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)

Minor Maggie 12th May 2009 08:09

Well let's hope that Sibo doesn't come back into the team and stop them taking the new ball together!

High Druid Nathan Barley 12th May 2009 11:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer (Post 315398)
It looks as if Anderson and Broad are now the first choice opening pair.

I thought it was Broad and Swann?

Minor Maggie 16th May 2009 22:30

Breaking Opening Partnerships for England post 2006-7 Ashes
 
One of the key's to this summer will be making sure that we make early in roads into the Aussie batting line up. If you look at all the innings post Ashes 2006-7. There have been 4 century opening stands in those 30 games. Number of occasions that a player has taken the first wicket:

Anderson - 16 (20 tests)
Sidebottom - 9 (20 tests)
Harmison - 5 (11 tests)
Flintoff - 4 (7 tests)
Broad - 3 (17 tests)
Tremlett - 2 (3 tests)
Swann - 2 (7 tests)
Panesar - 1 (25 tests)
Plunkett - 1 (3 tests)
Run out - 1 -
Hoggard - 0 ( 5 tests)
Khan - 0 (1 test)
Pattinson - 0 (1 test)
Onions - 0 (2 tests)
Bresnan - 0 (2 tests)

If we can get Ponting in early when the new ball is swinging that will be a big help to us in trying to take 20 Aussie wickets every game.

Wandering Zebra 16th May 2009 23:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minor Maggie (Post 316754)
One of the key's to this summer will be making sure that we make early in roads into the Aussie batting line up. If you look at all the innings post Ashes 2006-7. There have been 4 century opening stands in those 30 games. Number of occasions that a player has taken the first wicket:

Anderson - 16 (20 tests)
Sidebottom - 9 (20 tests)
Harmison - 5 (11 tests)
Flintoff - 4 (7 tests)
Broad - 3 (17 tests)
Tremlett - 2 (3 tests)
Swann - 2 (7 tests)
Panesar - 1 (25 tests)
Plunkett - 1 (3 tests)
Run out - 1 -
Hoggard - 0 ( 5 tests)
Khan - 0 (1 test)
Pattinson - 0 (1 test)
Onions - 0 (2 tests)
Bresnan - 0 (2 tests)

If we can get Ponting in early when the new ball is swinging that will be a big help to us in trying to take 40 Aussie wickets.

Surely we'll need to take 60-100 to have a chance of winning the Ashes. Only 40 and we're likely to lose 3-2 at best.

Minor Maggie 16th May 2009 23:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zebra Kane (Post 316776)
Surely we'll need to take 60-100 to have a chance of winning the Ashes. Only 40 and we're likely to lose 3-2 at best.

Not really too sure what I was typing there. Must have meant to write 20 per game!

1000yardstare 21st May 2009 01:57

Bowlers in Who's Who 2009 listed as fast.

Bresnan, Chambers, Cheetham, Claydon, Collymore, Dernbach, Harmison, SJones, Jordan, Khan, Kirby, Logan, Meaker, Noffke, Plunkett, Saker, Shahzad, Sidebottom, Tahir, Tudor, Westfield, Whelan.

It would say about three of those are fast and the rest fast-medium and a few of them medium fast.

geoff_boycotts_grandmother 21st May 2009 02:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1000yardstare (Post 318173)
Bowlers in Who's Who 2009 listed as fast.

Bresnan, Chambers, Cheetham, Claydon, Collymore, Dernbach, Harmison, SJones, Jordan, Khan, Kirby, Logan, Meaker, Noffke, Plunkett, Saker, Shahzad, Sidebottom, Tahir, Tudor, Westfield, Whelan.

It would say about three of those are fast and the rest fast-medium and a few of them medium fast.

Which 3 are they?

Isn't Collymore more medium-fast than fast-medium these days?

ps Obliquearse!

1000yardstare 21st May 2009 02:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother (Post 318174)
Which 3 are they?

Isn't Collymore more medium-fast than fast-medium these days?

ps Obliquearse!


I would say Harmison, Jones and Meaker are fast although Harmison has admitted he isn't consistently fast and we shouldn't expect him to bowl every ball at 90mph.

Logan would be medium pace and yes Collymore medium fast.

Chin Music 21st May 2009 09:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1000yardstare (Post 318175)
I would say Harmison, Jones and Meaker are fast although Harmison has admitted he isn't consistently fast and we shouldn't expect him to bowl every ball at 90mph.

Logan would be medium pace and yes Collymore medium fast.

Where is Mahmood in that, I think consistently bowling above 90 is definitely fast but really worldwide in tests at the moment only Johnson Steyn and Edwards do that and even so they have spells where they don't bowl that quickly. I think more realistically 88mph seems to be the cut off point where someone's stock ball (as opposed to quickest ball) seems to consistently hurry up players. As stated by yourself not many in that group you could truly call fast and I laugh at some of the categories in playfair. The likes of Robin Martin-Jenkins being Fast Medium in particular.

1000yardstare 21st May 2009 14:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chin Music (Post 318198)
Where is Mahmood in that, I think consistently bowling above 90 is definitely fast but really worldwide in tests at the moment only Johnson Steyn and Edwards do that and even so they have spells where they don't bowl that quickly. I think more realistically 88mph seems to be the cut off point where someone's stock ball (as opposed to quickest ball) seems to consistently hurry up players. As stated by yourself not many in that group you could truly call fast and I laugh at some of the categories in playfair. The likes of Robin Martin-Jenkins being Fast Medium in particular.

Mahmood has himself down as fast-medium so he isn't in that list.

I would agree about the stock ball of fast bowlers would be 88mph which they still would be bowling at after 40 overs. The only bowlers I have seen consistenly bowl at 90 in the prime was Akhtar and Lee and both have had injury problems. In one day matches fast bowlers are more able to bowl at 90+ since they only have 10 overs.

Fast
Lee Akhtar Johnson Tait Sharma Edwards Steyn Harmison Flintoff Fernando Malinga Morkel Bond

Kim 21st May 2009 14:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1000yardstare (Post 318254)
Mahmood has himself down as fast-medium so he isn't in that list.

I would agree about the stock ball of fast bowlers would be 88mph which they still would be bowling at after 40 overs. The only bowlers I have seen consistenly bowl at 90 in the prime was Akhtar and Lee and both have had injury problems. In one day matches fast bowlers are more able to bowl at 90+ since they only have 10 overs.

Fast
Lee Akhtar Johnson Tait Sharma Edwards Steyn Harmison Flintoff Fernando Malinga Morkel Bond

Geraint mentioned on Sky yesterday that Parnell was the fastest bowler hed ever kept to.

Not sure Johnson Sharma Flintoff Fernando or Morkel quite belong on that list

1000yardstare 21st May 2009 14:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kim (Post 318259)
Geraint mentioned on Sky yesterday that Parnell was the fastest bowler hed ever kept to.

Not sure Johnson Sharma Flintoff Fernando or Morkel quite belong on that list

Well it depends on whether a bowler bangs it in the wicket or skids it off the surface so it might seem to Jones that Parnell is faster.

Chin Music 21st May 2009 15:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1000yardstare (Post 318254)
Mahmood has himself down as fast-medium so he isn't in that list.

I would agree about the stock ball of fast bowlers would be 88mph which they still would be bowling at after 40 overs. The only bowlers I have seen consistenly bowl at 90 in the prime was Akhtar and Lee and both have had injury problems. In one day matches fast bowlers are more able to bowl at 90+ since they only have 10 overs.

Fast
Lee Akhtar Johnson Tait Sharma Edwards Steyn Harmison Flintoff Fernando Malinga Morkel Bond

Agreed on that notion about ODI's, Jimmy can get above 90 on rare occasions but does so more often in ODIs. I'm surprised about Mahmood he is crtainly quicker than say Sharma and Flintoff on the list though Sharma is getting progressively quicker and reaches above 150kph (93/94mph) on occasions. Was great to watch him live in Chennai with Khan. Even Tait is a bit suspect for that classification because he lasts about 2 overs bowling express and can then slip below 140 kph (87 or so mph). As the crab states Fernando certainly don't belong on that list as doesn't Harmison most of the time.

1000yardstare 21st May 2009 16:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chin Music (Post 318273)
Agreed on that notion about ODI's, Jimmy can get above 90 on rare occasions but does so more often in ODIs. I'm surprised about Mahmood he is crtainly quicker than say Sharma and Flintoff on the list though Sharma is getting progressively quicker and reaches above 150kph (93/94mph) on occasions. Was great to watch him live in Chennai with Khan. Even Tait is a bit suspect for that classification because he lasts about 2 overs bowling express and can then slip below 140 kph (87 or so mph). As the crab states Fernando certainly don't belong on that list as doesn't Harmison most of the time.

Yes you are right Harmison and Fernando to come off that list and Tait would never last in a Test match.

The Law 21st May 2009 18:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kim (Post 318259)
Geraint mentioned on Sky yesterday that Parnell was the fastest bowler hed ever kept to.

Not sure Johnson Sharma Flintoff Fernando or Morkel quite belong on that list

I think you are mistaken about Johnson, he bowled lightening against South Africa both in Australia and South Africa. Clocked over 150kph several times.

Kim 21st May 2009 18:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Law (Post 318359)
I think you are mistaken about Johnson, he bowled lightening against South Africa both in Australia and South Africa. Clocked over 150kph several times.

Fair enough :thumbsup:

The Law 21st May 2009 19:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kim (Post 318362)
Fair enough :thumbsup:

Tbh, if his form in Australia and South Africa is anything to go by, he will win the Ashes for the Aussies. His most dangerous weapon is the 130kph off cutter that he utilises either as a full ball or a 'slower' bouncer. This shows his pace and cutter in two breathtaking deliveries.

elven highlord 21st May 2009 23:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Law (Post 318370)
Tbh, if his form in Australia and South Africa is anything to go by, he will win the Ashes for the Aussies. His most dangerous weapon is the 130kph off cutter that he utilises either as a full ball or a 'slower' bouncer. This shows his pace and cutter in two breathtaking deliveries.

That ball to Boucher was seriously quick. I'm inclined to agree with you; Johnson decimated South Africa (a stronger batting line up than England's) on a couple of occasions, not only taking wickets but also injuring batsmen. What may limit him, however, is that the pitches this summer will offer him little in the way of pace and bounce, with the possible exception of The Oval. Cardiff I don't know, but the word is it will be dry. Lord's is one of the flattest wickets in the world. Headingley and Edgbaston are moribund surfaces which offer little to pacemen. It will be interesting to see whether Johnson has the skill to prosper on these surfaces.

The Law 22nd May 2009 13:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by elven highlord (Post 318414)
That ball to Boucher was seriously quick. I'm inclined to agree with you; Johnson decimated South Africa (a stronger batting line up than England's) on a couple of occasions, not only taking wickets but also injuring batsmen. What may limit him, however, is that the pitches this summer will offer him little in the way of pace and bounce, with the possible exception of The Oval. Cardiff I don't know, but the word is it will be dry. Lord's is one of the flattest wickets in the world. Headingley and Edgbaston are moribund surfaces which offer little to pacemen. It will be interesting to see whether Johnson has the skill to prosper on these surfaces.

Would agree with all that. On the topic of Lords being flat, reminds me of a few weeks ago when I was trying to explain to a friend how Lords can be both, on a slope, and flat.

geoff_boycotts_grandmother 22nd May 2009 16:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Law (Post 318491)
Would agree with all that. On the topic of Lords being flat, reminds me of a few weeks ago when I was trying to explain to a friend how Lords can be both, on a slope, and flat.

:D


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:43.

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