Ashes Bowling attack

[Paoli]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Mmm...Food for thought....I actually believe that Malcolm Marshall and Courtney Walsh are the two best quicks to have ever graced this earth, Marshall in particular...When you look at it that teams visiting West Indies were relieved to see Marshall off, they still had to face Holding, Roberts, Garner, Daniels etc...

But in this day and age how can you go past Glenn McGrath....No body can see him off properly and the only one to do this with ease is MP Vaughan....Can he be the man to tame McGrath in the Ashes???

[Leafy Seadragon]

Acker, I think that as bowlers for their time, the two are comparable. Firstly, let me state that I think that figures only do partial justice to players. The fact that Lillee was the most successful bowler of his time and McGrath is close to the same suggests that both were at the very top of the pile. Lillee and McGrath do different things that many other bowlers have strived to do and very few achieved. They were/are both capable of destroying teams, admittedly generally Lillee was more spectacular in doing so, but Pigeon was no less successful.

If you do look at the figures, I think you have to assume that injury is part and parcel of the game. McGrath rightly doesn't gain credit for the series he missed due to injury. Injury often reflects the strain a bowler's action places on his body, and this was certainly the case in Lillee's early career. Lillee's WSC wickets in supertests I thought totalled high 60's (67 maybe?), which if added to his test total would put him in the low 400's. Their career stats are pretty comparable, with Lillee getting slightly more wickets in his 70 (or 90) tests, but at a higher average. The one difference that stands out for me is that McGrath is doing it longer than Lillee managed (though I accept that this doesn't mae him better at any given point in time)

As for the inference that height contributes to McGrath's success, I agree wholeheartedly. I'm not sure where you're heading with the rest of the height discussion. You could also argue that if Lillee didn't turn his arm so fast, he wouldn't have been as successful, or that is McGrath was shorter, he may have achieved higher rotational speed and greater pace. The discussion regarding computer technology and coaching works both ways. Batsmen are also able to access this information to aid their play against opposition bowlers. You could also debate whether he would have been as successful today in the time of helmets. I don't think the hypotheticals regarding helmets, technology, no balls (another thread) can be robustly analysed. I think it comes down to a review of how the bowlers bowled, the calibre of opposition and assessment of performance, aided (but not driven) by stats

Personally, I would prefer to watch Lillee bowl (and relive my youth) just for sheer excitement. As I stated earlier, as a coach, depending on team balance, I would happily take either. Nah, give me both with Warnie thrown in...

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by 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

Yes but we all know if there is excessive swing, then there is littke danger to the batsmen, so a little less swing controled would be a much better delivery, and I have a lot of time for Andy Roberts.

Originally Posted by Rachael

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.

Better batsmen in those days maybe Rachael,different conditions. You mentioned in an earlier post how boring bowling was becoming, just think how boring it would be if every bowler was a clone of McGrath!

Originally Posted by Rachae

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.

I with respect doubt that Rachael, don't forget player don't just to have to perform, they have to fill stadia, the way Flintoff can, and before him the way Botham - Lillee - and all the great quicks could.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Under Troy Cooley all of the frontline England bowlers bar Flintoff are sacrificing a bit of pace and concentrating on line and length.

Well I hope you are wrong to a big degree, OK I could see Hoggy who has not a lot of pace anyway, NEEDING to be able to bowl line and length, Anderson as litthle coaching as possible, maybe the same as Hoggy, but he has more pace, not like Harmison, but can be near Flintoff, Try C needs to learn him to control that pace.
And Harmison has nothing going for him bar pace, his pace should not be cut at all.
With bowlers like Harmison, Jardine had the right idea, he would place an object a different lengths, mainly just short, and (train) them them to hit that spot, of course I am talking about Harold Larwood, who was able to combine accuracy of line, with pace, and when short he was deadly, without pace Larwood was nothing., I think the same could be said of Harmison.

Originally Posted by Rachael

the top sides will be looking to bring in the firebrands when their youthful exhuberance is tamed, replaced with McGrath-like discipline and craftsmanship.

No Rachael, with respect how would this happen, you can't turn firebrands into McGraths.

Originally Posted by Rachael

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

I agree whatever the pace, this method is needed for slip and gully catches, but the odd delivery is needed streight to get a clean bowl, or an LBW, can't always rely on movment, sone will go to the boundry I know, but some will take wickets.

Originally Posted by Rachael

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

Gosh I hope not, I have seen no evidence, but this would not be coaching, it would be vandelism.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Hoggard's forsaken the quest for unplayable swing in order to find Pollock-like consistency.

lets see if he can do it, I have my doubts.

Originally Posted by Rachael

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.

Well I would doubt if Troy C would dare tamper with Flintoff, at the begining of your post, you cited Andy Roberts giving advice to Hoggy, no doubt good advice.
But I remember an Australian great D Lillee saying to the England camp, Coach Botham, and you will ruin him. anf I think Lillee would say the same over Flintoff, I think even you may agree with that.

Originally Posted by Leafyseadragon

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

I would rather have a mix of the two, but in any case, not being argumentative, but McGrath can't have that long to go, and no replacement on the horizan.
Ambrose and Garner have never been replaced, and I never subscribed to the fact, that Harmison was the New Ambrose, Harmison at his best os nothing like Ambrose IMHO. in time he may be just as effective, but in his own way.

[Milo]

""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).""


Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Rachael, you're at it again. This really is nonsense. If you knew anything about Ambrose's bowling in the 92-93 tour of Australia, how he detroyed Hick's baptism into test cricket in 91 and his brutal detruction of England at Port of Spain - not to forget his destruction of South Africa in 93, you would know that his peak was between 91 and 95 and his clear optimum speed was nothing like 80-85mph. You clearly only remember him from the 2000 tour to England (his last tour), where he was 37 and his knees had given him so much gip for 5 years that he had to discover a new way to bowl. He was still successful, cheap but not as deadly. This was testament to his ability as the best fast bowler of the last 15 years.

Ask Leafy and all the other Australians, Ambrose was at his best when he combined both the accuracy and the brutal pace. They probably still have nightmares about his bowling at Adelaide and Perth in 92-93. I know Allan Border does.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

If your putting in on a spot time after time, more pace is better, or certainly more bounce a la harmisson on a good day. But the question must really be, who is the greatest liability when they arent putting it on a spot ball after ball ?? The guile man or the pace man ?? Harmison when he puts it on the spot time after time which he can do, in theory ( i repeat in theory, before you all write in) on paper he's more of a threat than someone of Mcgraths pace.

Quick note on Jimmy, his natural action is quick and with movement, brilliant. But the way i see it with his action he cant actually see where the ball is going to land. Not brilliant.

[Leafy Seadragon]

Okay, I think that we would all choose Shoaib's pace & McGrath's control. Thing is the two rarely if ever go together. The striving for that extra pace means that you don't have quite the same control. You might be able to put the ball in the same zone, but other than the one or two spells in your life (eg. Lillee/Sydney/WI) you aren't going to do it consistently.

Your question's a little loaded, because the pace man is likely to put the ball on the spot far less often. Both are disastrous on an off-day (eg. Tait 2004 county cricket or med-fast in the slot - both are like Christmas for batsmen). Even McGrath's had bad spells when he's gone for more than four an over, although not many. The big difference is that if the quicks aren't getting the wickets, the opposition are likely to score quick enough to set up winning totals (short-pitched WI bowling at 60 overs a day aside), whereas McGrath normally goes at 2.5 an over. Try winning a test at that rate.

The last point is the one I think that might be most difficult for England to overcome (please note - not impossible if Flintoff et al are in form). Teams don't generally score much quicker than 2.5 an over against Oz. This makes it difficult to score enough runs to win a test in a couple of days (to allow time to bowl them out). Whilst the Oz batting high scoring rate can be a liability on treacherous wickets, in general it ensures that they score fast enough to provide time to bowl out an opposition. This is similar to the problem facing WI opponents in the 80's, although the WI slow over rate was also a factor.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Milo

Ask Leafy and all the other Australians, Ambrose was at his best when he combined both the accuracy and the brutal pace. They probably still have nightmares about his bowling at Adelaide and Perth in 92-93. I know Allan Border does.

I wasn't disputing that there were times when Ambrose, particular in his younger days, bowled entire spells flat out: bowling's a bit like playing tennis.. sometimes you feel that you can get it absolutely perfect each and every time even when you strain every sinew and go for absolutely everything.

No-one's ever going to dispute that bowlers who have the ability, when everything clicks on the right surface and in the right conditions, to be sensationally hostile are (like batsmen who can take attacks apart when completely "in the zone") always going to provide the greatest spectacles in cricket. That much we can all agree on.

Thing is... not even Viv Richards, Tendulkar and Lara can switch on their best game at will, or operate at that level all the time.. and the plain truth of the matter is that the holy grail of modern cricket is not miracle players who are fantastic on their day.. but (as Ambrose became) dependable types who can "do a job" each and every time they walk out to bat or get tossed the ball.

My point with Ambrose is not that he always bowled at 85mph, sacrificing pace for control (albeit with ferocious deliveries thrown in to keep batsmen honest), and playing McGrath-like mind-games with batsmen.. but that this became his stock game, the one that kept him in the wickets between those occasional spells of being very, very hostile indeed.

Of course.. cvoaches are rarely blessed with bowlers of the callibre of Ambrose.. and more commonly they face a choice between the guy whose entire career is going to be dedicated to the ordinary, day to day stuff (at which McGrath excels) but who can hardly ever produce magic... and the guy who can occasionally produce the magic but is pretty **** in between (Waqar Younis being the ultimate example).

Quite simply, games these days are more commonly lost (self-inflicted batting collapses, bowlers going AWOL) than won (through genius).. and that's a thought Ernest hates because it suggests teams will more commonly go for the second rte McGrath than for the second rate Lillee.

[Leafy Seadragon]

Rachael, I'm not sure if it was intentional, but I think that you're downplaying how good McGrath's bowling is. Yes, he puts it on the spot (wherever he chooses that to be), but there's nothing 'ordinary' or 'day-to-day' about his manipulation of the batsman, other perhaps than the fact he does it reliably on a daily basis. Few quicks (med-fast) have ever had this degree of control and used it in the manner that McGrath does. There may not be much flexibility in what he bowls - hey, its ball after ball, off stump moving slowly outside, rising a bit off a length, seaming a little, most balls in or around the CoU. However, he can ply this on any pitch, providing his own form of flexibility and do it better than just about anyone ever has. That to me isn't 'ordinary'. Noone suggesting he's the most exciting cricketer to play the game, but I think that McGrath and 'ordinary' shouldn't be used in the same sentence.

[Beny]

Originally Posted by Ern

But I remember an Australian great D Lillee saying to the England camp, Coach Botham, and you will ruin him. anf I think Lillee would say the same over Flintoff, I think even you may agree with that.

This would be the same Denis Lillee who is now a coach himslef. Who famously says that the major change in his carrer was to stop foucusing so much on pace and instead concentrate more on line and length. The same Lillee who coached McGrath, Gillespie and Kaspa to bowl as they now do???

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Ern
But I remember an Australian great D Lillee saying to the England camp, Coach Botham, and you will ruin him. anf I think Lillee would say the same over Flintoff, I think even you may agree with that.

That's what the man said Beny, and no mistake.

PS

Originally Posted by leafyseadragon

Rachael, I'm not sure if it was intentional, but I think that you're downplaying how good McGrath's bowling is.

I must admit, I doubt that, in Rachael eye McGrath and Pollock are the role model for all up and coming players, I think she was talking an "if" situation, more than a when.