Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

More wickets around in these games.

alfie wrote: I think it is reasonable to assert that high pace and serious spin are often important in those lands. Obviously the pace has to be allied to the skills to deploy it effectively - pace is of course not everything ; but if you don't have at least one or two bowlers capable of delivering at high speed (and/or bounce) you are at a considerable disadvantage in Australia. (The England side of 2010/11 was successful without an extreme speed option , yes : but Tremlett's height was a very significant factor - and that side had an unusually dominant batting lie-up) Look at previous wins in Australia and you think Willis Snow Tyson... I think looking for effective high speed options is a worthy cause with an eye to Ashes tours so will not mark Key down for that intent

Let's just take the Ashes players performance away in Australia since I have been watching cricket (post 1990). I cant comment adequately before this period. If we group players into their pace capabilities and check their performances, does it hold true that extra pace is useful? While it adds subjectivity, I am ignoring the official listing on pace from Cricinfo, I believe many are wrong (I list where this is the case, it goes both ways). Some players (DeFreitas, Lewis, Small) played cricket before my era, so my judgements on their pace could be wrong as it might represent their late periods of their career.

Bowlers capable of bowling spells of sheer pace on a consistent basis - ie 88 to 90 mph plus

Mark Wood
Darren Gough (Listed as Fast Medium, regularly got the ball into the high 80s and low 90s)
Simon Jones (Listed as Fast Medium, topped out on effort spells around 93-94mph)
Steve Finn ( Listed as Fast Medium, was capable of low 90s)
Alex Tudor
Craig White (Listed as Fast Medium/Off break, but on his re-selection in the Fletcher era, he was one of the quickest bowlers in the world. I think he peaked about 95-96mph in one test v WI).
Devon Malcolm
Andrew Flintoff (Fast Medium, regularly went over 90mph)
Martin McCague
Saj Mahmood (Listed as Fast Medium, but he was picked with a terrible FC record on the basis he was capable of easily bowling 90 plus)
Steve Harmison (Listed as Fast Medium on Cricinfo, was always listed Fast in his playing days)
Boyd Rankin (Has been listed as both Fast and Fast Medium in his career, was picked on his pace for the 2013 tour)

163 wickets @ 45.48 per wicket collectively

Fast Medium bowlers who bowled in the latter half of the 80s more consistently, but incapable of 90mph plus sustained

Jake Ball
Tom Curran
Gladstone Small
Stuart Broad (long career so a hard one to judge. Ranged from just under fast to medium fast, so I take the average)
Ben Stokes

78 wickets @ 40 per wicket colectively

Bowlers who typically bowled in the lower half/mid of the 80s throughout their career

Chris Lewis
Dean Headley
Ollie Robinson
Tim Bresnan
Alan Mullaly
Gus Fraser
Chris Tremlett
Jimmy Anderson (included here, could argue up to the 2006/07 Ashes he belongs in the Fast category, but he had a horror tour. His selection here does not benefit my argument)
Andrew Caddick
Craig Overton
Dom Cork
Matthew Hoggard
Chris Woakes

278 wickets @ 33.90 per wicket

The figures speak for themselves. The slower the bowler, the better the results. The "increased pace does well in Australia" thing is a total myth.

alfie wrote:Obviously the pace has to be allied to the skills to deploy it effectively - pace is of course not everything

100% agree, but too often is pace seen as a unique skill, and Rob Key was pretty clear on the fact he sees it as the most important skill that transfers when you elevate to a higher standard. When you look at quick bowlers who have done well from other countries, top is Ambrose. Donald, Steyn, Akram.... these are world class bowlers who also happened to be quick. The idea that we have a player anywhere near this quality in the CC who isnt standing out because the Duke's ball helps them too much, is laughable. If we had someone even fit enough to lace the boots of those bowlers, he'd be annihilating county cricket week in, week out. Why exactly would a dead ball on slower pitches suddenly make them world class? It doesnt... and if they dont stand out, then they still need to learn the skills with the Duke ball.

I find its a bit like trying to find a boxer to compete in a world title fight, and comparing one fighter with no discernable power or speed who has a faultless record of wins, and another who can crush skulls with a single punch, but has an average record with losses to journeymen. You could say that element of power gives the second fighter a punchers chance that the first might not have, but doesn't the worst record signifiy other things? That he has a glass jaw, or no other skills? Given the same opponents the only conclusion regardless of any specific elements to their style is, one is obviously better. There is no reason to believe otherwise.

Key is essentially saying that he wants to tie the first boxers hand behind his back, so the power man can proceed to beat him. Would that be akin to displaying more skill, or have you just changed the rules to make an average fighter seem better? Is it going to make him better against an elite fighter? Not at all. I spent years watching people slag off Mayweather for being slow, having a powder puff right hand.... I also spent 15 years watching elite boxers hitting his shadow. Craft, intelligence, nous..... beats physicality in pretty much all sports not based on one sole physical element (such as Olympic Athletics, which just requires you to run fast).

I take umbrage on the fact that so many people downplay criticial elements of what makes great cricketers. If you bowl 75mph but control the ball on a string, you will beat excellent batsman on any surface. Accuracy, control of the seam, making the batsman play in a way that draws him into a trap.... ok, if you do that at 95mph its even tougher. But if you dont do that at 95mph, its no guarantee for success.

I think it was Mike Atherton who said that you can be an elite test cricketer with 2 out of 3 skills; either pace, extreme accuracy or being able to move the ball. He said only Ambrose in his playing days had all three, and was consequently the best player of his generation. But much as a very quick bowler who swings it miles can be world class without extreme accuracy, so can an extremely accurate medium pacer who can swing it both ways.

alfie wrote:To be fair to Key , it is pretty obvious what he is after is development of bowlers capable of performing well in overseas conditions - notably Australia and India , both not just strong teams at present but also places in which England have hugely struggled in recent years.

I think it is reasonable to assert that high pace and serious spin are often important in those lands.

my problem with it is that only a handful of current or future England bowlers have been bowling with the kookaburra. Anderson, Stokes, Wood, Leach have not featured in any of the kookaburra rounds. Robinson, Potts, Carse, Cook, Hartley, Bashir, Rehan, Atkinson have played once (when they weren't sheltering from the rain and the bad light, of course). Jamie Overton played in 2 for Surrey, but only sent down a total of 30 overs, compared to the 2 part time spinners who each bowled over 60

As I said before, it isn't necessarily a stupid idea, but it is being done stupidly.

sussexpob wrote:

alfie wrote: I think it is reasonable to assert that high pace and serious spin are often important in those lands. Obviously the pace has to be allied to the skills to deploy it effectively - pace is of course not everything ; but if you don't have at least one or two bowlers capable of delivering at high speed (and/or bounce) you are at a considerable disadvantage in Australia. (The England side of 2010/11 was successful without an extreme speed option , yes : but Tremlett's height was a very significant factor - and that side had an unusually dominant batting lie-up) Look at previous wins in Australia and you think Willis Snow Tyson... I think looking for effective high speed options is a worthy cause with an eye to Ashes tours so will not mark Key down for that intent

Let's just take the Ashes players performance away in Australia since I have been watching cricket (post 1990). I cant comment adequately before this period. If we group players into their pace capabilities and check their performances, does it hold true that extra pace is useful? While it adds subjectivity, I am ignoring the official listing on pace from Cricinfo, I believe many are wrong (I list where this is the case, it goes both ways). Some players (DeFreitas, Lewis, Small) played cricket before my era, so my judgements on their pace could be wrong as it might represent their late periods of their career.

Bowlers capable of bowling spells of sheer pace on a consistent basis - ie 88 to 90 mph plus

Mark Wood
Darren Gough (Listed as Fast Medium, regularly got the ball into the high 80s and low 90s)
Simon Jones (Listed as Fast Medium, topped out on effort spells around 93-94mph)
Steve Finn ( Listed as Fast Medium, was capable of low 90s)
Alex Tudor
Craig White (Listed as Fast Medium/Off break, but on his re-selection in the Fletcher era, he was one of the quickest bowlers in the world. I think he peaked about 95-96mph in one test v WI).
Devon Malcolm
Andrew Flintoff (Fast Medium, regularly went over 90mph)
Martin McCague
Saj Mahmood (Listed as Fast Medium, but he was picked with a terrible FC record on the basis he was capable of easily bowling 90 plus)
Steve Harmison (Listed as Fast Medium on Cricinfo, was always listed Fast in his playing days)
Boyd Rankin (Has been listed as both Fast and Fast Medium in his career, was picked on his pace for the 2013 tour)

163 wickets @ 45.48 per wicket collectively

Fast Medium bowlers who bowled in the latter half of the 80s more consistently, but incapable of 90mph plus sustained

Jake Ball
Tom Curran
Gladstone Small
Stuart Broad (long career so a hard one to judge. Ranged from just under fast to medium fast, so I take the average)
Ben Stokes

78 wickets @ 40 per wicket colectively

Bowlers who typically bowled in the lower half/mid of the 80s throughout their career

Chris Lewis
Dean Headley
Ollie Robinson
Tim Bresnan
Alan Mullaly
Gus Fraser
Chris Tremlett
Jimmy Anderson (included here, could argue up to the 2006/07 Ashes he belongs in the Fast category, but he had a horror tour. His selection here does not benefit my argument)
Andrew Caddick
Craig Overton
Dom Cork
Matthew Hoggard
Chris Woakes

278 wickets @ 33.90 per wicket

The figures speak for themselves. The slower the bowler, the better the results. The "increased pace does well in Australia" thing is a total myth.

You cannot be serious ! Generally speaking , the better the bowler , the better the results is a more sensible suggestion. And all those figures you have thrown together prove nothing as they do not take into account different circumstances over thirty odd years , to say nothing of individual fluctuations of form (and pace !) of different bowlers...

To make it clearer , I have never said "increased pace does well in Australia " so you are attacking a non-existent argument. As I thought I made fairly clear the pace has to be allied to skill to be effective. Unfortunately for England those two haven't been married much in recent years on Ashes trips ! Would you seriously suggest having a 90+ bowler of the highest class wouldn't be an asset on a tour ? Of course it isn't everything but you might have noticed that Australian sides (which do rather well at home) tend to have a good proportion of bowlers who send it down rather quickly. Might be something to do with their success , no ? And to save you the trouble , I am well aware that McGrath - of modest speed - was the best of all the Aussie seam bowlers : but that does not prove anything other than that he was a bowler possessed of remarkable skill. Fast medium bowlers can do well anywhere if they are good enough ; but having a few more clicks certainly doesn't hurt when there isn't much doing in terms of movement.

Having a couple of high pace options , even if they are quite good (say - in one's dreams - a fully fit Archer and Wood in form) wouldn't guarantee success in '25. But I reckon it would lift the chances a bit. Not that the next tour is what Key is really on about : surely this is about trying to seed future generations of English bowlers who are better able to perform away from their own home environment ? Is this a bad idea, really ?

I mean , have a go at Key if you like : like DFM , I am less than convinced that this use of the Kookaburra (the original point of this discussion !) is a great solution. But trying to argue that high pace is of no value in Australia is simply nonsense , and detracts from any serious consideration of efforts to enhance the skill sets of English bowlers. Any better ideas on that line would be welcome I am sure !

Maybe the accent on pace is an aftertremor of the Mitchwash. He wasn't consistently accurate. He got reverse swing, but not as reliably as previously, and was dangerous even when he didn't. He was just terrifyingly fast. It was at least arguably the most devastating bowling display in Australian conditions since... bodyline!

Yorkshire are going to have to bowl well. Middlesex just having to chase 158

Durham have declared and set Worcs 458 to win. There will probably be a bit of rain around tomorrow morning, but Worcs have lots of time to chase it down without taking risks and given how easily and quickly Durham scored yesterday, I'm not sanguine that this was a smart declaration. I hope I'm wrong

alfie wrote:You cannot be serious ! Generally speaking , the better the bowler , the better the results is a more sensible suggestion. And all those figures you have thrown together prove nothing as they do not take into account different circumstances over thirty odd years , to say nothing of individual fluctuations of form (and pace !) of different bowlers...

Rob Key essentially argues that a paradox exists in county cricket, whereby success is not dictated by superior skills. In his view, superior skills are represented by players with higher pace irrespective of results, and he pretty much says slower bowlers are useless and wants to see less of it. So we end up with the flat out bizarre conclusion that elite players with more pace have an acute advantage in the game due to their skill set, but are generally outperformed by slower ones. The idea that this difference is skill is negated. So what exactly is it, Rob? Crap bowlers just do better than elite ones, given an inherent disadvantage?

Of course, the answer is slower bowlers operating without sheer pace have to find ways to take wickets. The figures seem to indicate these learned workarounds make better bowlers. Key's answer to this conundrum is to take away a ball that encourages slower bowlers to develop skills over pace, and to use one that makes everyone worse... the fact he justifies this on encouraging skills is moronicly laughable. The Kookaburra does not make a single player better, because it removes the element of seam and swing movement from the game. All it does is make more skilled bowlers worse, and shows pace bowlers who never relied on skill to look better in comparison in the absence of skill being rewarded. Its basically confirmation bias. Change the rules of the game to get more of a conclusion you want.

I totally agree with the above. Better bowlers get better results. The object of the stats attack was to show "better" does not mean quick, it means skillful. Slower bowlers relying on intelligence, seam movement and accuracy are better players than someome spraying it around the wicket at 95mph.

Durhamfootman wrote:Yorkshire are going to have to bowl well. Middlesex just having to chase 158

First result in CC2 this season.

In fact, only Essex have won at all.

Sussex once again in front with time running out to force a result. Any form of partnership, and draw is favourite.

Simpson is looking like a shrew pick up...he's in fire

Arthur Crabtree wrote:

Durhamfootman wrote:Yorkshire are going to have to bowl well. Middlesex just having to chase 158

In fact, only Essex have won at all.

and they've won twice

Durhamfootman wrote:
Durham have declared and set Worcs 458 to win. There will probably be a bit of rain around tomorrow morning, but Worcs have lots of time to chase it down without taking risks and given how easily and quickly Durham scored yesterday, I'm not sanguine that this was a smart declaration. I hope I'm wrong

Durham got a lot of work to do to lose this one.

Durham go second!

A first win under the belt

I'd be surprised if we get any play today at Northampton and completely stunned if we get enough for Northamptonshire to force a win.