Anyone with any sense would consider that his low average is largely down to the limited bowling opportunity though. No one's going to be fooled by the statistics there. But you can't say that he doesn't deserve the figures if he bowled well on the occasion. Even if he's not a very good bowler, if he bowled well for the wickets, he deserves them.
I'm not even sure which player you're talking about, but that isn't neccessarily the case. If he was only filling in for injury and is not a particularly good bowler consistently then he shouldn't play again - regardless of how well he bowled.
They're not of no use. Technically, every run in test match cricket is useful to some extent but that is besides the point. 48 is a failure in my book and not condonable for the simple reason that you need to go on when you are set. Getting out while Vaughan got out simply left England vulnerable to a collapse which luckily in this case did not happen. If set players arent the one going on to get a 100 or at least a high 50 then who else is going to do it? Unfortunately, this is the difference between England and Australia over the years in that when their batsmen get set they actually get the job done.
Its not every time. I do expect that at some point in the last 5 years a player who is worth his place in the side has managed to produce a series where he has succeeded more times than he has failed or at least scored 3 good innings in a 3 test match series. Vaughan simply hasnt done that. He fails far far more often than he has succeeded in every series and he generally has 1 good test in a series and does little else thereafter
Waqar was always known more for his banana reverse in-swingers than he was for his booming outswingers. Its not like he never swung the ball conventionally, because he did on many occasions. However he wasnt an out and out swing bowler like Wasim who was essentially capable of doing absolutely anything with a cricket ball in his hand. The fact that Wasim didnt end up being the best fast bowler of his own time probably has to do with his own discipline.
Well its also harder to keep the seam upright at 90mph than at 80mph. Although Broad recently mentioned that bowling with a wobbly seam is likely to generate more swing than bowling with a perfectly upright seam and I've noticed that with bowlers such as Hoggard. Either way, IMO bowlers who bowl at 80mph IMO are more likely to exploit swinging conditions than those at 90mph and i also believe that they are likely to swing it more. There are exceptions to the rule though and Shane Bond for one swings the new ball as much as I have ever seen anyone before, but in general conventional swing is greater at slower speed than at higher speeds.
Doubt that.Bowling poorly is one thing, but bowling directly to his strengths is a recipe for disaster as Anderson and co did in the first 2 tests in 2003.
England bowlers have bowled directly to batsmen's strengths more times than I can remember since I started watching cricket.
Jeys, they're spreading like wildfire currently...
SkySports.com said:
SkySports.com said:
They tried to prepare a sporting pitch for the second test, i.e. one with a bit of pace on the first couple of days but that breaks up later on for the spinners. Since SA won in three days we'll never know how sporting it really was.
Of course England are in with a chance, to suggest otherwise would just be ignorant. However i did watch quite a bit of that series and found South Africa rather impressive. It's worth remembering that a win against India in seam and swing friendly conditions is something that England failed to do this time last summer. The Kallis-de Villiers knock was important, of course, but that's because they're quality batsmen. Kallis will no doubt play at least one pivotal knock against England in this series, and it won't detract from the team's overall performance. I don't mean to make too much of the third test pitch, but it was obviously going to suit India down to the ground, and i even had an uncharacteristically large bet on them to win. If England prepare pitches similar to that one (hardly possible given English conditions but hypothetically) i'll make them favourites every time.
The warning was because of a potential safety issue, i suspect. If you watched much of the match you'll understand why. I agree that pitches that facilitate spin are absolutely necessary, and often poor and cracked pitches produce the best matches. However, an example of a good turning pitch IMO would be the one at Old Trafford for the second test between England and NZ. The one for the third test in India was an absolute minefield.
