

I agree a medium pacer adds variet to the attack with his accuracy and swing.I think Prabhakar, Aquib Javed belong in the same category.

But not 3 medium-pacers in the same team. That was a problem with almost all Indian and some English and NZ (especially after the npower series) bowling attacks. Prabhakar was hammered out of international cricket by Sanath and Kalu, which limits the utility of medium-pacers.

 

[chicane]

An attack definitely needs variety in the pace. Like in the current NZ attack without Bond, everyone bowling at a similar pace makes it blunt. Re. India - definitely a genuine quick is needed and we have Zaheer, who needs to remain fit.