Who would you have picked instead of Darren Pattinson ?

[Richard]

Agree about Pollock who was certainly capable of moving the ball and did so regularly.

Ambrose however didn't get a whole lot of lateral movement.

McGrath could get seam movement (and later in his career a little bit of swing), but took wickets largely through his accuracy, pace and bounce.

I disagree completely with this. Ambrose and McGrath were both masters of the off-cutter (McGrath even bowled it as his stock-ball sometmes) and could also bowl the leg-cutter. And of course, when a pitch offered movement off the seam, as plenty did in the 1990s and 2000, they exploited it. But even when it did not, their ability to use the off-cutter and leg-cutter meant they could perform on any surface. Neither swung the ball very often, but mostly this was based on length - on the rare occasion they pitched the ball up, both bowlers could and did. McGrath especially.

Others who got very little lateral movement and yet were great bowlers (greater than GBH) included Garner, Willis, Holding, Thomson.

I haven't seen enough of Garner's bowling to comment, but certainly Holding and Thomson swung the ball in England in 1975 and 1976 and 1977 - thus neatly disproving any ideas that the quickest bowlers can't swing the ball - and I've heard Holding talk about occasions when he used both the outswinger and movement off the seam (never more than the famous Kensington Oval 1981 over to Boycott) more than once.

Willis, well... again, with his action he wasn't much of a swing-bowler, inevitably with his action, but he moved the ball off the seam. I don't know whether he did all that much else because the only detailed footage I've ever watched of him so far is that famous spell in The Ashes '81, the rest is simply one-view full-speed two\three-second stuff. But I'm sure I'll find-out one day, and I simply cannot believe anyone could be as good as he was against teams other than West Indies by being a one-trick pony.

Another thing to note is that as you go back to the 1970s and before, and protective equipment begins to decrease in calibre, pace or\and high bounce in themselves could be more effective without as much sideways movement or uneven bounce than they are today. I even heard Jonathan Agnew comment a few years ago, in a way that appeared both highly reluctant and somewhat confused, that "batsmen these days do play pure pace better than they used to". Until recently, I'd presumed that this stuff about bounce being a weapon in itself had always been theory-only, but maybe there was actually a time when it worked in practice too.

 

[Goughy]

I disagree completely with this. Ambrose and McGrath were both masters of the off-cutter (McGrath even bowled it as his stock-ball sometmes) and could also bowl the leg-cutter. And of course, when a pitch offered movement off the seam, as plenty did in the 1990s and 2000, they exploited it. But even when it did not, their ability to use the off-cutter and leg-cutter meant they could perform on any surface.

No, their ability to perform on any surface was based on their length. Both got hundreds of wickets off straight balls being edged to slips. They had skills and could seam the ball but they hardly moved the ball all over.

Any seam movement they got made their length more dangerous rather than being the main weapon.

 

[zaremba]

I disagree completely with this. Ambrose and McGrath were both masters of the off-cutter (McGrath even bowled it as his stock-ball sometmes) and could also bowl the leg-cutter. And of course, when a pitch offered movement off the seam, as plenty did in the 1990s and 2000, they exploited it. But even when it did not, their ability to use the off-cutter and leg-cutter meant they could perform on any surface. Neither swung the ball very often, but mostly this was based on length - on the rare occasion they pitched the ball up, both bowlers could and did. McGrath especially.

I haven't seen enough of Garner's bowling to comment, but certainly Holding and Thomson swung the ball in England in 1975 and 1976 and 1977 - thus neatly disproving any ideas that the quickest bowlers can't swing the ball - and I've heard Holding talk about occasions when he used both the outswinger and movement off the seam (never more than the famous Kensington Oval 1981 over to Boycott) more than once.

Willis, well... again, with his action he wasn't much of a swing-bowler, inevitably with his action, but he moved the ball off the seam. I don't know whether he did all that much else because the only detailed footage I've ever watched of him so far is that famous spell in The Ashes '81, the rest is simply one-view full-speed two\three-second stuff. But I'm sure I'll find-out one day, and I simply cannot believe anyone could be as good as he was against teams other than West Indies by being a one-trick pony.

Well the bowler of this lot that I saw the least was Thommo and so I won't argue over that.

As for McGrath, as I said in my previous post, he could and did move the ball. However this wasn't the primary source of his wickets. You've said on another thread that with Harmison you'd often think, after he took a wicket, that the batsman could have played the ball differently (unlike, say, Anderson, who can bowl balls which seem basically unplayable). McGrath is similar to Harmison in this respect. Wicket after wicket was taken with balls which could have been left, but his line and length and lift were such that batsmen played and played like moths to a flame.

Ambrose could hit the seam - as could Harmison - but even more than McGrath his wickets came from pace, bounce, accuracy and terrifying hostility.

Garner and Willis never moved a ball laterally as far as I can recall, although I welcome correction from anyone who remembers any differently.

 

[Langeveldt]

Johaan Louw or Matthew Nicholson probably..

 

[Richard]

No, their ability to perform on any surface was based on their length. Both got hundreds of wickets off straight balls being edged to slips. They had skills and could seam the ball but they hardly moved the ball all over.

Any seam movement they got made their length more dangerous rather than being the main weapon.

If this is the way you view it, I'm not going to change your mind. I view it differently.

And without HawkEyes of "actual path red, if-ball-had-not-moved blue" we'll never really be able to say beyond doubt.

Certainly, they got plenty of wickets with straight balls which were edged to slip. They also got them with leg-cutters and away-seamers that were edged there. But for mine, the straight balls that didn't deviate at all being edged was caused by their ability to bowl the off-cutters, not their constant length.

 

[Polo23]

Tremlett sucks anyway. He continues to bowl short but doesnt have the pace to worry batsmen. 85MPH doesnt cut it at international level if you arent swinging/seaming it.

I would have picked Jones personally..if not Jones then Harmison (if he has got his pace back).

 

[Top_Cat]

Well, paint me as one of the 'I can't believe he got selected' but even the harshest critics will have to admit he bowled quite well yesterday. If the next Test was tomorrow, you'd have to really think about who you'd drop out of him and Broad so he's definitely gone up a few notches. 2/95 off 30 overs in your first Test when a team scored 550-odd - you'd take that. Good on Vaughan for giving him a decent go too. At this stage, I'd back Pattinson to get a second Test even if Sidebottom comes back.

Wouldn't have picked him in the first place, though. I'd suggest Jones will get a go next Test, dropping either Pattinson or Broad.

 

[The Masterplan]

Harmison, Plunkett and Mahmood are all proven failures.

Mmm.. not really

He's a bit like Jason Gillespie.. in his day one of, if not the best bowler in the world... he had pace, bounce and is very much a rhythm bowler like Gillespie. He just needs to get his touch back...

 

[tooextracool]

Isn't it funny that when you discount a player's best games, and games against weaker opposition, how their stats start to look much worse? However it might strike the more even-handed of us as a little unfair, not to say ridiculous.

When you look at his overall statistics in Test and FC cricket, Harmison's figures are better than Flintoff's.

He's one of the main reasons why Durham are leading Div 1 of the County Championship this season and anyone who's watched any county cricket this season would agree that he has been absolutely outstanding.

So if he'd been selected I'd have had no complaints. Ditto Hoggard, Jones or Tremlett.

Have you watched Harmison bowl in cc this season? Im a bit curious about his performances. Obviously, his figures speak for themselves but there is a bit of a question about whether he has made any technical changes to spark this improvement? Admittedly i had lost hope with him after his last performance in SL but it would be good to hear from someone who has actually watched him bowl because after all he did spend a majority of last year taking wickets despite bowling poorly .

 

[tooextracool]

England dont have the riches to ignore him in that form.

AWTA. Personally, i think it would be better for him to get at least a whole season of CC before playing for England, but its got to the point where there are no better options for England to pick from other than him. Im not convinced that Hoggard is going to turnaround this England attack and it doesnt look like England are convinced that Jones is ready to be part of a 4 man attack just yet. I think at this point, if Harmison were to be picked for the next test, I would have no qualms against it.

 

[Goughy]

AWTA. Personally, i think it would be better for him to get at least a whole season of CC before playing for England, but its got to the point where there are no better options for England to pick from other than him. Im not convinced that Hoggard is going to turnaround this England attack and it doesnt look like England are convinced that Jones is ready to be part of a 4 man attack just yet. I think at this point, if Harmison were to be picked for the next test, I would have no qualms against it.

Yeah. We know he is inconsistent and he has annoyed the coach and selectors. However, when the well is this dry to pick subpar bowlers and ignore him is criminal.

If people want to put him behind Sidebottom, Jones, Flintoff, Hoggard and maybe even Anderson then that can be justified, whether I agree with it or not. However, behind Pattinson and Broad is criminal.

Where Tremlett fits in is up for debate.

 

[tooextracool]

Ambrose could hit the seam - as could Harmison - but even more than McGrath his wickets came from pace, bounce, accuracy and terrifying hostility.

I think the more I rewatch some of Ambrose, I tend to think that the comparison in bowling styles to Harmison is quite apt actually. As you said, Mcgrath could and did plenty with the ball, but Ambrose essentially bowled the same irrespective of conditions and relied more on his natural attributes rather than bowling skill.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah. We know he is inconsistent and he has annoyed the coach and selectors. However, when the well is this dry to pick subpar bowlers and ignore him is criminal.

If people want to put him behind Sidebottom, Jones, Flintoff, Hoggard and maybe even Anderson then that can be justified, whether I agree with it or not. However, behind Pattinson and Broad is criminal.

Where Tremlett fits in is up for debate.

The issue with Tremlett is that he was unlucky to have been dropped for Broad ITFP. However, rather than taking wickets by the bucket to respond to this injustice he has gone back to FC cricket and struggled to set the scene alight. I am of the belief that if you cant take wickets in FC cricket, you wont be doing so in test match cricket either. I think he should be in line to play for England ahead of Broad and Pattinson. However, like you i would rather have Harmison ahead of him at this stage simply because at his best he offers the firepower to this England attack that they desperately need.

 

[zaremba]

Have you watched Harmison bowl in cc this season? Im a bit curious about his performances. Obviously, his figures speak for themselves but there is a bit of a question about whether he has made any technical changes to spark this improvement? Admittedly i had lost hope with him after his last performance in SL but it would be good to hear from someone who has actually watched him bowl because after all he did spend a majority of last year taking wickets despite bowling poorly .

Childcare responsibilities prevented me from seeing Harmison bowl in Durham's cc game against Sussex, other than from the brief highlights which are shown on the club's website.

However the universal view from those at the ground was that he was the best fast bowler we had come up against this season.

I've no idea whether he's made any technical adjustments. Oddly when Sky have in the past analysed footage of Harmison-taking-wickets-at-92mph versus Harmison-bowling-dreadfully-at-78mph there seemed to be little or no discernible difference in his action - at least to my eyes.

 

[Uppercut]

I'd have taken Jones. If he breaks down, then he breaks down, but if he's bowling well in cc (and from what ive seen, read and heard, he is), he should play. If not him, then Hoggard, who shouldn't ever have been dropped. But i doubt he has a future in tests, Jones might well do.

 

[GIMH]

Well, paint me as one of the 'I can't believe he got selected' but even the harshest critics will have to admit he bowled quite well yesterday. If the next Test was tomorrow, you'd have to really think about who you'd drop out of him and Broad so he's definitely gone up a few notches. 2/95 off 30 overs in your first Test when a team scored 550-odd - you'd take that. Good on Vaughan for giving him a decent go too. At this stage, I'd back Pattinson to get a second Test even if Sidebottom comes back.

Wouldn't have picked him in the first place, though. I'd suggest Jones will get a go next Test, dropping either Pattinson or Broad.

Yeah, he bowled well yesterday, enjoyed watching him. Got a cracker of a photo of him nearly taking a C&B, will share with CW tonight perhaps

 

[chris.hinton]

Mahmood should not play for England again... he is not good enough

 

[Richard]

Well, paint me as one of the 'I can't believe he got selected' but even the harshest critics will have to admit he bowled quite well yesterday. If the next Test was tomorrow, you'd have to really think about who you'd drop out of him and Broad so he's definitely gone up a few notches. 2/95 off 30 overs in your first Test when a team scored 550-odd - you'd take that. Good on Vaughan for giving him a decent go too. At this stage, I'd back Pattinson to get a second Test even if Sidebottom comes back.

Wouldn't have picked him in the first place, though. I'd suggest Jones will get a go next Test, dropping either Pattinson or Broad.

Would still be most unhappy should he play the next Test. He bowled less-than-dreadfully on the third-day, but still nowhere near well enought to justify the leap of faith he was given.

I'm really hoping Sidebottom is fit for the next Test.

 

[GIMH]

Reckon he will do as he wasn't too far away from playing this game I don't think

 

[Top_Cat]

Would still be most unhappy should he play the next Test. He bowled less-than-dreadfully on the third-day, but still nowhere near well enought to justify the leap of faith he was given.

I'm really hoping Sidebottom is fit for the next Test.

I don't disagree at all. I just reckon Pattinson is at least in with a shot. Would you rather Broad played? If the selectors continue wrapping Jones in cotton-wool, Pattinson has to be in with a chance of retaining his spot ahead of Broad when Sidebottom comes back.