Ashes Bowling attack

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by 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.

My point was really that McGrath's success is based not on periodic spells of being absolutely unplayable (as it was, say with Waqar Younis, and as Shoaib Aktar seemingly wants to be).. but the standard of his ordinary (in the sense of everyday) bowling.

I've no great recollections of Lillee.. but I'm interested in the report that he himself says that "the major change in his carrer was to stop foucusing so much on pace and instead concentrate more on line and length". I'm not overly surprised: I doubt there's bee a bowler in history who has been able to get completely "in the zone" more than a handful of times in a 5 Test series... and we all know that trying to bowl unplayable deliveries when you ain't in the zone is a recipe for disaster.

I don't doubt that there were times when Lillee felt he could do absolutely anything with the ball no matter how fast he delivered it... but so what? It's how well you bowl the vast majority of the time (when you ain't so hot) that seperates the men from the boys.

Same with batting: we all feel priviged to have witnessed the likes of Tendulkar and Lara batting in spells where they can seemingly do things no other batsmen can.. but what marks them out as great is not simply those brief moments (few and far between even in their illustrious careers) but the remarkable standard they maintained (as much through hard work, application and the like as through genius) when they were NOT on fire.

What coach wants a Gower when they could get a Gooch? A Mark WAugh when they could get a Steve Waugh? A Laxman when they could have a Dravid? A Gibbs when they could have a Kallis? Only misguided "fans" want these things.

Same with bowling: the headlines will always be grabbed by the spells of truly sensational stuff... but what coach would want a new Devon Malcolm ahead of a new Angus Fraser? What coach would want a new Waqar Younis over a new McGrath? only wone so desperate as to be praying for miracles!

[Milo]

I'd take a Gower over a Gooch everyday. When they were in the team together (from 1979-92), Gower out-performed Gooch almost every time. Gooch's career excellence is a myth. One brief period of supremacy (1990-93) disguised what was essentially a pretty mediocre Test career.

I don't expect you to believe this because you live in a dream world that likes to put cricketers into little boxes from where they cannot move. McGrath for instance is a multi-faceted bowler with many attributes and the ability to adapt his game at will. You have never come anywhere near close to recognising this. You 'pigeon-hole' (excuse the pun) him, and as LS says somewhere else, actually do him a great injustice as a result.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by 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.

Why would he say the same about Flintoff?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Pete

Why would he say the same about Flintoff?

He wouldn't. No coach would. Flintoff is a manufactured player, a greater testament to the efficacy of modern coaching methods than almost any cricketer alive today.

I'm sure there are contributers to these boards who can confirm exactly where and when Botham's game developed.. and under whom.. but one thing's for sure: he didn't get that bowling action by trial and error... and that organised, very orthodox strokeplay with the bat wasn't arrived at by chance.

OF course.. Botham arrived in Test cricket with an action that worked beautifully for him.. and I doubt any coach in the history of the sport would have suggested he radically restructure it: a coach might have worked with him on minor details.. but the art of coaching starts with recognising what's already there to work with... and by the time Botham hit Test cricket the answer was "an awful lot".

Look at the stats: in his first full year in Test cricket the guy took 66 wickets at 18.19!

Flintoff's as completely different as you could ever want to see: when he started Test cricket he had nothing to offer but strength and an eye for the ball. On the batting side he had to work for several years to really get past first base: he had technical failings (affecting his movement in the crease) that coaches had to work exceedingly hard on to overcome. On the bowling side he could do pretty well nothing: there was no action worthy of the name, no delivery he could be said to have mastery of and nothing but brute strength to work with.

In Flintoff's first FOUR years in Test cricket he managed a total of just 13 wickets.. in his 5th year he finally got around to taking 20 wickets at nearly 50 a piece... and in his 6th year he upped that to 19 at just over 40 a piece (strike rate of 88.1).

What was there to destroy in Flintoff's game? What had the coaches got to lose? There's wasn't anything there to spoil... there really just wasn't anything, period.

Rarely in the history of coachigng has so much been done with so little.. but fair's fair.. from somewhere they have produced a bowler who (in his 7th year) has returned a set of decent figures. Not as good as those Defreitas returned in his best year (38 wickets at 20.39, SR=48.3, econ=2.52).. or as White returned in his best year (22 wickets at 23.18, SR=50.1, Econ=2.77) but decent nonetheless.

I'm impressed.. but let's please give Troy C his due: that's his work!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

He wouldn't. No coach would. Flintoff is a manufactured player, a greater testament to the efficacy of modern coaching methods than almost any cricketer alive today.

I don't see much evidence of a lot of coaching with Flintoff Rachael, even when he was recovering from injury last summer, it was he who mapped his own training programme out, like the much publisised hill running.

Originally Posted by Rachael

I'm sure there are contributers to these boards who can confirm exactly where and when Botham's game developed.. and under whom.

I am one such contibuter, and Botham just seem to arrive, I doubt there was much coaching involved, the guy was a natural, how could you coach a player to take wickets bowling wide half volly's.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Look at the stats: in his first full year in Test cricket the guy took 66 wickets at 18.19!

Proves the guy never had any real coaching to get those stats in his first year.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Flintoff's as completely different as you could ever want to see: when he started Test cricket he had nothing to offer but strength and an eye for the ball. On the batting side he had to work for several years to really get past first base: he had technical failings (affecting his movement in the crease) that coaches had to work exceedingly hard on to overcome.

I disagree with you again Racheael, I am looking at Flintoff a different way, first the selectors must have thought he had a lot to offer, because he got a lot of chances, so had there been any coaching, it was not noticable.
Now his place was in great danger, he was overweight, and this was giving him back problems, which in turn made it impossible for him to bowl effective, but there was still a flicker there that HE would come good, I never doubted it.

So what happened Flintoff with respect Rachael, no coaches-Troy C or anyone got Flintoff back into the top flight, Flintoff himself got himself fit, and that was the key, don't forget Troy C had no contact with Flintoff at this time.
Think of it Rachael with an action like Flintoff has, lets say not classical, how could Troy C or anyone coach him, without ruining him, change his action, you change the essence of Flintoff.

Now Batting, he has learned to take more care, and bat as the situation dictates, some coaching here maybe, but you can't coach a man to have a good eye, and see the ball early.
In fact if you see a ball early, you make a snap decission.

I'm impressed.. but let's please give Troy C his due: that's his work!

I am not being obtuse Rachael, but I say again, Flintoff worked at his own fitness, it is limited that Troy C could have achieved tinkering with his action, all I can thik Troy C could have done, was advise, to bowl a certain way, in differrnt situations.

Originally Posted by Pete

Why would he say the same about Flintoff?

Why would he not?.Why would you think he needs more coaching than Botham?.

Originally Posted by Leafyseadragon

Okay, I think that we would all choose Shoaib's pace & McGrath's control. Thing is the two rarely if ever go together.

With respect I think you are wrong here I can think of walsh, I can think of Marshall, I can think of Ambrose, and more so Garner.
But it did not matter much if players like this sent down the odd bad delivery, batsmen were so intimidated, they hardly ever capitalised, in fact such deliveries often brought wickets.

[Leafy Seadragon]

We obviously define rarely differently. You've named three of the finest bowlers of all time. Unless this calibre of bowler comes along a bit more readily than I'm aware, I'll stick with my original statement. I think of the three Marshall was the one that truly combined pace and control, other than in occasional short destructive spells. Ambrose certainly didn't lack in pace, and had spells when his control was near complete, but I would attribute his success to height, pace and aggression rather than control of the calibre of McGrath. Joel Garner I would have thought was quick, but not in the Shoaib/Marshall/Ambrose school throughout most of his career - ahh if only the speed guns were about back then, what would now be the benchmark?

I guess I did leave one aspect out that Acker I think raised earlier - height. I think it enormously assisted Ambrose and Garner and continues to assist McGrath. To a deree Marshall's lack of height worked for him at times, with the ball skidding through bloody quick from his end whilst Ambrose/Garner/Walsh thundered them down from great height at the other. Walsh I put into the Lillee category. Great bowler, amazing action, increasing control offsetting diminishing pace in his later career. Certainly from what I saw of the West Indian quicks (admittedly limited to test tours in Oz & WI to a lesser degree and WSC), none of them, with the probable exception of Marshall, consistently exhibited the same control that Pigeon does day in day out. That doesn't in any way diminish their bowling - what Ambrose sometimes lacked in control he made up for in spades in aggression

[Beny]

I don't see much evidence of a lot of coaching with Flintoff Rachael,

No Ern, All players go through a massive amount of coaching, especialy bowlers. Guy's don't just walk up one day and start bowling like he does.

Proves the guy never had any real coaching to get those stats in his first year.

No, It just proves that he got the coaching before he started test cricket.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Leafy Seadragon

I'll stick with my original statement. I think of the three Marshall was the one that truly combined pace and control,

Yes I agree over Marshall, but I think we can add Michael Holding to that list, pace and accuracy appart, he was worth money just to watch his run up.

Originally Posted by Leafyseadragon

other than in occasional short destructive spells. Ambrose certainly didn't lack in pace, and had spells when his control was near complete, but I would attribute his success to height, pace and aggression rather than control of the calibre of McGrath.

Yes this is what I was saying really, his aggression was the Key, he would intimidate, and got away with loose deliveries, just because of that.
Glen McGrath has been a bowler on his own I think, he had more pace than most gave him credit for, I have seen him give batsmen the hurry up, but really his abillity to move the ball of the seam, and be accurate 6 deliveries out of 6 for most overs, has been the key to his succsess I think.

Originally Posted by Leafyseadragon

Joel Garner I would have thought was quick,

He never gets talked about like Ambrose, but he was some bowler, but the same goes, he put so much pressure on batsmen, they missed the loose deliveries, and there where some.

Originally Posted by Leafyseadragon

I guess I did leave one aspect out that Acker I think raised earlier - height. I think it enormously assisted Ambrose and Garner and continues to assist McGrath. To a deree Marshall's lack of height worked for him at times, with the ball skidding through bloody quick from his end

Yes Marshall maight have lacked inches, but he could still bowl a good bouncer, sorry if I have mentioned this earlier, but I have vivid memories of Mike Gattings nose.

Originally Posted by Beny 45210

No Ern, All players go through a massive amount of coaching, especialy bowlers. Guy's don't just walk up one day and start bowling like he does.

I know what you are saying Beny, but there is a difference with basic coaching, and tinkering with an established players action.

Originally Posted by Beny

No, It just proves that he got the coaching before he started test cricket.

True, I don't dispute this, what I was saying to Rachael, I doubt coaching had much to do with Flintoffs improvment, he was overwieght, and took on hard work himself, he was on the brink of his England career being ended, but he buckled down, worked hard, and got his reward.
His action is not the best, but he bowls good, and is impoving every year, so for a coach to tinker with a bowler with limited options would be silly, I know what Denis Lillee would have had to say.

[greg]

I hope Kasprowicz plays because i don't think England rate him that highly.His record in county cricket is not that good and he wasn't good enough in 97 so shouldn't cause many problems.Warne and McGrath are a different story though.

[Paoli]

Originally Posted by greg

I hope Kasprowicz plays because i don't think England rate him that highly.His record in county cricket is not that good and he wasn't good enough in 97 so shouldn't cause many problems.Warne and McGrath are a different story though.

County Record not that good? It was his county record that allowed him to leapfrog Lee, Bracken, Williams et al. into the Australian team in late 2003.

In 1997, I seem to recall a 7-37. Don't know how that ain't good enough.