Ashes Bowling attack

[Ernest]

Rachael bowlers do get batsmen out, well exeoptional one do anyway.
Oh yes the unplayable delivery, Imran khan had this type of delivery, he would be bowling normal, goog length just ouside off stump, then an inswinging yorker out of the blue, amd as a rule a good one, was a wicket taking ball.
All the West Indies bowled wicket taking deliveries, a lot of them with short stuff, batsman out at short leg fending of a maiming delivery.

Originally Posted by Rachael

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.

Oh this is old fashioned cricket you are talking about, with bowlers the like of Mike Hendrick or Cris Old and many other of that era, they would put the ball on the spot, until a batsman played a wrong shot.Gus Fraser was another player in the like of Hendrick, but of course he was later.
You could even include Ian Botham in this type of cricket, he often bowled well up, half vollys at times, but batmen had a nibble, and quite often got them selves out.
But all this changed with Lillee and Thompson, followed by the great West Indian attacks, Pakistan has Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis, India had Kapil Dev.
England could never really compete, Ian Botham was the nearest we had, followed by the likes of Graham Dilly, Bob Willies was a wicket hunter with limited succsess.
Of course England have tried to keep up with the west Indies ect, they produced Devon Malcolm, who was a good strike bowler, not great but very good, even if he did not get many wickers in a match, his wickers where in the main good ones.
So then we had the Gough/Caddick era, half way between both attacked (Gough more so), with some succsess, Caddick would plod along, do nothing, then he could produce a devastating spell of "attacking bowling", but was not consistant, as you know he often even struck only in Englands opponants second innings.
So now we have Flintoff, he can bowl wicket taking deliveries (if anyone bothers to take a catch of his bowling, or an umpire at the bowling end is not short sighted), in particular to left handed batsmen, or he can bowl accurate, and batsmen can't score off him, bit old fashioned really, then we have Harmison that takes wickets when on form, Hoggard when conditions are right, is a wicket taking bowler.

Originally Posted by Rachael

no more than sustained probing and patience.

Well who are the bowlers who can do this, say McGrath and Pollock if you like, but they are a dieing breed, and both the wrong side of 30, and Rachael to bowl such a line still requires a bit of pace to induve batsmen to play poorly timed shots.
The days of Brian Statham, Mike Hendrick, Gus Fraser McGrathand Pollock are over.

[Zainub]

Warnie might have got more wickets last season then the Aussies seamers but I thought he didn't bowl as well as the number of wickets he got. I'm not saying he bowled poorly or anything, just saying that in terms of number of unplayable bowls / wicket taking deliveries bowled the Australian seamers probably bowled more. But then, that's just my opinion. It really doesn't matter coming to think of it what's happened in the past, because every day is a new day. Warnie's bowling well again for Hampshire now. So no reason to think he'll not do well in the Ashes.

Its just that having seen McGrath bowl over last winter (sub-continental winter i.e) I just can't see how he will not do well in the Ashes. At the same time whatever I saw of Warnie, without it being bad (far from being bad actually), it wasn't mouth opening or something in the context, just that to me McGrath at this point is the most dangerous fast bowler in the world. Put him against any side, and I just can't see how he will not be successful. He's bowling almost perfectly these days. Doesn't even put a fut wrong. I remember reading figures of his against NZ in one of the tests, he'd bowled something like 17 out of 25 maiden overs in a single day. Now that's remarkable. How can you not crumble under that sort of pressure?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Oh this is old fashioned cricket you are talking about, with bowlers the like of Mike Hendrick or Cris Old and many other of that era, they would put the ball on the spot, until a batsman played a wrong shot.

Hmmmm... that's not really what i'm talking about, Ernest... though I must admit that the most commonly cited failing of young and inexperienced bowlers throughout the length and breadth of Test cricket IS trying to do too much with the ball (they get 5 balls in the right place in a single over and then, instead of finishing with another they try and do something different, get smacked for four and waste all their own good work).

I suspect there ARE times when McGrath and Pollock just aim to land each ball on the spot... but I fear the subtler variations in line and length through which they induce endless questioning over whether to go forward / back or to play / leave area bit more sophisticated than that.

Originally Posted by Ernest

Well who are the bowlers who can do this, say McGrath and Pollock if you like, but they are a dieing breed, and both the wrong side of 30, and Rachael to bowl such a line still requires a bit of pace to induve batsmen to play poorly timed shots.

The days of Brian Statham, Mike Hendrick, Gus Fraser McGrathand Pollock are over.

I think you get this so comprehensively wrong it's really very funny: the great complaint about modern bowlers (and the influence of modern bowling coaches) is that they are interested in producing nothing BUT clones of McGrath and Pollock. Go back a few years and the likes of Trueman and Lindwall were very much your "unplayable delivery" bowlers... trying all the deliveries and constantly hunting for something special (Lindwall in particular was reputed to be able to get the ball moving 12" either way in the right conditions).

Back then out and out pace men were common enough.. with Tyson the supreme exemplar (fastest ever? maybe).. but those days were passing even amid the era of the great WI pace attacks and through Wasim and Waqar (the latter perhaps being the last truly old fashioned bowler that Test cricket will ever see).

McGrath, of course, is the exemplar of the more modern approach... less classical in his action... less interested in extravagent swing.. less keen to fool around with a massive repertoire of variations... more focussed on parsimony and pressure. He's shown the way and now every side is looking to develop it's own McGrath (Sri Lanka reckon they've already unearthed their own).

Before you get shirty about the WI pace attacks not being very "McGrath-like".. bear in mind (a) the WI penchant for getting through the hard times with slightly back of a length, negative bowling intended to restrict strokeplay rather than to take wickets; and {b} the tirades the older players now direct at their indisciplined followers (like Edwards, Best and Lawson) who can't bowl to just one side of a wicket and who constantly release pressure through ill-judged efforts to "make things happen".

Bowling's getting more boring, Ernest (ask Anderson, just the latest of many who could have beena new Lindwall and who will eventually become (so the coaches trust) a new Pollock).

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I suspect there ARE times when McGrath and Pollock just aim to land each ball on the spot... but I fear the subtler variations in line and length through which they induce endless questioning over whether to go forward / back or to play / leave area bit more sophisticated than that.

There are times Rachael when all a bowler can do is land the ball on the spot, slow pitches with no real bounce, do not lend themselves to the more subtle variations of line and length, simply because batsmen have so much time to adjust, and any slower ball will get heaved to the boundry, pitch it up it will be driven, no matter who the bowler.
So this is the worth of of bowlers like McGrath, and taking age ect into account, I will mention Flintoff in the same breath, because he can hit the spot over and over again.

Originally Posted by Rachel

I think you get this so comprehensively wrong it's really very funny: the great complaint about modern bowlers (and the influence of modern bowling coaches) is that they are interested in producing nothing BUT clones of McGrath and Pollock.

I think you are so wrong, I can see attempts to clone the West Indian quicks with Tino Best & Fidel Edwards, you can also see it in Harmison, he is being groomed to be the next Ambrose, Sami is another, he is not short of pace, or so I read.
I have read that Patham can be a bit nippy, I have not seen him, but look at this in the real world.
Australia have never replaced Lillee and Thompson, Lee was the great hope here, did not quite come off, but Australia would really love him to come good.
Devon Malcom was the great pace hope for England, he was OK, took important wickets, but was never considered good enough, bet Fletcher would have loved him opening with Harmison.
Truth is Rachael, coaches don't look for the McGraths and Pollocks of this world, they just happen.
They want players like Lillee, Thommo, Garner,Ambrose,Walsh, Marshall, Holding, players who did produce wicket taking deliveries even on FLAT pitches, I have seen England collapse against these bowlers on every sort of pitch, like it or not Rachael, No matter how good he is, coaches would still perfare a Lilee to a McGrath.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Back then out and out pace men were common enough.. with Tyson the supreme exemplar (fastest ever? maybe).. but those days were passing even amid the era of the great WI pace attacks and through Wasim and Waqar (the latter perhaps being the last truly old fashioned bowler that Test cricket will ever see).

I disagree, first we don't know how fast Tyson was, he was never gunned, same as one of the best fast bowlers ever Harold Larwood, we for the same reason did not know how fast he was.
Out and out pace has not been that common, and in any case pace was used in a different way, Trueman just bowled fast, with the occasional bouncer, he never bowled at the body, with just that in mind.
So out of all the old time bowlers, only one bowler stands out as being a modern type fast bowler in the shape of the West Indies great attacks, they bowled with aggression to intimidate, remember Gattings nose, the only old time player who would do that was Harold Larwood.
Back to todays players, in the crop of up and comeing players, who looks like being the next Glen McGrath, I can't see anyone, not in England, Australia or the West Indies anyway.

Originally Posted by Rachael

McGrath, of course, is the exemplar of the more modern approach.

Who else Rachael, has been succsessful in modern time like McGrath?, when he has gone I can't see anyone like him.

Originally Posted by Rachael

the WI penchant for getting through the hard times with slightly back of a length, negative bowling intended to restrict strokeplay rather than to take wickets.

I don't understand which players you mean, I remember the great West Indian bowlers, bowled short, not just back of a length, that's how they got their wickets, unless I have not understood you here.

Originally Posted by Rachael

the tirades the older players now direct at their indisciplined followers (like Edwards, Best and Lawson) who can't bowl to just one side of a wicket and who constantly release pressure through ill-judged efforts to "make things happen".

Yes but Rachael, that is just how the older players started sheer pace, maybe Best and co, just are not good enough, you seem to want it both ways here.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Bowling's getting more boring, Ernest (ask Anderson, just the latest of many who could have beena new Lindwall and who will eventually become (so the coaches trust) a new Pollock).

Not boring Rachael, just different, well maybe to a point, but look at the Ashes series, and who will be on display there.
McGrath-Warne-Flintoff-Harmison, and Giles will be compared to Warne, these are not boring bowlers, even Hoggard conditions allowing, is far from boring.
Anderson, the England bowler with the most potential (nothing to do with being a Lancastrian)why has he beeen allowed to fall into decay, because Rachael that is what happened to him.
Why has Troy C allowed this to happen?, don't bring on the talent, then bowling will be boring.

[Rachael]

Ernest, it was Andy Roberts, I believe, who told Hoggard to stop trying to get excessive swing (searching for a great wicket taking delivery) and concentrate on getting slight but controllable deviation (forcing the batsmen to think about 6 balls in every over).

In Lindwall's day that advice would have been unthinkable... but Roberts understands that most wickets come through McGrath like pressure not Trueman-like unplayable deliveries.

I'm not going to dispute that bowlers who can manage a lively pace interest coaches. What I'm saying is that these days even those bowlers who CAN manage a lively pace are being taught to emulate McGrath rather than Lindwall or Trueman or Waqar Younis. Pathan alone carries the torch for those whose ideal is a great wrist action and traditional virtues... the rest (however fast they are) are subject to a pretty uniform set of pressures to become McGrath-like (a pressure backed by the bio-mechanics folk, who reckon a classic action puts more pressure on the body that a more restrictive, chest on action).

Under Troy Cooley all of the frontline England bowlers bar Flintoff are sacrificing a bit of pace and concentrating on line and length. The efforts of Wright, Dyson, Fletcher, Woolmer, and all the other coaches are all in the same direction: sacrificing aggression for pressure, finding bowlers who can bowl to a 7-2 field. No surprise, really: with modern, batsmen friendly wickets and modern batsmen so comfortable square of the wicket it's the only way to prevent your side being batted out of the game.

Pace isn't going to disapear, Ernest.. but only those sides which are in truly deperate straights are going to be turning, these days, to young fast bowlers who major in hostility and aggression: the top sides will be looking to bring in the firebrands when their youthful exhuberance is tamed, replaced with McGrath-like discipline and craftsmanship.

In this era of scoring square of the wicket the corridor of uncertainty reigns supreme.

ps. Ps. Isn't the England squad the unltimate illustration? Troy Cooley has got Harmison to stop trying for killer balls and concentrate on full length, lively fast-medium deliveries (in the manner of McGrath, but also of Ambrose, who soon learnt that 80-85mph was his optimum pace). Hoggard's forsaken the quest for unplayable swing in order to find Pollock-like consistency. Both Jones and Anderson are being tamed... and only Flintoff is being encouraged in the other direction.. but principally because he's already got the modern chest on, repeatable action and is actually missing what the others have naturally - craftsmanship.

[Leafy Seadragon]

Ern & Rachael, I think you both have strong arguments for the two extremes of fast bowling (pace V guile). However, I think that you'd both be willing to admit that any team would welcome an exponent or either form were they as good as say Ambrose or McGrath. There's been probably a couple of dozen bowlers throughout history capable of making it happen on just about any wicket (flat, bouncy or whatever). Absolute sheer mindblowing pace or near perfect subtlety are generally going to ensure that these bowlers take wickets regardless, tho' admittedly more when the conditions suit. I'm just dubious about the need to polarise one as better than the other, and I doubt our ability to be able to compare these bowlers across generations (just see earlier threads re comparison of players even in the same team). However, because there has been a few bowlers who showed either forms works (and Lillee early V Lillee late shows both), you can both roll out supporting examples for your arguments.

I would suggest that there have been fewer quick bowlers that have shown guile can be as successful as brute force (although a combination is pretty useful), although there are probably fewer bowlers currently around that can demostrate the power of sheer pace - if only Shoaib could get his act together properly...The two approaches require a different sort of appreciation. Sheer pace can be frightening (helmets & all) and hard to combat for even the best batsmen - an extra 5km an hour around the 155kph mark makes a staggering difference to a player's ability to react. Even the very best batsmen will occasionally get beaten by an inswinging 160kph yorker. And its exciting to watch. So sorry, I disagree with you Rachael when you state that a bowler doesn't get batsmen out - some do, tho' admittedly not always (or possibly often)

However, I think an analysis of McGrath's bowling is fascinating, the subtle variation as he slowly, often ball by ball, draws the batsman further outside the off until the batsman is often playing outside the comfort zone. This is a reworking of the classic 'corridor of uncertainty' because it draws the batsman into the zone slowly rather than confronts him every ball. To survive this approach, the batsman has to be mentally at the top of his game every ball. To score means taking the risks that your judgement is good enough to pick the subtle differences every scoring stroke, although admittedly short pacy bowling also requires risky shots to score. The added benefit of this approach is that it generally restricts scoring - meaning that it may not be boundaries & wickets exciting, but its this highly skilled development and execution of a plan rather than a fly or die requirement to batting. So sorry, I also disagree with you Ernest, that on some pitches all a bowler can do is land it on the spot. McGrath rarely if ever simply 'lands it on the spot', because his spot keeps subtlely moving. His great ability is to hit this moving spot so well.

So ask a commentator and they'll probably tell you they'd prefer a Lillee/Ambrose (= excitement). Ask a coach and they'll take anyone that good, regardless of style. One point swinging it slightly towards the guile rather than speed bowler is the longevity most of them seem to have achieved (although not all & a few speed merchants bucked this trend). So if you asked a coach, they might lean towards a McGrath (provided they've got a long-term contract). Team balance would probably also sway it. If you can't keep the other end tight, McGrath's guile is somewhat blunted, whereas a strike bowler might still get wickets. However, if you can do okay at the other end (aka Gillespie/ Kaspa/ Warne) then, as a coach, give me McGrath every time.

ps. After probably getting everyone off-side, I logically accept that McGrath is possibly (probably?) a better bowler than Lillee, but I grew up in Oz in the 70s (yes Beny & Paoli the 70s really did exist) and Lillee was my hero, so emotionally he's hard to go past as a personal choice

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Leafy Seadragon

Even the very best batsmen will occasionally get beaten by an inswinging 160kph yorker. And its exciting to watch. So sorry, I disagree with you Rachael when you state that a bowler doesn't get batsmen out - some do, tho' admittedly not always (or possibly often)

I'm quite happy to accept that unplayable deliveries DO take wickets.... and that a combination of inswinging yorkers and viscious bouncers can be effective... my contention is merely that in modern Test cricket this kind of aggressive, hostile bowling is getting less affordable by the day... if only for the simple reason that bowling that way on anything but the most helpful track will almost always lead to a side haemorraging runs at a rate no team can really afford.

Ambrose learnt that lesson: he could be as hostile as any bowler of the modern era when conditions suited.. but one he'd learnt his trade he settled for being almost McGrath-like on most pitches (he through in the odd short 90mph delivery when riled, but usually just once or twice in an entire spell.. the rest of the time he looked for steep bounce off a full length off a lively medium pace delivery that he could place exactly in the right place every single ball).

IF we went back to uncovered pitches and lighter bats (and batsmen forgot all this newfangled business of scoring square of the wicket at 4 an over) then I guess Ernest's fantasy world of bowlers focussing on unplayable deliveries would perhaps come to pass.. but I don't see that happening: the trend, worldwide, would seem to be towards more McGrath-like probing than towards the sort of quest for perfection that perhaps characterised the best bowling of Lindwall, Trueman and Waqar Younis.

The fans, of course, live in denial: they notice Warne's extreme turn, not his relentless consistency... they notice Sami's exuberance not Gul's subtlety... they applaud Harbhajan's aggression over Kumble's persistence... but it's older, more mature guys like Kasprowicz, Langveldt, Gillespie, Vaas and Hoggard who appear set to take over the top of the rankings.. not the likes of Sami, Lee, Bond, Edwards, Tait, Mahmood and so on.

Just as when Wasim and Waqar started out.. and as when Curtley and Courtney started out... desperation drives sides to gamble on youthful enthusiasm: those who can are letting coaches tame their charges first!

[acker]

Originally Posted by Leafy Seadragon

ps. After probably getting everyone off-side, I logically accept that McGrath is possibly (probably?) a better bowler than Lillee, but I grew up in Oz in the 70s (yes Beny & Paoli the 70s really did exist) and Lillee was my hero, so emotionally he's hard to go past as a personal choice

I do not accept McGrath is possibly or probably a better bowler than Lillee

Fact 1: Lillee lost 2years to a debilitating back injury at the start of the 1970's
Fact 2: Lillee lost 2years to "World Series Cricket" at the end of the 1970's

Hence Fact 3: Lillee lost 4 years of his most productive playing time in the 1970's.
It has allready been established that if Lillees World Series Cricket wickets (which were against better players than those Thommo & Hoggy were bowling to in the decimated test cricket ranks) were added to his test wickets 355, Dennis would have somewhere between 450 - 500 victims. Considering the lesser frequency and amount of test cricket played back then, I think his bowling achievment's still stand out way in front of McGrath's. I also think McGrath would be one of the first to admit that.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by acker

I do not accept McGrath is possibly or probably a better bowler than Lillee

Lillee might be hailed as "the complete bowler"... and from a purists point of view clearly eclipses the relative banality of McGrath's bowling.. but they are each definitive of their era: I doubt Lillee would do as well these days - McGrath is the man for this era.. perfectly developed for the way the game is now played.

I'm not particularly HAPPY that McGrath's the new exemplar.. but it would simply be wishful thinking to see the situation any other way: with teams becoming over-run with batsmen from the mould of Sehwag and Gilchrist... and the implementation of plans based on video analysis taking over from creative responses on the field... and with bio-mechanics people increasingly calling the shots... Coaches want McGraths not Lillees!

[acker]

Rachael

McGrath's single biggest attribute like Harmison and previously Ambrose, Walsh and Garner is his height.
His secondary attribute is his nagging accuracy.
If he was Lillee's height we would never have heard of him. I believe he is also been invaluably aided by computer technology (having coaches and his personal aide's being able to stream over video footage and computer imagery of individual batsmen to work out individual bowling tactics to suit the opponent).
Lillee used to have to do most of this on his own and in his head.
McGrath can sit down with Damien Flemming and others in what would outwardly appear to be a boardroom "powerpoint" presentation to plot batsmens downfall's.

Lillee at 5 foot 10 and with out expert coaching, technology assistance, and exeptional height. I personally think got by more on ability than McGrath who I think has ability (not as much in my veiw as Lillee) and expert coaching, technology assistance, and exeptional height.