English quicks best: Marsh

[Beny]

English quicks best: Marsh
By Nick Hoult
London
October 21, 2004


The hands say it all. Rodney Marsh has the mitts of a man who knows a thing or two about fast bowlers. So when he said this week that England had the best group of quick bowlers in the world, it was praise indeed.

After having his hands battered for 96 Tests as Australia's wicketkeeper, with most of the damage caused by Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson, Marsh, the director of England's national academy, is not easily impressed.

But the present crop of bowlers has caused him to believe that England could realistically threaten Australia.

"I believe you need at least 10 fast bowlers in a battery if you are to be successful at the highest level, given that it is fast bowlers that win the majority of Test matches," Marsh said.

"(England's) is looking like the best group of fast bowlers in the world. It's high time someone said to Australia, 'Hang on a minute, we reckon we can beat you and put you under pressure'. When that happens we'll find out what is going on in world cricket."

Advertisement

Advertisement
Four of the players to impress Marsh, Jon Lewis, Sajid Mahmood, David Stiff and Liam Plunkett, are on the academy roster this winter. Two of them will go to India to work at Lillee's coaching school in Chennai.

"We've done things a little differently this year," Marsh said. "We've looked again at some of the guys who have not played for England over the past three years but who we believe have a chance of playing in the next World Cup.

"People have said to me that it's terrible that only one in four progresses from the under-19s team to the full England side. But that's bull.

"If you get one player a year, that's great . . . At the moment England have got to the stage whereby the senior team are doing well but they have to because there are guys waiting to take their jobs in the team."

One such player is batsman Kevin Pietersen, who is looking to confirm his belief that he should have been picked for England's trip to South Africa, his homeland.

"I'm disappointed I wasn't picked for South Africa, because I scored 5,500 runs at 54 for Notts," he said. "I've heard that they don't want to take me back to South Africa with all the pressures out there for me.

"I've been brought up in the English way, as my mum is English and my family are very supportive about my decision.

"People have told me I could sell my British passport for millions to youngsters in South Africa because everyone knows the white youngsters aren't getting the opportunity there."

- Telegraph

[Rachael]

I saw this article in the paper edition yesterday morning (here) and was struck by 2 things:

{i} that not even the WI in their prime needed a battery of 10 quicks

and

{ii} the names mentioned were not all the obvious ones:

Originally Posted by Marsh

"Lewis, Saggers, Hoggard, Stiff, Jones, Flintoff, Harmison, Plunkett, Anderson and Mahmood – it is looking like the best group of fast bowlers in the world. They're all of the right age. Harmison and Jones are 25. I've always said ages 25 to 35 are the best years of a fast bowler's life."

Good to see Lewis there.. though no Davies.. but What happened Harrison.. and since when have Stiff, Plunkett and Mahmood (please, he makes TAit look like McGrath) entered the picture? Ahead of Johnson, Kirtley and so on?

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Good to see Lewis there.. though no Davies.. but What happened Harrison.. and since when have Stiff, Plunkett and Mahmood (please, he makes TAit look like McGrath) entered the picture? Ahead of Johnson, Kirtley and so on?

Did you actually see Shaun Tait play for Durham ? (Right then!)

Davies will never get into that list as he's a dibbly-dobbler bowler. No quicker than Eddie Hemmings was.

Stiff is highly rated but seems to have a massive no-ball problem. Plunkett does well for a poor Durham team and Mahmood has potential, that is very obvious.

[Rachael]

My thoughts on the players mentioned are not THAT different to yours, NE... but if this motley crew is the best 10 in world cricket then we really ARE in for a grim time. Take out the Test regulars who can actually comand a place by bowling alone (Harmison, Hoggard) and you are left with a batting all-rounder whose bowling has been revolutionised by Troy C but who (quite aside from needing a limited workload) wouldn't get into a quality attack for his bowling alone.. and guys who've yet to really convince at Test level despite being tried (Anderson, Jones, Saggers), a guy who might be ready but neeeds trying in the ODI arena first (Lewis) and some kids who are so far from the finished article as to be hardly worth mentioning (Stiff, Plunkett, Mahmood.. none of whom, I would guess, are currently ahead of Johnson and Kirtley in the selectors thinking).

If you look at some of the fast bowlers who couldn't command a regular place in the great WI sides of the past.. this hardly contitutes a great well of talent. Maybe everywhere else IS worse off... but I'm not convinced: Pakistan and the WI, for starters, seem to be coming through with new bowlers who are at least as promising as our crew (the difference with the WI side being that there are no more mature 1st team players to lead the way).

Off the top of my head: Edwards, Best, Collins, Lawson, Collymore, Dillon, Sanford, Rampaul, Bravo, Taylor is not a bad pool of 10 for a coach to be working with. Lacks the class of Harmison... and not necessarily MORE promising than our crew.. but a decent long term prospect.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

the best 10 in world cricket then we really ARE in for a grim time.

You do take delight in any knocking any postive comments about England. Why is that? I think Marsh has forgotten more about cricket than you will ever know, and if he thinks that we have potentially the best attack in the world, I think that is a good thing.

Originally Posted by Rachael

batting all-rounder whose bowling has been revolutionised by Troy C but who (quite aside from needing a limited workload) wouldn't get into a quality attack for his bowling alone..

Flintoff, started to show signs of being a good quality Test bowler way before Troy. I admit that he has given him a better focus, but he was bowling in the accuratly in 90's when we toured India three years ago. He would also get into many Test sides as a bowler alone, (possibly with the exception of Australia)

Originally Posted by Rachael

Edwards, Best, Collins, Lawson, Collymore, Dillon, Sanford, Rampaul, Bravo, Taylor is not a bad pool of 10 for a coach to be working with. Lacks the class of Harmison... .

Would you really prefer the WI attack? Really, I wouldn't

[R W S]

For the risk of getting barred, you are agian spouting rubbish.

Are you Scott-W in disguse?!!?!

You do take delight in any knocking any postive comments about England. Why is that?

There is clear pessimism about RDT's comments about England (maybe born of a auditable history of recent failures) - mostly unjustified - but her approach emboldens the likes of Ernie & myself. There are clearly grounds to be very hopeful about our test side. Anyone who says England do not have the best pace attack at the moment is clearly unhinged!

[flanflinger]

shhh...nobody knows...

[Ernest]

If Marsh said that the best age for a pace bowler is between 25 and 35, then I think he is wrong, and I have a lot of time for marsh.

Fact is, after 30 in terms of pace, a fast bowler will start to go on the way down, in particular if pace is his only attribute, and even id a bowler can move the ball which way ever, once they start to lose pace, they are less effective, all IMHO of course.

Look at Gough Caddick and Glen McGrath, they become injury prone, and Pollock not the bowler he once was.

IMHO the likes of Pollock and McGrath are only up there because there are no likely players shouting "pick me", there seems to be a dearth of good pace bowlers at the moment.

Ern

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

You do take delight in any knocking any postive comments about England. Why is that? I think Marsh has forgotten more about cricket than you will ever know, and if he thinks that we have potentially the best attack in the world, I think that is a good thing.

You take my comments entirely the wrong way again: the reason I'm hoping Marsh is wrong is not because I want to knock the England lot... but because I really, realy do hope that the current worldwide paucity of quality attacks is coming to an end. Never in my lifetime has the cupboard been so bare... but with Pakistan and India both making many positive noises about greater strength in depth... and the encouraging signs from the next generation of WI bowlers.. I find Marsh's comments rather dispiriting.

If Marsh was suggesting that we've a pool of players who will, in the next 2-3 years, give us the strength in depth that we had in the days when Tyson was struggling to get a game.. or that the Aussies had when Lillie and Thompson were leading the line (and before SA tours and Packer affected things).. or the WI had with various permutations of Holding, Roberts, Marshall, Garner, Patterson, Walsh, Ambrose and so on... then there would be lots of ground for optimism.. but we're talking a group of players in which only Harmison really stands out.. including an experienced guy in Jones who was dropped for Glamorgan this year and just hasn't been delivering.. a youngster in Anderson who really is a long, long way of deserving mention in the context of great attacks... and people like Saggers and Lewis who have yet to fully convince that they will have a place away from helpful English conditions.

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Flintoff, started to show signs of being a good quality Test bowler way before Troy. I admit that he has given him a better focus, but he was bowling in the accuratly in 90's when we toured India three years ago. He would also get into many Test sides as a bowler alone, (possibly with the exception of Australia)

Um: he started hurling predictable, heavy balls down reasonably accurately and harmlessly a few years back... but without any real sense of purpose (and basically just to try and tie up an end whilst the bowlers were rested / rotated). He's still bowling in fairly limited fashion (and lacking the very basic ability to take the ball the other way) but (very much c/o Troy C) he's finally using the ball more effectively: no substitute for a Gough or Caddick, or a tireless Gus Fraser, and certainly no McGrath or Pollock.. but increasingly useful nonetheless - not a serious long term rival for the quality coming through in Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, the WI and so on though.

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Would you really prefer the WI attack? Really, I wouldn't

I might not take the current WI attack.. principally because Harmison's a class act.. but the article was about strength in depth.. and talks about a pool of 10 players: I listed 10 who would defnitely be top academy candidates if in this country.. all of whom would give the likes of Mahmood a serious run for his money.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

If Marsh was suggesting that we've a pool of players who will, in the next 2-3 years.. but we're talking a group of players in which only Harmison really stands out..

At the moment, but you may notive that Rod Marsh is the director of the Acadmey - he is there to ensure that the potential fast bowlers, he mentions, Mahmood, Stiff, Lewis etc make up the pool of 10. I think he has got it right, it's not about one or two quality players, but a pool of players via-ing for places, if one breaks down then you have a perfect replacment waiting in the wings.

Originally Posted by Rachael

no substitute for a Gough or Caddick, or a tireless Gus Fraser, and certainly no McGrath or Pollock.. but increasingly useful nonetheless -

Flintoff, isn't but he is a different style of bowler, one that many Test teams could do, someone with pace, control and agression. As it is you cannot just see Flintoff for his bowling alone, but if required in India or Pakistan, he could easily open the bowling and give the team room for an extra spinner.