Ashes Bowling attack

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Leafyseadragon

Ern's seems to be that once a quick has lost the edge off his pace (typically happens around 32/3), he's ready for the scrapheap

No Lsd, I am not saying he is ready for the scrapheap, far from it.
I have repeated in quite a few threads that England this summer will have to see him off, in other words don't take any liberties with him, because hr still is a very good bowler, and so very accurate.
He will be hard to play, that is for sure, but not impossible, that is IMHO an age thing.
When he was younger he could have been more able to force his way through top batsmen, but he is 35, and he must have lost some of that venum, so what I am saying is, England need a plan to see him off, don't take risks, play shots on merit only, and this with a bit of luck as well should work, because he just can't at 35 have the pace to blast good batsmen out.
And if he has aquired more guile, then the batsmen will have to reply with guile, I think players like Thorpe and Strauss are well suited to this role.
No he is not on the scrap heap, yes I imagine he will take wickets, as will Harmison and Flintoff, it's all up in the air really.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Leafy Seadragon

there seems to be a limit range of say 32-38 for most bowlers

... ..
That sounds about right.... boils down to biomechanics though.

One dimensional bowlers like Alan Donald do seem to be overly reliant on pace for effect... especially if (like Gough) they are short (unable to rely on steep bounce from a "stock" delivery). As they age these bowlers become ever more dependent on Warne like guile (mixing up well disguised yorkers, cutters and the like to avoid getting caned). If a bowler of this nature also has a muscular action (Gough, Flintoff, perhaps Botham) they do tend to become less effective relatively early (though the best will inevitably buck that trend).

Of course, the classic fast bowler gets his pace from rhythm and timing.. literally just "letting the ball fly"... and the likes of Imran Khan and Richard Hadlee serve to remind us that their action is much lower impact, is more repeatable, and tends to continue to serve them well right up to their retirement. Where such bowlers are able to rely on natural "lift" froma high action (Caddick, Harmison) it strikes me that there is every chance of a bowler being pretty much at the top of his game right up to the bitter end.

Given these considerations.. I'd say the Aussie most likely to fade early is perhaps Brett Lee (I could see him being past it by 30). Gillespie strikes me as one who's going to last a bit longer because he's so damn canny (master craftsman with his variations) but again I'd bet on him not really lasting the course (early-mid 30s rather than mid-late 30s at a guess). McGrath, however, strikes me as one who'll be pretty damn awesome until injury or retirement finaly do for him... which could be at the end of this summer or 2 years away.

Similar considerations on the English side: Flintoff will surely not last (5 years tops).. but Harmison has everything going for him - could be here for 8-10 more years.

[Beny]

I have repeated in quite a few threads that England this summer will have to see him off, in other words don't take any liberties with him, because hr still is a very good bowler, and so very accurate.

Refer to the post I made which quoted Mark Richardson's view about this.

England need a plan to see him off, don't take risks, play shots on merit only, and this with a bit of luck as well should work, because he just can't at 35 have the pace to blast good batsmen out.

Ern, he never could 'blast' a batsmen out. As far as his pace goes, most of it comes from his action- not from brute strength- so his age wont make much of a difference.

[Leafy Seadragon]

Originally Posted by Ernest

because he just can't at 35 have the pace to blast good batsmen out

But Ern, McGrath never had the pace to blast good (or other) batsmen out. This is probably the main reason that he came on the scene so quietly. He accumulates batsmen (both good and bad) like very few others by outplaying them. I haven't seen any speed gun stuff to suggest that he's slower (or not) than previously, but doubt that it would make much difference - his ability to do what he does on all wickets throughout his career is an indication that speed never was a major weapon in his arsenal.

So, if you are ready to accept that age has not (yet) seriously diminished McGrath, then how does the tag 'aging' apply to the Aussies (other than the fact that everybodt on the planet is 'aging'). Gillespie is in his prime. Warne is a spinner & age (at least until late 30's) is irrelevant or even a bonus in terms of experience. So you must mean Kaspa. Okay, I'll accept that Kaspa may have lost a yard or so at 33. So the Aussie 4th bowler (behind McGrath, Gillespie & Warne) has slowed a yard. Gee, you must rate Kaspa highly (or be a tad desperate?) to make such a big deal out of him losing a yard or two in pace and highlight the 'aging' attack as a focal Aussie weakness in the upcoming Ashes

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Leafy Seadragon

But Ern, McGrath never had the pace to blast good (or other) batsmen out.

You have hit, I believe, on what underpins Ernest's thinking here: he's obsessed with the notion that bowlers get batsmen out.. usually after first working them over... and ideally with the unplayable delivery. Those who get hailed are the Truemans and even the Devon Malcolms of this world... and he merely shakes his head in disbelief when confronted by the success of bowlers like McGrath, Pollock, Fraser, Vaas, Hoggard and Kasprowicz.

Of course... Ernest will say he appreciates "accuracy"... and the pressure that comes with sustained, fear inducing hostility.. but I fear he might have a characteristically northern contempt for the very notion of anything quite so soft as subtlety or "guile".

I think there's something about the very notion of playing mind games and working on mental fragility that sits uneasily with many in this country. Few have a problem championing the muscular and direct sporting stars like Sheerer, Mansell and Flintoff... but many have far greater qualms about according rightful recognition on the subtler performers like Sheringham, Prost and Bicknell.

I don't know if the tabloids reflect the broader mentality or merely pander to it.. but the upshot is the same: a preference for the likes of Stewart over Atherton, Gough over Caddick and so on. Flintoff benefits.. McGrath loses out.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

You have hit, I believe, on what underpins Ernest's thinking here: he's obsessed with the notion that bowlers get batsmen out.. usually after first working them over... and ideally with the unplayable delivery.

History says this works Rachael, I have watched in dismay when players such as Gooch has weathered the pace of the like of Garner and Marshall, yet fall to the inocuous VIV Richard gentle off breaks, but it was pressure that did that, could not play a shot for ages, then take liberties when the pressure is off.

Originally Posted by Rachae

Of course... Ernest will say he appreciates "accuracy"... and the pressure that comes with sustained, fear inducing hostility.. but I fear he might have a characteristically northern contempt for the very notion of anything quite so soft as subtlety or "guile".

Rachael just because we come from Indian Country, does dot mean we don't have guile.
Who did Len Hutton play for, could he have played for YORKSHIRE.
And then there was Mike Atherton who you like to quote, I think he had a little guile, and I think he played for LANCASIRE.
Brian Statham, now he had guile and was accurate, and played for LANCASHIRE, the perfect foil for fred Truman who played for YORKSHIRE.
Oh, and GUS Fraser was one of my favourite players, and more so D Underwood, now say he had no guile.

[

Originally Posted by Rachael

I don't know if the tabloids reflect the broader mentality or merely pander to it.. but the upshot is the same: a preference for the likes of Stewart over Atherton, Gough over Caddick and so on. Flintoff benefits.. McGrath loses out.

LOL Flintoff benefits because he is the worlds best all rounder, this will be disputed, but I mean a batter-bowler all rounder.
I think Rachael, and I am not anti Atherton, (Poor Captain) good player, but Stewart ended his career with the better average I think,
I don't understand the Gough over Caddick, maybe Gough got more wickets when he bowled in the first innings.

[Zainub]

The Australian seamers have easily out bowled Warnie in the last season at least.

[Beny]

History says this works Rachael

Yeah... Until they invented helmets!

What about the likes of Sir Richard Hadlee? And now McGrath... No pace to speak of yet one of the top 3 or four most sucsessful seamers ever.

[Leafy Seadragon]

Yet Warnie was Wisden's world cricketer of the year. Go figure...

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

History says this works Rachael

Ah, an admission: you accept that your are fixated on the notion "that bowlers get batsmen out.. usually after first working them over... and ideally with the unplayable delivery".

There's a big difference, Ernest, between acknowledging the honourable tradition of aggressive fast bowling.. and evaluating all seam bowling in relation to this tradition. The former is not a problem... but you go too far: your obsession with aggression and "getting batsmen out" completely ignores that quite evident fact that the vast majority of wickets in the history of Test cricket have come about through no more than sustained probing and patience.

It's mostly batsmen.. or rather batting indiscretions... that get wickets.

No team is complete without someone who can try and "make things happen": players like Gough and Gillespie who can go through a complete repertoire of deliveries in the hope of inducing a misjudgement... but as ever you focus on the pressure that comes when this is done at pace (as the above two manage) and when the repertoire includes pretty hostile short balls - yet one of the finest exponents of this form of bowling in the entire history of the game was Bedser.

The best bowlers Test concentration more than they Test anything else... and they do that, first and foremost, by giving very few "sighters"... and making the batsmen make tough decisions on each and every delivery: it's that wearing down of the spirit that comes from never being entirely sure of the line and length that induces the lapse... and one of the finest examples of that type of bowler in the entire history of the game of cricket is surely McGrath.

I can see a case that McGrath has been bad for the sport of cricket: he's highlighted, as few have before him, the fact that Test cricket revolves around testing concentration and temperament more than it does wonder-deliveries and great batting. Even when he's exposing poor technique he does so the same way: by showing (through the way he bowls) that he thinks there's a weakness and getting the batsman worrying about it - not though an occasional attempt at a "wonder ball".

It's the relentlessness of McGrath, Pollock and their ilk that gets results... and that's not seriously dependent on pace. It IS seriously dependent on something more than Flintoff-like accuracy though: on subtlety (something Hoggard has finally started mastering, albeit 5 years late, with his efforts to REDUCE the amount of swing he looks for.. recognising that 6 balls in a row with just an inch or so of movement off a perfect line will always be better than 4 balls out of 6 swinging so unpredictably that barely one an over actually gets close to being right).

You know what, I actually agree with you on one thing: the English bowlers are likely to send down more very, very tough deliveries than the Aussie bowlers in this coming Ashes series... but barring miracles they ain't going to even get close to sustaiing the pressure that this Aussie quartet routinely manage - and it's surely the latter that is the holy grail of bowling.