England's strike bowler options

[Richard]

Craig White ... has at least 1 5-wicket haul, though again, he's been a disappointment against the Australians and on flat wickets.

He's one of the few bowlers of recent years who hasn't.

 

[marc71178]

He's one of the few bowlers of recent years who hasn't.

Although to be fair there was another bowler in that series who didn't (but he only played 1 Test then got injured )

 

[KishanTeli]

IMO Gough will not come out of retirement.

Even if Caddick does make it back into the England side he may only have a couple of games to prove he is back to his best, in other words he wont get a fair crack of the whip before people like Botham start getting on his back to make way for youngsters.

White's England career is as good as finished if he doesn't bowl and ATM it doesn't look likely he will.

Before we start to hype up Jones again, we need to see how he performs in the England 'A' side first. It is very obvious he is not match-fit, let him prove his fitness and form there first.

Harmison looks the most likely to be the best strike bowler for England providing he stays injury free and uses his attributes to his advantage.

In Sri Lanka, i noticed Anderson has lost quite alot of pace, needs to regain this to continue his progress.

As for the other bowlers like Kirtley. I think they are little more then county bowlers.

As for the spinners, England spinners strike bowlers???

 

[Richard]

Even if Caddick does make it back into the England side he may only have a couple of games to prove he is back to his best, in other words he wont get a fair crack of the whip before people like Botham start getting on his back to make way for youngsters.

My worries exactly.

White's England career is as good as finished if he doesn't bowl and ATM it doesn't look likely he will.

Let's wait until next summer before talking as if it's certain.

Harmison looks the most likely to be the best strike bowler for England providing he stays injury free and uses his attributes to his advantage.

And what evidence is there of that? The fact that his most recent series was against Bangladesh, that's all. Plus the fact that he managed a rare spell of good figures (note - NOT good bowling, just 3 poor strokes) in his previous spell against a decent team.
I will be amazed if, in West Indies, Harmison does not return to being totally unthreatening.
It really amazes me that people reckon he is the best when most things suggest to me he is the worst.

In Sri Lanka, i noticed Anderson has lost quite alot of pace, needs to regain this to continue his progress.

Anderson was never a 90 mph merchant, as Duncan has been at pains to point-out numerous times.
He managed to crank it up on occasions in Australia, and in WC2003 as we know most people bowled\were clocked faster than they normally manage.
This is almost getting as tiresome as the "Pollock has lost pace" argument.
How on Earth is someone going to lose pace in less than a year?

As for the other bowlers like Kirtley. I think they are little more then county bowlers.

Kirtley is better than most of the bowlers picked recently.

 

[Richard]

Although to be fair there was another bowler in that series who didn't (but he only played 1 Test then got injured )

And did he bowl 7 overs for 32 (could have been a few more) and get one wicket with a ball that should have been left?
If so, sounds familiar!:!(

 

[marc71178]

And did he bowl 7 overs for 32 (could have been a few more) and get one wicket with a ball that should have been left?
If so, sounds familiar!:!(

Nope, he didn't...

 

[Richard]

So what was different?

 

[quytst0rm]

Does anyone know what happned to Alex Tudor? Hes talented and has potential but apparently after the Bret Lee incident i don't believe i heard a lot about him.

 

[marc71178]

Does anyone know what happned to Alex Tudor? Hes talented and has potential but apparently after the Bret Lee incident i don't believe i heard a lot about him.

He's got no guts or interest in putting himself on the line for the team.

Also, he's not actually that good.

 

[marc71178]

So what was different?

I must admit i'd forgotten Jones, but I was actually talking of Giles.

6 wickets on a not particularly spin friendly wicket in his only Test, then got injured.

 

[KishanTeli]

Let's wait until next summer before talking as if it's certain.

Fair enough.

And what evidence is there of that? The fact that his most recent series was against Bangladesh, that's all. Plus the fact that he managed a rare spell of good figures (note - NOT good bowling, just 3 poor strokes) in his previous spell against a decent team.
I will be amazed if, in West Indies, Harmison does not return to being totally unthreatening.
It really amazes me that people reckon he is the best when most things suggest to me he is the worst.

I was actually talking about the attributes he has to his advantage, e.g. height decent pace etc. With the correct training he could mature into a decent strike bowler was my point. His current performances do suggest inconsistency in terms of control but strike bowlers do not necessarily have to have tight control, they get you wickets at the right time when you need them. Dilhara Fernando is a perfect example, SL pick him as a Strike bowler. A wicket is a wicket at the end of the day, poor shot or not. It strikes me that you consider a wicket taken with a poor shot as something to overlook. C'mon think, Is the bowler supposed to control what shot is played by the batsman or something?

Anderson was never a 90 mph merchant, as Duncan has been at pains to point-out numerous times.
He managed to crank it up on occasions in Australia, and in WC2003 as we know most people bowled\were clocked faster than they normally manage.
This is almost getting as tiresome as the "Pollock has lost pace" argument.
How on Earth is someone going to lose pace in less than a year?

When did I ever say he was a 90 mph merchant? I said he seems to have lost pace, bowlers can lose pace because of something called injury!! not just the physical effects but mental doubts can be raised in their mind therefore a loss of pace.

Kirtley is better than most of the bowlers picked recently.

That is your opinion. I do not think he is good enough, we are talking about bowling to world class batsmen like Lara, Ponting, Tendulkar etc here. not batsmen like Ramprakash or Hick

 

[Richard]

I must admit i'd forgotten Jones, but I was actually talking of Giles.

6 wickets on a not particularly spin friendly wicket in his only Test, then got injured.

Sorry, most people go on like Jones was the best bowler in that Test or some rubbish like that.
Anyway, Giles bowled Ponting around his legs, got his customary end-of-innings wickets (Lehmann, Bichel and McGrath), had Hayden c&b off a Full-Toss and got Martyn with a good quicker-ball.
Not especially impressive for mine. But at least his injury gave us a chance to get it proved how totally substandard Dawson is as far as Tests are concerned.

 

[Richard]

Does anyone know what happned to Alex Tudor? Hes talented and has potential but apparently after the Bret Lee incident i don't believe i heard a lot about him.

He's got no guts or interest in putting himself on the line for the team.

Also, he's not actually that good.

IMO no-one should ever be asked to sacrifice injury for the sake of a single match.
Anyway, I don't think Tudor's ever missed a game through injury which he could have played.
IMO certainly presently a far better bowler than Giles, Batty, Dawson, Harmison, Jones and Flintoff.
However, never been very consistent in his line and length and unless he becomes so he'll not make much of a Test bowler.

 

[Richard]

I was actually talking about the attributes he has to his advantage, e.g. height decent pace etc. With the correct training he could mature into a decent strike bowler was my point. His current performances do suggest inconsistency in terms of control but strike bowlers do not necessarily have to have tight control, they get you wickets at the right time when you need them. Dilhara Fernando is a perfect example, SL pick him as a Strike bowler. A wicket is a wicket at the end of the day, poor shot or not. It strikes me that you consider a wicket taken with a poor shot as something to overlook. C'mon think, Is the bowler supposed to control what shot is played by the batsman or something?

No, but how does he deserve any credit for a poor stroke? What is the difference, as far as the bowler's ability is concerned, between a nothing delivery that is let go and a nothing delivery that is hit to cover in the air?
A wicket taken with a poor ball is not, obviously, something to overlook but when you're talking about a bowler's ability I really don't see how it's logical to set much stall by a wicket towards him where he did nothing very good.
Dilhara Fernando and Harmison are both examples of hugely overrated bowlers. There is no such thing as a "strike bowler who gets wickets when you need them and not when you don't" - because you need wickets whenever you can get them. A good bowler will always threaten to take wickets. Harmison and Dilhara Fernando are nowhere near accurate enough nor do they move the ball enough to threaten decent batsmen, at any time.

When did I ever say he was a 90 mph merchant? I said he seems to have lost pace, bowlers can lose pace because of something called injury!! not just the physical effects but mental doubts can be raised in their mind therefore a loss of pace.

He's around 82-5 mph now - unless he was a 90 mph merchant he hasn't lost any pace. He's not really been injured much, either - he wasn't injured at all last summer, just one freak twisted ankle.

That is your opinion. I do not think he is good enough, we are talking about bowling to world class batsmen like Lara, Ponting, Tendulkar etc here. not batsmen like Ramprakash or Hick

Hick's only weakness is the short-ball. Ramprakash mightn't be as good as Tendulkar or Lara but he's a more than competant Test batsman, and that is what you're talking about bowling to most of the time.
However, I take your point that most county batsmen (Ramprakash is clearly an exception) aren't as good as Test ones - this is pretty obviously going to be the case.
I don't think Kirtley is ever going to be a World-beater, someone who exploits all conditions, but I do think he is far better than Harmison, Jones and the like, who aren't very effective in any conditions really.
I also think he is better in favourable conditions than Hoggard, Anderson, Giles and some other bowlers who have proven good in favourable conditions.

 

[marc71178]

IMO no-one should ever be asked to sacrifice injury for the sake of a single match.

I'm not talking about when he's injured, but when he wasn't, but was "too tired" to bowl in fairly unfriendly conditions when Caddy was injured and we were down to the bare bones.

 

[KishanTeli]

No, but how does he deserve any credit for a poor stroke? What is the difference, as far as the bowler's ability is concerned, between a nothing delivery that is let go and a nothing delivery that is hit to cover in the air?
A wicket taken with a poor ball is not, obviously, something to overlook but when you're talking about a bowler's ability I really don't see how it's logical to set much stall by a wicket towards him where he did nothing very good.
Dilhara Fernando and Harmison are both examples of hugely overrated bowlers. There is no such thing as a "strike bowler who gets wickets when you need them and not when you don't" - because you need wickets whenever you can get them. A good bowler will always threaten to take wickets. Harmison and Dilhara Fernando are nowhere near accurate enough nor do they move the ball enough to threaten decent batsmen, at any time.

.

Agreed, he doesn't deserve credit for a poor stroke, but its still a wicket thats the point. In this thread at least, we are talking about a bowlers ability to take wickets, not his overall ability. Harmison does possess the ability to deliver a wicket taking ball quite often on a good day regardless of what he bowls inbetween, so IMO if he obtains consistency, he will be England's best strike bowler.

There are different ways to threaten to take wickets, e.g. like Flintoff by trying to build pressure or like Lee and Shoaib who more often then not bowl a wicket taking ball with run scoring opportunities inbetween, but you always have to be on guard for that special ball. IMO Harmison falls into the second category but should improve as he is still a raw talent.

He's around 82-5 mph now - unless he was a 90 mph merchant he hasn't lost any pace. He's not really been injured much, either - he wasn't injured at all last summer, just one freak twisted ankle

Well, unless there was a problem with the speed gun in SL which showed around 75 mph, he has lost pace. It is also possible that the "freak twisted ankle" could have been a worse injury then first thought and has affected his bowling.

Hick's only weakness is the short-ball. Ramprakash mightn't be as good as Tendulkar or Lara but he's a more than competant Test batsman, and that is what you're talking about bowling to most of the time.
However, I take your point that most county batsmen (Ramprakash is clearly an exception) aren't as good as Test ones - this is pretty obviously going to be the case.
I don't think Kirtley is ever going to be a World-beater, someone who exploits all conditions, but I do think he is far better than Harmison, Jones and the like, who aren't very effective in any conditions really.
I also think he is better in favourable conditions than Hoggard, Anderson, Giles and some other bowlers who have proven good in favourable conditions.

Well, to say that Ramprakash is more than competent at Test level is almost laughable, actually i am laughing he has the third lowest average of batsmen that have played more then 50 Tests (his average stands at 27.32, clearly not acceptable). If that is more than competent to you then I question your judgement.

Hick clearly was exposed by more then the short ball in his Test career, but you are entitled to your own opinions.

As far as Kirtley is concerned he is over-rated IMO. This may upset a few people but I still have doubts about his action as well.

 

[Richard]

I'm not talking about when he's injured, but when he wasn't, but was "too tired" to bowl in fairly unfriendly conditions when Caddy was injured and we were down to the bare bones.

At The WACA? Or at Headingley in 2002?
Neither were unfriendly - there was enough there for a bowler of Tudor's calibre. He just bowled poorly.
It's an unfortunate trait that he's always had. Until he improves he's not going to be a Test-class bowler. However, I seriously think he could improve.

 

[Richard]

Agreed, he doesn't deserve credit for a poor stroke, but its still a wicket thats the point. In this thread at least, we are talking about a bowlers ability to take wickets, not his overall ability. Harmison does possess the ability to deliver a wicket taking ball quite often on a good day regardless of what he bowls inbetween, so IMO if he obtains consistency, he will be England's best strike bowler.

There are different ways to threaten to take wickets, e.g. like Flintoff by trying to build pressure or like Lee and Shoaib who more often then not bowl a wicket taking ball with run scoring opportunities inbetween, but you always have to be on guard for that special ball. IMO Harmison falls into the second category but should improve as he is still a raw talent.

We are talking about a bowler's ability to take wickets - and therefore wickets that have been gifted to him do not mean anything to the discussion. Fortunately, in Harmison's case, not very many times have batsmen on good teams gifted him many wickets (against Zimbabwe and Bangladsh it's a different story). And there is a reason, hence, that his record against decent teams is in general very poor - because he does not bowl very many wicket-taking balls, no matter how many attributes he may appear to have in his favour. Nor do I believe he has it in him to be any more consistent than he is now.
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.

Well, unless there was a problem with the speed gun in SL which showed around 75 mph, he has lost pace. It is also possible that the "freak twisted ankle" could have been a worse injury then first thought and has affected his bowling.

In Sri Lanka he bowled 5 ODI overs, in a useless cause. He also bowled in very hot conditions in fairly hopeless circumstances for most of the time. In his early spell he was up around 85. In Bangladesh, he was regularly bowling at 83-5 mph. The ankle injury doesn't appear to me to have any effect on his bowling - he bowled as poorly at The SSC as he did most of last summer.

Well, to say that Ramprakash is more than competent at Test level is almost laughable, actually i am laughing he has the third lowest average of batsmen that have played more then 50 Tests (his average stands at 27.32, clearly not acceptable). If that is more than competent to you then I question your judgement.

Hick clearly was exposed by more then the short ball in his Test career, but you are entitled to your own opinions.

As far as Kirtley is concerned he is over-rated IMO. This may upset a few people but I still have doubts about his action as well.

That doesn't surprise me in the least. Some people don't realise that Shoaib isn't a chucker and Kirtley has exactly the same problem, hyper-extension of the elbow. This, from some angles, gives an illusion of chucking. Those who have taken a proper look, including learned scientists, have pronounced otherwise.
Ramprakash's Test average, if you actually take the time to look at it properly instead of using the misleading generalisation, has two very distinct parts - in one, he averaged just over 16, in the other, he averaged 37 when batting in his proper position. For me, 4 years of averaging 37 in Test-cricket is more than competant.
Hick was exposed by the short-ball and nothing else. He played false strokes when the bowling was fast and short in between. That is plain to see and anyone who watched most of his Test-career would say so.

 

[iamdavid]

I find it funny you've included Martin in this poll , to be honest he's about as close to an England call up right now as Richard is :P .
He's an old bugger now & he's getting injured alot , with Cork moving to Lancashire he's quite likely not going to be a fixture in their first XI in 2004.

My take on the current attack-

Hoggard will move the new ball prodigiously on pretty much any surface , but once it gets to about the 20 over mark his movement disappears , and he hasnt got the accuracy , raw pace or alternate movement techniques (cut , reverse) to fall back on.
He is the sort of bowler who will generally threaten anyone while the pills new but be expensive / ineffective later.

Harmison has a poor action & thus will NEVER move the ball through the air , however his seam position has improved slightly & thus he will when on song jag it around a little off the seam , his control is still pretty poor , but he has pace & a great attitude , at least on the feild.

Flintoff's control has improved out of sight since about 2000/01 to the point where he is the most accurate of the Pommy seamers ATM , he hits the deck hard & his length is superb , he was able to get some life from even the Sri Lankan featherbeds recently , much like Harmison his action & height means he wont really do much with the ball through the air , but his seam position is good & he gets it to jag off the seam pretty consistently , he is one of very few English seamers ATM who will pose a threat with the old ball , because he has his accuracy to fall back on & improvises with his off cutter very nicely.
His attitude & fitness have come along hugely & he is now able to bowl longer spells.
Losing the kilo's & maintaining fitness better than before means he's gained a yard or two of pace & is now capable of 140kph regularly.
More suited to the role of stock than shock IMO.

Anderson is able to swing the new ball away & the old ball into the right handers in pretty much any conditions , movement aint his problem but control is , he currently has the MacGill disease where he'll bowl 5 rippers & a four ball , that 4 ball releases all the pressure & all his hard work was for nothing.
He has one of the better yorkers in the world ATM & could probably bowl it a little more , potential to lead the attack in future but will need to improve control / stamina in the mean time , experience will see him come along.

Johnson is much like Hoggard , he will swing the new ball in pretty much any conditions , only he can bring it both ways at will , Hoggard only brings it away from right handers.
But much the same as Hoggard after the 20 over mark his swing & seam dries up & he aint got the control / alternate movement techniques / raw pace to pose a threat or keep it tight.

Jones when his rythym is right can be a bit like Wasim Akram in that the ball hits the bat rather than the bat hitting the ball , he hurries on a bit before the batsman is ready.
His control by any standards is nothing to write home about , but when conditions are right he will move the new ball prodigiously & he is very good at making the older ball reverse at good pace , much like Shoaib Akhtar.
Fitness has improved alot (apparently) & a superb attitude.
Provided he stays fit I think Jones is the best bet as far as strike bowlers go long term.

Kirtley - see Johnson & Hoggard.

Kabir Ali has an action suited to swinging the ball away from right handers & thats what he does with alarming consistency , he is able to shape the ball away from them very late in just about any conditions , even when the ball gets a little older he still seems to maintain his swing , however his control , while better than Anderson's in nothing special ATM & he does not really posses the pace that will push them back onto the crease & bring the ball that dosent swing into the equation , something test standard outswing bowlers (McDermott , Srinath , etc) mastered.

Enough has been said about Caddick & Gough , Id be suprised if either play again unfortunately.

So I reckon Jones & one of Johnson , Kirtley , Hoggard with the new ball , those 3 all do pretty much the same thing.
Then Flintoff & either Harmison or Anderson at first change , possibly give Anderson the new ball ahead of Jones if he plays.

 

[marc71178]

At The WACA? Or at Headingley in 2002?

Old Trafford 2002 - SL Test.