Cricket 24/7

Cricket 24/7 (http://www.cricket247.org/community/index.php)
-   International Cricket (http://www.cricket247.org/community/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Bowlers and Bowling (http://www.cricket247.org/community/showthread.php?t=5538)

Chin Music 10th January 2009 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother (Post 272926)
Five times in seven tests and once in five ODIs.

It's not just the fact that he's got him, he's often got him after a sustained spell of working him over with some plays and misses from Punter until he's either nicked off or is comprehensively castled. There does look to be so much more from him, he can bowl up to 150kph when he cranks it up and so long as he is managed carfeully and gains strength (he is still blood scrawny) he will be some bowler. In the recent SA/Aus test one of the commentators compared him with Morkel saying how similar they are, but the range of skills that Sharma posesses outranks Morkel even though the later is a tad quicker at the mo.

1000yardstare 1st February 2009 01:14

I thought I would look at the figures of our bowlers in county cricket leaving aside Tests -

109 matches 335 wickets at 25.32 econ 2.81 s/r 54.0 - Sidebottom
53 matches 189 wickets at 25.80 econ 2.93 s/r 46.3 - Anderson
111 matches 395 wickets at 26.59 econ 3.10 s/r 51.3 - Harmison
37 matches 129 wickets at 27.71 econ 3.59 s/r 46.2 - Broad
56 matches 205 wickets at 30.38 econ 2.91 s/r 62.5 - Panesar
172 matches 432 wickets at 33.28 econ 3.00 s/r 66.4 - Swann
43 matches 140 wickets at 33.50 econ 3.52 s/r 57.0 - Rashid

Minor Maggie 1st February 2009 10:36

Who'd have thought that Mr Broad would have the best strike rate? It must be easier to bowl against 2nd division batsmen!

1000yardstare 1st February 2009 15:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minor Maggie (Post 279930)
Who'd have thought that Mr Broad would have the best strike rate? It must be easier to bowl against 2nd division batsmen!

But look at his economy. It seems his ODI bowling in the CC works.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,...-23212,00.html

Great stuff from Thompson.

"From what I saw of the Australian attack the other day, what they bowled was absolute crap.

"Every one of them was terrible," said Thomson, Dennis Lillee's partner in crime during a career that reaped 200 Test scalps at 28.01.

"It looked like South Africa was playing a third-grade club attack. I'm not the only one who thinks that. What I saw the other night was just gun-barrel bowling. There was no creativity.

"The South African wickets are very similar to here, but they'd want to have something up their sleeve because at the moment how are they going to take 20 wickets to win a Test? We took two in 50 overs the other day, so maybe if we bowl 250 overs we'll get 10 wickets."

"You can't pick Shaun Tait, seriously. He runs out of puff in a limited-overs match. No way," Thomson said.

"They better not be taking that refugee from Queensland that plays in Sydney. Nathan Hauritz should be called Nathan Horror. Does he spin the ball? They have to take Jason Krejza, at least he turns the ball. :cheesy:

"Mitchell Johnson looks tired. He's bowling so round-arm at the moment you may as well call him Mitchell Malinga (a reference to Sri Lankan slinger Lasith Malinga)."

Thomson hopes selectors take Tasmanian quick Ben Hilfenhaus and Queensland's Ashley Noffke on tour. :thumbsup:

Nathan Horror
Mitchell Malinga
:D

Chin Music 1st February 2009 16:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by FastBowlersUnion (Post 280086)
But look at his economy. It seems his ODI bowling in the CC works.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,...-23212,00.html

Great stuff from Thompson.

"From what I saw of the Australian attack the other day, what they bowled was absolute crap.

"Every one of them was terrible," said Thomson, Dennis Lillee's partner in crime during a career that reaped 200 Test scalps at 28.01.

"It looked like South Africa was playing a third-grade club attack. I'm not the only one who thinks that. What I saw the other night was just gun-barrel bowling. There was no creativity.

"The South African wickets are very similar to here, but they'd want to have something up their sleeve because at the moment how are they going to take 20 wickets to win a Test? We took two in 50 overs the other day, so maybe if we bowl 250 overs we'll get 10 wickets."

"You can't pick Shaun Tait, seriously. He runs out of puff in a limited-overs match. No way," Thomson said.

"They better not be taking that refugee from Queensland that plays in Sydney. Nathan Hauritz should be called Nathan Horror. Does he spin the ball? They have to take Jason Krejza, at least he turns the ball. :cheesy:

"Mitchell Johnson looks tired. He's bowling so round-arm at the moment you may as well call him Mitchell Malinga (a reference to Sri Lankan slinger Lasith Malinga)."

Thomson hopes selectors take Tasmanian quick Ben Hilfenhaus and Queensland's Ashley Noffke on tour. :thumbsup:

Nathan Horror
Mitchell Malinga
:D

Its a good un no doubt but Thommo is a pot calling the kettle black having a dig at roundarm bowling.

1000yardstare 9th February 2009 00:48

Update on young bowlers 27 and under


30 Tests - 154 wickets at 23.08 econ 3.62 s/r 38.2 - Steyn (25)
11 Tests - 51 wickets at 23.13 econ 3.03 s/r 45.70 - Asif (26)
6 Tests - 19 wickets at 25.26 econ 3.69 s/r 41.00 - Zondeki (26)
18 Tests - 78 wickets at 28.62 econ 2.99 s/r 57.4 - Johnson (27)
14 Tests - 50 wickets at 31.46 econ 3.28 s/r 57.40 - Sreesanth (25)
16 Tests - 67 wickets at 31.55 econ 3.51 s/r 53.90 - Gul (24)
15 Tests - 44 wickets at 31.59 econ 3.12 s/r 60.60 - Sharma (20)
29 Tests - 100 wickets at 32.26 econ 3.28 s/r 58.80 - Pathan (24)
23 Tests - 76 wickets at 32.56 econ 3.56 s/r 54.8 - Taylor (24)
15 Tests - 49 wickets at 33.08 econ 3.68 s/r 53.8 - Morkel (24)
9 Tests - 28 wickets at 33.57 econ 2.98 s/r 67.50 - Patel (25)
28 Tests - 91 wickets at 33.80 econ 3.86 s/r 52.40 - Malinga (25)
31 Tests - 108 wickets at 35.22 econ 3.59 s/r 58.70 - Anderson (26)
37 Tests - 107 wickets at 38.86 econ 3.98 s/r 58.5 - Edwards (26)
13 Tests - 40 wickets at 39.10 econ 4.02 s/r 58.20 - RP Singh (23)
9 Tests - 23 wickets at 39.82 econ 3.57 s/r 66.8 - Plunkett (23)
11 Tests - 31 wickets at 40.67 econ 3.23 s/r 75.5 - Broad (22)
35 Tests - 78 wickets at 41.19 econ 3.23 s/r 76.2 - Mortaza (25)
4 Tests - 10 wickets at 42.30 econ 3.39 s/r 74.7 - Southee (20)
3 Tests - 9 wickets at 46.55 econ 3.13 s/r 89.2 - Siddle (24)
3 Tests - 5 wickets at 60.40 econ 4.37 s/r 82.8 - Tait (25)
2 Tests - 5 wickets at 63.20 econ 3.76 s/r 100.8 - Tanvir (24)

Edwards has played the most Tests, 37, while some have to just wait for an injury. Sharma has come in from nowhere and as they only play 2 fast bowlers in India, Patel, Sreesanth and RP Singh have to just wait. Pakistan on the other hand just don't get to play many Tests so Asif hasn't missed much. Southee is being kept for ODIs instead of Tests and now Franklin is back might have to wait a while.

Taylor has managed to get his average down from 35.14 to 32.56 by taking 8 wickets in the last Test. He does like bowling at home 26.30 to away 40.72.

ODIs
1 ODI - 1 wicket at 13.00 econ 4.33 s/r 18.0 - Siddle (24)
54 ODIs - 83 wickets at 25.24 econ 4.92 s/r 30.7 - Gul (24)
22 ODIs - 38 wickets at 25.28 econ 5.33 s/r 28.4 - Tait (25)
51 ODIs - 76 wickets at 25.56 econ 4.83 s/r 31.7 - Johnson (27)
53 ODIs - 79 wickets at 25.58 econ 4.80 s/r 31.9 - Malinga (25)
91 ODIs - 116 wickets at 25.83 econ 4.74 s/r 32.6 - Maharoof (24)
56 ODIs - 84 wickets at 26.26 econ 4.67 s/r 33.6 - Taylor (24)
29 ODIs - 44 wickets at 27.34 econ 4.93 s/r 33.2 - Tanvir (24)
47 ODIs - 70 wickets at 27.48 econ 5.03 s/r 32.7 - Broad (22)
20 ODIs - 31 wickets at 28.83 econ 5.04 s/r 34.3 - Morkel (24)
25 ODIs - 35 wickets at 28.80 econ 5.29 s/r 32.6 - Steyn (25)
49 ODIs - 60 wickets at 29.48 econ 5.04 s/r 35.0 - Edwards (27)
103 ODIs - 135 wickets at 29.81 econ 4.57 s/r 39.1 - Mortaza (25)
107 ODIs -152 wickets at 29.91 econ 5.25 s/r 34.1 - Pathan (24)
27 ODIs - 40 wickets at 30.32 econ 5.65 s/r 32.1 - Sharma (20)
106 ODIs - 136 wickets at 30.93 econ 4.94 s/r 37.5 - Anderson (26)
41 ODIs - 59 wickets at 31.45 econ 5.78 s/r 32.6 - Sreesanth (25)
41 ODIs - 46 wickets at 31.82 econ 4.81 s/r 39.6 - Patel (25)
47 ODIs - 60 wickets at 32.25 econ 5.36 s/r 36.0 - RP Singh (23)
31 ODIs - 36 wickets at 33.27 econ 4.67 s/r 42.7 - Asif (26)
27 ODIs - 37 wickets at 34.05 econ 5.85 s/r 34.8 - Plunkett (23)
9 ODI - 12 wickets at 34.91 econ 5.48 s/r 38.10 - Hilfenhaus (26)
21 ODIs - 26 wickets at 35.50 econ 5.39 s/r 39.4 - Southee (20)
31 ODIs - 26 wickets at 36.07 econ 4.96 s/r 43.5 - Rampaul (24)
13 ODIs - 11 wickets at 45.81 econ 5.41 s/r 50.7 - Zondeki (26)

Since the batsman picks the bowling powerplays all the bowlers averages and economy have gone up.

1000yardstare 19th February 2009 14:04

Looking at no balls for our bowlers over their career.

74 Tests - 334 no balls - 4.5 per Test - Flintoff
67 Tests - 203 no balls - 3.0 per Test - Hoggard
60 Tests - 116 no balls - 1.9 per Test - Harmison
33 Tests - 17 no balls - 1.9 per Test - Anderson
20 Tests - 8 no balls - 2.5 per Test - Sidebottom
18 Tests - 43 no balls - 2.38 per Test - Jones
12 Test - 7 no balls - 1.71 per Test - Broad

I thought Flintoff was bad but

76 Tests 580 no balls - 7.6 per Test - Lee

He has had to bowl an extra 96.4 overs because of his no balls and that is not counting wides and I wonder who many wickets he has taken off a no ball.

Flintoff and Lee have both worked with Cooley and he hasn't seemed to have found the solution. Commentators who watch the nets say that many bowlers don't bother with getting their foot behind the line in practice and are told by them that they will in a match. Ray Jennings used to make the bowler run around the ground five times for every no ball they bowled in a match. :cheesy:

Then there are the ODIs which I haven't looked at but since the rule came in for a free hit the bowlers seem to have cut down on no balls.

sweatysock 19th February 2009 14:15

maybe they should have the free hit rule in all forms of cricket , including test matches - that should focus their minds!

1000yardstare 22nd February 2009 18:40

Srinath says that India must identify their 3rd seamer and stick with him.

“But it is still musical chairs for the third seamer,” he said. “The longevity and form of Zaheer and Ishant will depend on what quality they get from the third seamer".

They have tried Pathan, Sreesanth, Patel and RP Singh. I think the best would be Munaf Patel.

We haven't even managed to identify our opening bowlers. When Gough and Caddick were our bowlers we couldn't find a permanent number 3 either. Harmison and Hoggard had Simon Jones for about 16 Tests.

In under two years the bowling has changed 17 times and we will be changing for the 18th time in the next Test. We are coming up to the Ashes and it is anyone's guess who the bowlers will be. Then there is a chance the new coach/manager might have a different idea on the selection. It is very unsettling for a bowler not knowing if he is playing or not and unsettling for the team. The longest run with the same bowlers was 6 Tests and even though it was New Zealand (5) and South Africa (1), there were no losses.

Hoggard, Harmison, Plunkett
Sidebottom, Harmison, Plunkett
Sidebottom, Hoggard, Harmison
Sidebottom, Anderson, Tremlett
Sidebottom, Hoggard, Anderson
Sidebottom, Broad, Harmison
Sidebottom, Hoggard, Harmison
Sidebottom, Anderson, Broad
Sidebottom, Anderson, Flintoff
Anderson, Pattinson, Flintoff, Broad
Sidebottom, Anderson, Flintoff
Harmison, Anderson, Flintoff, Broad
Harmison, Anderson, Flintoff
Anderson, Broad, Flintoff
Sidebottom, Flintoff, Harmison, Broad
Sidebottom, Anderson, Broad (cancelled)
Anderson, Flintoff, Harmison, Broad

With Strauss looking like a horses for courses captain it looks like there will be more changes than ever.

1st Test - After being dropped in India, Harmison is picked because of Sabina Park's reputation of a fast wicket and the memory of his last Test here and also 4 late wickets in the warm up game. Turned out it didn't suit him.

2nd Test - Strauss expected a flat wicket so Anderson is picked for reverse swing and Harmison is dropped. Sidebottom comes in and as they expect lots of bowling he can get some more overs under his belt. The match is cancelled.

3rd Test - At the ARG where the wickets were bouncy when they practiced so Harmison back, Sidebottom out because they are looking for some faster bowling so Anderson back. The wicket if flat with an unusual ridge in the middle that bowlers concentrated on more than they should have.

All three times the pitch hasn't been what they expected. You can't guess what the wicket is going to be like before a game has started because it can be anything, the weather can also come into in. If there is rain and the outfield is wet there won't be any reverse swing. I think you need 5 bowlers who all offer something different so whatever the wicket, one or two bowlers will make the best use of it. Forget the horses for courses and the uncertainity among the bowlers. The spare fast bowler should be an injury replacement only.

When it comes playing the 3 tall bowlers together who all can get bounce what is the difference between them? They can all get runs but are hit and miss in that regard. All three are capable of getting the ball down at 90mph. At first glance one would say that Broad hasn't the experience of the other two but just the way he bowled in the 1st Test showed he is on their level.

Two swing, one with a left arm variation, two tall bowlers and a spinner seems to me a better idea than 1 swing, three tall and one spinner.

Chin Music 23rd February 2009 09:16

KYS, would agree with you over India possibly choosing Munaf over the rest, he offers good line and length with a bit of bounce at an OK sort of pace, a stock bowler if you like to the more attacking and pacey Ishant and swing orientated Zaheer. In fact that has the potential to be rather tasty indeed.

As regards England and bowling combinations :cry: I need say nothing more.

1000yardstare 4th March 2009 01:51

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog...d-cricket-team

Someone else agrees that we are going backwards with the chopping and changing of bowlers.

Chin Music 4th March 2009 09:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1000yardstare (Post 293293)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog...d-cricket-team

Someone else agrees that we are going backwards with the chopping and changing of bowlers.

Yeah but part of the problem is that the bowlers who've been picked have gone backwards at an alarming rate. Given what is available I would keep Anderson, Broad and Swann in the side, but it is hard to justify a patently unfit Sidebottom, especially one who doesn't seem to suit those conditions.

Aidan11 4th March 2009 09:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chin Music (Post 293314)
Yeah but part of the problem is that the bowlers who've been picked have gone backwards at an alarming rate. Given what is available I would keep Anderson, Broad and Swann in the side, but it is hard to justify a patently unfit Sidebottom, especially one who doesn't seem to suit those conditions.

Exactly. We need bowlers who can take twenty wickets and the present lot look like Angus Fraser on one of his bad days.

Chin Music 4th March 2009 09:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aidan11 (Post 293323)
Exactly. We need bowlers who can take twenty wickets and the present lot look like Angus Fraser on one of his bad days.

No, they look like Tim Munton on one of his good days.

High Druid Nathan Barley 4th March 2009 10:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1000yardstare (Post 293293)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog...d-cricket-team

Someone else agrees that we are going backwards with the chopping and changing of bowlers.

It's bad enough people referring to themselves in the third person, yet it's even worse when they start using a persona and talking about that in the 3rd person.

Kim 4th March 2009 10:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chin Music (Post 293314)
Yeah but part of the problem is that the bowlers who've been picked have gone backwards at an alarming rate. Given what is available I would keep Anderson, Broad and Swann in the side, but it is hard to justify a patently unfit Sidebottom, especially one who doesn't seem to suit those conditions.

Another part of the problem is we have been giving huige totals away for a long time. Really since the India series in 2007. Its a hot topic two years too late

beefy 4th March 2009 15:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1000yardstare (Post 287795)
Looking at no balls for our bowlers over their career.

74 Tests - 334 no balls - 4.5 per Test - Flintoff
67 Tests - 203 no balls - 3.0 per Test - Hoggard
60 Tests - 116 no balls - 1.9 per Test - Harmison
33 Tests - 17 no balls - 1.9 per Test - Anderson
20 Tests - 8 no balls - 2.5 per Test - Sidebottom
18 Tests - 43 no balls - 2.38 per Test - Jones
12 Test - 7 no balls - 1.71 per Test - Broad

I thought Flintoff was bad but

76 Tests 580 no balls - 7.6 per Test - Lee

He has had to bowl an extra 96.4 overs because of his no balls and that is not counting wides and I wonder who many wickets he has taken off a no ball.
Flintoff and Lee have both worked with Cooley and he hasn't seemed to have found the solution. Commentators who watch the nets say that many bowlers don't bother with getting their foot behind the line in practice and are told by them that they will in a match. Ray Jennings used to make the bowler run around the ground five times for every no ball they bowled in a match. :cheesy:

Then there are the ODIs which I haven't looked at but since the rule came in for a free hit the bowlers seem to have cut down on no balls.

I can think of 5 off the top of my head.

Michelle Fivefer 4th March 2009 16:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksingles (Post 293449)
I can think of 5 off the top of my head.

The funny thing is that the commentators don't always see no-balls as a serious fault. They will wave one away saying it reflects the effort the bowler is putting in, as if the no-ball-free deliveries are somehow inferior. Not if the bowler bowls 2 or 3 in an over, though!

1000yardstare 4th March 2009 17:51

Edwards 257 in 41 Tests 6.2 per Test, not as bad as Lee but worse than Flintoff.

stevieh 4th March 2009 19:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer (Post 293479)
The funny thing is that the commentators don't always see no-balls as a serious fault. They will wave one away saying it reflects the effort the bowler is putting in, as if the no-ball-free deliveries are somehow inferior. Not if the bowler bowls 2 or 3 in an over, though!

That is because when the quick bowler strains to get the extra couple of mph on a particular delivery, it is likely that he will overstretch in the delivery stride and stray beyond the crease.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:44.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org