Bowlers and Bowling

[The Law]

Apologies for my ignorance, but what do you mean by 'our bowlers'.

[Minor Maggie]

Originally Posted by The Law

Apologies for my ignorance, but what do you mean by 'our bowlers'.

Sorry it's my mistake when I first read your introduction I was under the impression that you were more of an Indian fan than an England fan. I was interested in your take on the current crop of England bowlers compared to the current Indian bowling line up which is also pretty young (or at least was in the test series against England).

[The Law]

Originally Posted by Minor Maggie

Sorry it's my mistake when I first read your introduction I was under the impression that you were more of an Indian fan than an England fan. I was interested in your take on the current crop of England bowlers compared to the current Indian bowling line up which is also pretty young (or at least was in the test series against England).

Oh, ok. I was wondering whether you meant Lancashire or England, to be honest.

I think that England's number one talent is James Anderson and that the England coaching department should work well to hone in on an action which produces pace, is energy efficient and can prevent him from injury. He is an extremely talented bowler because of his pace, stamina and ability to spearhead an attack. His issue is with accuracy and it is due to his head falling down in the action, I don't believe that it is a problem which can be rectified in under 6 months of coaching because it stems naturally as a result from his full shoulder rotation. It is not necessary to correct his head position, imo; I believe he can overcome this problem with massive amounts of target practice in the nets. Although he has pace, he needs to work like an 80mph bowler (Glenn Mcgrath or Shaun Pollock) who needs accuracy to survive at international level.

Stuart Broad has been pushed in the Test team far too early. He has good natural attributes and is a good ODI bowler, but is a pretty poor Test bowler and did not deserve to be picked for the Test team based on his FC performances. Chris Tremlett is a far better Test bowler, he has accuracy, good pace and bounce. Chris Tremlett has all of the desireable attributes of a third seamer, imo.

Ryan Sidebottom is a superstar, no disputing that, but I think that his returns have flattered him somewhat. He is a workman-like bowler, bowling at 80mph (in Test cricket, he touches the high 80s mph in T20) and getting wickets with his accuracy and inswing. However, he has not done aswell against India and Sri Lanka (the two strongest Test nations he has bowled against) because he is not quite good enough. He lacks the stamina to sustain the pace he can bowl in T20 or ODIs and this should be an area he can work on, he should also look to develop the outswinger (to the right hander) as it can be even more valuable than the inswinger, in Test cricket, against good batsmen. I feel he loses a yard of pace by closing off the front foot from the rest of the bowling action and it could be a reason that he tends to spear the ball very wide of the off stump, but it is a better situation than having too open hips (like I do) which would cause weakness in bowling accurately to right handers without pushing the ball weakly with the wrist.

...and Monty rules!

[Minor Maggie]

Originally Posted by The Law

Oh, ok. I was wondering whether you meant Lancashire or England, to be honest.

I think that England's number one talent is James Anderson and that the England coaching department should work well to hone in on an action which produces pace, is energy efficient and can prevent him from injury. He is an extremely talented bowler because of his pace, stamina and ability to spearhead an attack. His issue is with accuracy and it is due to his head falling down in the action, I don't believe that it is a problem which can be rectified in under 6 months of coaching because it stems naturally as a result from his full shoulder rotation. It is not necessary to correct his head position, imo; I believe he can overcome this problem with massive amounts of target practice in the nets. Although he has pace, he needs to work like an 80mph bowler (Glenn Mcgrath or Shaun Pollock) who needs accuracy to survive at international level.

Stuart Broad has been pushed in the Test team far too early. He has good natural attributes and is a good ODI bowler, but is a pretty poor Test bowler and did not deserve to be picked for the Test team based on his FC performances. Chris Tremlett is a far better Test bowler, he has accuracy, good pace and bounce. Chris Tremlett has all of the desireable attributes of a third seamer, imo.

Ryan Sidebottom is a superstar, no disputing that, but I think that his returns have flattered him somewhat. He is a workman-like bowler, bowling at 80mph (in Test cricket, he touches the high 80s mph in T20) and getting wickets with his accuracy and inswing. However, he has not done aswell against India and Sri Lanka (the two strongest Test nations he has bowled against) because he is not quite good enough. He lacks the stamina to sustain the pace he can bowl in T20 or ODIs and this should be an area he can work on, he should also look to develop the outswinger (to the right hander) as it can be even more valuable than the inswinger, in Test cricket, against good batsmen. I feel he loses a yard of pace by closing off the front foot from the rest of the bowling action and it could be a reason that he tends to spear the ball very wide of the off stump, but it is a better situation than having too open hips (like I do) which would cause weakness in bowling accurately to right handers without pushing the ball weakly with the wrist.

...and Monty rules!

It's always interesting to read a new point of view. Often we can end up going round in circles as we each defend our favourite players as you'll soon find out.

After Cooley remodelled Anderson's action to avoid injury he has gone back to his old action with the help of Shine. He'll always bowl with his head down but I agree he needs to work on his accuracy. I suspect he too often strives for the magic ball and uses too much variation where he should be putting it on a good line and length 6 times an over.

One thing to bear in mind is we don't know what the bowling plans are. I suspect that Anderson was bowling to a plan in the first innnings which went slightly awry. Vaughan was then reluctant to turn to him in the second innings and this allowed NZ to score perhaps more runs than they should have done.

I'd really hope England stick with him and he develops that all important consistency!

[The Law]

Originally Posted by Minor Maggie

Thanks

Originally Posted by Minor Maggie

After Cooley remodelled Anderson's action to avoid injury he has gone back to his old action with the help of Shine. He'll always bowl with his head down but I agree he needs to work on his accuracy. I suspect he too often strives for the magic ball and uses too much variation where he should be putting it on a good line and length 6 times an over.

He has gone back to his old action and it is a sign that Cooley failed to find an action which Jimmy was comfortable in and believed in. I agree he does strive for variation a bit too often, but he is certainly not the worst in that aspect, Sreesanth is (wide of the stumps, close to the stumps, slow run up, fast run up, inswinger, outswinger, I've seen him try it all in one over).

Originally Posted by Minor Maggie

I'd really hope England stick with him and he develops that all important consistency!

Me too. I am afraid that I do not think he'll last too much longer, with his lack of consistency, in this statistics driven generation.

[elven highlord]

Originally Posted by The Law

Oh, ok. I was wondering whether you meant Lancashire or England, to be honest.

I think that England's number one talent is James Anderson and that the England coaching department should work well to hone in on an action which produces pace, is energy efficient and can prevent him from injury. He is an extremely talented bowler because of his pace, stamina and ability to spearhead an attack. His issue is with accuracy and it is due to his head falling down in the action, I don't believe that it is a problem which can be rectified in under 6 months of coaching because it stems naturally as a result from his full shoulder rotation. It is not necessary to correct his head position, imo; I believe he can overcome this problem with massive amounts of target practice in the nets. Although he has pace, he needs to work like an 80mph bowler (Glenn Mcgrath or Shaun Pollock) who needs accuracy to survive at international level.

Stuart Broad has been pushed in the Test team far too early. He has good natural attributes and is a good ODI bowler, but is a pretty poor Test bowler and did not deserve to be picked for the Test team based on his FC performances. Chris Tremlett is a far better Test bowler, he has accuracy, good pace and bounce. Chris Tremlett has all of the desireable attributes of a third seamer, imo.

Ryan Sidebottom is a superstar, no disputing that, but I think that his returns have flattered him somewhat. He is a workman-like bowler, bowling at 80mph (in Test cricket, he touches the high 80s mph in T20) and getting wickets with his accuracy and inswing. However, he has not done aswell against India and Sri Lanka (the two strongest Test nations he has bowled against) because he is not quite good enough. He lacks the stamina to sustain the pace he can bowl in T20 or ODIs and this should be an area he can work on, he should also look to develop the outswinger (to the right hander) as it can be even more valuable than the inswinger, in Test cricket, against good batsmen. I feel he loses a yard of pace by closing off the front foot from the rest of the bowling action and it could be a reason that he tends to spear the ball very wide of the off stump, but it is a better situation than having too open hips (like I do) which would cause weakness in bowling accurately to right handers without pushing the ball weakly with the wrist.

...and Monty rules!

This is excellent, insightful stuff.

I'm particularly interested in your take on Anderson, which would be rubbished by many, but fully explains England's persistance with the player over a few years and several disappointing performances. I fully agree with your assessments of Broad and Sidebottom, very well put.

[The Law]

Thanks. I am not too sure what sparked it, but I have suddenly felt a heightened interest in English cricket, actually being enthralled by the talent on display in County Cricket. Fast bowling (biomechanics especially) has, for a few years, been an interest of mine.

[1000yardstare]

Originally Posted by The Law

Oh, ok. I was wondering whether you meant Lancashire or England, to be honest.

I think that England's number one talent is James Anderson and that the England coaching department should work well to hone in on an action which produces pace, is energy efficient and can prevent him from injury. He is an extremely talented bowler because of his pace, stamina and ability to spearhead an attack. His issue is with accuracy and it is due to his head falling down in the action, I don't believe that it is a problem which can be rectified in under 6 months of coaching because it stems naturally as a result from his full shoulder rotation. It is not necessary to correct his head position, imo; I believe he can overcome this problem with massive amounts of target practice in the nets. Although he has pace, he needs to work like an 80mph bowler (Glenn Mcgrath or Shaun Pollock) who needs accuracy to survive at international level.

Stuart Broad has been pushed in the Test team far too early. He has good natural attributes and is a good ODI bowler, but is a pretty poor Test bowler and did not deserve to be picked for the Test team based on his FC performances. Chris Tremlett is a far better Test bowler, he has accuracy, good pace and bounce. Chris Tremlett has all of the desireable attributes of a third seamer, imo.

Ryan Sidebottom is a superstar, no disputing that, but I think that his returns have flattered him somewhat. He is a workman-like bowler, bowling at 80mph (in Test cricket, he touches the high 80s mph in T20) and getting wickets with his accuracy and inswing. However, he has not done aswell against India and Sri Lanka (the two strongest Test nations he has bowled against) because he is not quite good enough. He lacks the stamina to sustain the pace he can bowl in T20 or ODIs and this should be an area he can work on, he should also look to develop the outswinger (to the right hander) as it can be even more valuable than the inswinger, in Test cricket, against good batsmen. I feel he loses a yard of pace by closing off the front foot from the rest of the bowling action and it could be a reason that he tends to spear the ball very wide of the off stump, but it is a better situation than having too open hips (like I do) which would cause weakness in bowling accurately to right handers without pushing the ball weakly with the wrist.

...and Monty rules!

[Michelle Fivefer]

Originally Posted by Minor Maggie

One thing to bear in mind is we don't know what the bowling plans are. I suspect that Anderson was bowling to a plan in the first innnings which went slightly awry. Vaughan was then reluctant to turn to him in the second innings and this allowed NZ to score perhaps more runs than they should have done.

I'd really hope England stick with him and he develops that all important consistency!

I really don't think that was the case, Maggie. In the second innings Anderson opened the bowling from the Stretford End and bowled 8 overs into the wind straight off. He got the one wicket plus a plumb lbw that was turned down. Meanwhile Sidebottom was taken off after 4 overs and replaced by Panesar. After Anderson's spell, quite long enough in that wind, Broad came on for four overs and had no success, so Sidebottom replaced him, seeing how he would get on at the Stretford End. With Panesar keeping on at the other end and being so successful, then Sidebottom also getting in on the act, Anderson was not needed again. The whole innings lasted less than 42 overs. I don't think there was any reluctance on Vaughan's part because his first spell had been excellent.

I agree with you that he was probably bowling to a plan in the first innings.

Oh, and welcome to the board, The Law.

[1000yardstare]

Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer

I really don't think that was the case, Maggie. In the second innings Anderson opened the bowling from the Stretford End and bowled 8 overs into the wind straight off. He got the one wicket plus a plumb lbw that was turned down. Meanwhile Sidebottom was taken off after 4 overs and replaced by Panesar. After Anderson's spell, quite long enough in that wind, Broad came on for four overs and had no success, so Sidebottom replaced him, seeing how he would get on at the Stretford End. With Panesar keeping on at the other end and being so successful, then Sidebottom also getting in on the act, Anderson was not needed again. The whole innings lasted less than 42 overs. I don't think there was any reluctance on Vaughan's part because his first spell had been excellent.

I agree with you that he was probably bowling to a plan in the first innings.

Oh, and welcome to the board, The Law.

That's the way I saw it as well. It was good practice for them bowling into the wind. I wonder how Panesar would have fared if he had the wind behind him in the first innings?

[Minor Maggie]

Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer

I really don't think that was the case, Maggie. In the second innings Anderson opened the bowling from the Stretford End and bowled 8 overs into the wind straight off. He got the one wicket plus a plumb lbw that was turned down. Meanwhile Sidebottom was taken off after 4 overs and replaced by Panesar. After Anderson's spell, quite long enough in that wind, Broad came on for four overs and had no success, so Sidebottom replaced him, seeing how he would get on at the Stretford End. With Panesar keeping on at the other end and being so successful, then Sidebottom also getting in on the act, Anderson was not needed again. The whole innings lasted less than 42 overs. I don't think there was any reluctance on Vaughan's part because his first spell had been excellent.

I agree with you that he was probably bowling to a plan in the first innings.

Oh, and welcome to the board, The Law.

Whoops I should read my messages more carefully! What I should have said was that on the second morning Vaughan seemed reluctant to bowl him before the new ball. When he did get to ball he cleaned up the tail. We might have conceded fewer runs if he had come on sooner.

[Michelle Fivefer]

Originally Posted by Minor Maggie

Whoops I should read my messages more carefully! What I should have said was that on the second morning Vaughan seemed reluctant to bowl him before the new ball. When he did get to ball he cleaned up the tail. We might have conceded fewer runs if he had come on sooner.

Yes, I'm with you on that one. One or two commentators were beginning to speculate that he had a niggle.

[The Law]

Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer

Yes, I'm with you on that one. One or two commentators were beginning to speculate that he had a niggle.

He may have had slight morning stiffness. His facial expressions and body language suggested such. Obviously cannot be sure though.

[Michelle Fivefer]

Originally Posted by The Law

He may have had slight morning stiffness. His facial expressions and body language suggested such. Obviously cannot be sure though.

His facial expressions and body language more probably suggested "wtf hasn't the captain got me on yet?"

[The Law]

I'm not sure, he had an unusual laxadazical (sp??) expression in his first few overs, just churning them out in the low 80s mph.

[slowest_bowler]

Originally Posted by The Law

I'm not sure, he had an unusual laxadazical (sp??) expression in his first few overs, just churning them out in the low 80s mph.

Lackadaisical I think. But we all understand what you mean .

[1000yardstare]

England bowlers on the honours boards since Fletcher -

Lords
Giddins
Caddick
Gough
Caddick
Anderson
Giles
Harmison
Panesar
Anderson

Old Trafford
Jones
Harmison
Harmison
Panesar
Panesar
Panesar

Oval
White
Harmison
Flintoff

Edgbaston
Caddick
Gough
Hoggard
Giles

Trent Bridge
Tudor
Anderson
Kirtley
Jones
Panesar
Anderson
Sidebottom

Headingley
White
Caddick
Gough

Chester-le-Street
Johnson
Harmison
Hoggard
Sidebottom
Panesar

Panesar just needs Headingley, Edgbaston and the Oval to have the set and Harmison needs Headingley, Edgbaston and Trent Bridge.

Gough, Caddick, Giddins, White, Johnson, and Giles won't have any more chances.

[1000yardstare]

I came across this paragraph in an article by Lillee on fast bowling when sorting out the old Wisdens in the cupboard.

The key ingredient is twitch fibres in the abdominal and oblique muscles. Nature makes these fibres fast or slow, and they determine pace, but they can be quickened with speed work. What we have found through all our research is that contraction through the torso is what gives a bowler speed. You could be built like Schwarzenegger but it doesn't mean you will bowl fast. What you need is strong flexible trunk muscles. If you have slow twitch muscles and a strong trunk you are never going to bowl fast. It is possible for bowlers with slow twitch fibres to succeed but there is a greater fear of them breaking down regularly eg Akhtar, Gillespie, Gilmore.
--

I thought all fast bowlers had fast twitch muscles and was surprised to read that Akhtar and Gillespie have slow twitch muscles.

Gillespie played 52 out of a possible 92 Tests which is still quite a lot.
Injuries included stress fractures, hip twinges, side strains, torn hamstrings, shoulder and groin problems. Akhtar had back, ankle, knee, rib problems and a rib stress fracture, hamstrings etc.

Even bowlers with fast twitch muscles get quite a few injuries as well but then it is hard to tell who has them and who hasn't.

[The Law]

It is not surprising that Gillespie and Akhtar have a high ratio of slow twitch muscles. Notice the unusual nature of both's run ups: Akhtar has to charge in for miles to build speed and Gillespie's bouncing run up seems to be the only way he can run in with pace and rhythm. Interesting that both have issues with a lack of chest drive at times, with Gillespie's in the 2005 Ashes and Akhtars often occuring before he changed his action to pull his chest forward.

I have a lot of time for Dennis Lillee's fast bowling theories because he has done many research projects to back up his thinking.

[1000yardstare]

Originally Posted by The Law

It is not surprising that Gillespie and Akhtar have a high ratio of slow twitch muscles. Notice the unusual nature of both's run ups: Akhtar has to charge in for miles to build speed and Gillespie's bouncing run up seems to be the only way he can run in with pace and rhythm. Interesting that both have issues with a lack of chest drive at times, with Gillespie's in the 2005 Ashes and Akhtars often occuring before he changed his action to pull his chest forward.

I have a lot of time for Dennis Lillee's fast bowling theories because he has done many research projects to back up his thinking.

I think most fast bowlers have worked with him at the MRF Pace Foundation.

I read that when Ganguly and Tendulkar were younger they went there to see if they could become fast bowlers. I guess the answer was no.

.