England odi attack

[cantplaycantalk]

Harmison needs to learn how to bowl in one day games, he doesn't even do it much for Durham, on the +ve side Goughy seems to be teaching the others how to mix up slow balls etc so this series could work as a teaching opportunity for Harmison and Anderson.

[R W S]

Originally Posted by Richard Jenkins

UM can i politely ask why you don't like One day cricket? baseball uses a different bat ball and running area.
Is it a sin to like one day cricket?
Can I have redemption if I promise to watch test as well?
I've always enjoyed pyjama parties anyway.

I'm no Pitch expert (to me pitch is that black tar stuff that dinosaurs get stuck in) but it's a new ground I think, so I guess the ICC will give it time.

I've followed the WI tour and I haven't seen a better ground - fit for the World Cup final in 2007!!

You have to be aware that Rachael promotes a 'ODIs for the over 35s arguement'!! [Hope I haven't misrepresented you RDT!]

Given a choice I'd watch tests, but no choice is currently offered (i doubt the Zim/SL test will last much longer than a couple of ODIs).

In relation to test matches - the last ODI pitch would have made a good test pitch, and although it wasn't an all out for 47/94 it wasn't a 751/5 either!!

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Richard Jenkins

Gough may take wickets with the old ball now his speed is going going gone.
Harmison could open, and giving Freddy the new ball would be interesting, I dion't think he knows what it looks like!!( its round and red skip, where's the skuff marks)

What's up with Gough's speed? In the Natwest Series last year he could bowl over 85mph, now he can't even get over 82.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by cantplaycantalk

Harmison needs to learn how to bowl in one day games, he doesn't even do it much for Durham, on the +ve side Goughy seems to be teaching the others how to mix up slow balls etc so this series could work as a teaching opportunity for Harmison and Anderson.

I'm not sure Harmison should be encouraged to learn from Gough: they are fundamentally very different bowlers... and a guy who gets good bounce off a full length and only really needs to worry about sideways movement might be better off staying away from Gough.

Putting Gough and Anderson together makes sense though: they are both guys who need (and seem to have an aptitude for) an armoury of different deliveries... whose control shows through in well disguised variation rather than metronomic accuracy.

Personally I'd put Read in there with them and get him standing up to Anderson: it might cost Anderson 4-5 mph... but having the batsmen pegged at the crease would mean he could pitch the ball up more... and his variation would enable him to get a lot of balls through to the 'keeper for stumping opportunities - could be a devastating partnership.

Harmison should be focussed exclusively on improving himself as a Test Match new-ball bowler.. and the ODI side should either take him the way he comes... or just leave him out: messing him up by getting him worried about ODI bowling and trying out slower balls, yorkers and the like is surely to be avoided at all costs.

[Pete]

I would like to see Harmison bowl yorkers. They never seem to try and get out crappy tail enders with those deliveries in Tests. They're obsessed with shorter balls and balls that won't even hit the stumps.

[Rachael]

I don't actually mind ODI games guys: the first one in this current series, even though it was short, was OK... and the moment you offer a pitch where the good bowlers can really dominate and the bad bowlers can cost a team a game I think the game becomes interesting.

I've seen a lot of low scoring ODI games I have really enjoyed. Some in South Africa have been great: the batsmen have been really struggling to keep wickets in hand, teams have been all out with several overs to spare and at the end of the game, guys like Pollock were returning 5 wicket hauls at under 3 an over whilst part-timers were getting no-result and going for 4+ an over.

Bottom line: I want to see a batsman looking up, seeing Goughie and thinking "oh ****"... not looking up, seeing Goughie, and thinking "hmmm.. give myself space and cream him over the covers".. or "step across and make sure I clear deep midwicket"... with no thought that the pavillion beckons.

I appreciate that Cricket isn't just about the anticipation of a wicket being taken.. but it is at least in part about that... and it certainly isn't about wickets being given away to catches in the deep off batsmen who've thrown the kitchen sink at a perfectly reasonable delivery that deserved a bit of respect.

All I'm asking for is tracks that ensure batsmen have to work hard to get the ball away and bowlers who work hard can take wickets: cricket, really.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Harmison should be focussed exclusively on improving himself as a Test Match new-ball bowler.. and the ODI side should either take him the way he comes... or just leave him out: messing him up by getting him worried about ODI bowling and trying out slower balls, yorkers and the like is surely to be avoided at all costs.

Rachael

I couldn't agree more with what you're saying here. Makes a change huh? But I do think Harmison needs to add some variation to his repertoire, either a slower ball or a yorker or both. Not for ODI - for Tests. Yorkers at tail enders are often a difficult delivery to deal with, and a useful one to have in your armoury.

But you're right, Harmison needs to concentrate on being a quality Test Strike bowler, I'm not convinced he's ever going to really cut it in ODI's.

Scott

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Hampshire Guy

What's up with Gough's speed? In the Natwest Series last year he could bowl over 85mph, now he can't even get over 82.

Father time is catching up with him,if he carries on much longer his bowling speed in mph will = his age in years.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

I don't think I have read anywhere that these were played on poor pitches.. The fact is that Bowlers need to learn how to bowl on good pitches. I know you believe in a contest between bat and ball, but bowlers need to learn how to get batsman out. I think it's quite dull when bowlers can run up and bowl poor balls that rather than going for four, do too much and end up either being knicked to slip, or played and missed.

FF

I have to say, my opinion tends to follow Rachael on this one.

This is the second pitch they've played on that favours the West Indies and not England. There is a pattern emerging here, that I mentioned in another thread and I find it quite interesting.

On pitches that favour bowlers, England dominate, on pitches that favour batsmen - West Indies dominate. The West Indies prepared pitches initially for the Tests that benefit the bowlers - with the view that this would assist the WI pacemen - that backfired and actually assisted the England bowlers far more. It took them till the 4th Test to prepare a pitch that would favour batsmen, and it was openly admitted by the groundsman and Lara afterwards that, that pitch was prepared with one sole aim - to stop England winning. The West Indies actually realised they could have won that match - is it then any surprise that any pitches being prepared after that game are going to be made to favour the batsmen? The only one since that game that England won was the rather freaky first ODI, where I don't think anyone had any control over how the pitch was prepared.

No surprise then that the good batting pitch in the last two ODI's favoured the West Indies - and which they won. It's going to be interesting to see how the Barbados pitch will be prepared, but I'm pretty sure that if it favours batsmen - the West Indies will come out on top again.

All this does is confirm again that England's strength is in the bowling, and the weakness is in the batting - no problems then knowing which area they need to work on strengthening.

This just confirms Rachael's view that on good batting pitches (that won't favour our bowlers) we may as well just pack out the side with batsmen and play the West Indies at their own game and put such a massive score on the board that its all down to who can score the most runs at the fastest rate, because anything the bowlers do is rather irrelevant.

Scott

[Goatman]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I didn't bother following either of the recent pyjama games... but got the impression that not even an attack of McGrath, Akhtar, Pollock, Harmison and Gillespie could have done much on the pitch on offer.

Strikes me that on these pitches our best bet is actually to just pick our 11 best batsmen and toss up any old rubbish as "bowling": aim to post 400 and see what happens.

My team for the next game we play where the pitch isn't fit to bowl on: Knight, Trescothick (wk), Strauss, Hick, Butcher, Hussain, Vaughan (cpt), Thorpe, Collingwood, Solanki, McGrath

Bowling from Tresco, Butcher, Vaughan, Collingwood, Hick, McGrath (so that even if we don't break 400 the opposition will).

Then again.. how about just walking out in protest at a pitch that's not fit for cricket and demanding that the ICC does something to prevent situations arising in which no bowler on earth stands a cat in hells chance of actualy doing what a quality bowler is supposed to do.

Sorry - very, very fed up with the pyjama game turning into a poor-mans version of baseball.

I'm no fan of limited overs cricket, which is a bit like the highlights without the match if you see what I mean, but I think you have missed one really significant point. If the pitch is so very flat, bowling is made very hard. No swing, reliable bounce and no turn make life a misery. BUT! The spinners can still flight it, the seamers can still seam it, you can still change the pace and you can still cause absolute havoc with a really good yorker. As an examination of ball control, you simply can't beat it. If a couple of bwolers get it right and temporarily stem the flow, thier team will win that pretty obvious. You say Pollock et al couldn't do it? Well, I'm not so sure. I reckon bowlers like Harvey might make a difference on a flat track, for the simple reason that as a medium pacer you have to hit him to get him off the square and he has plenty of variations to make this difficult. OK - he may still be going at 3-4 an over, but that difference may be enough to make a difference. There is some skill there that bowlers should aspire to. I've been netting against the locals for a few weeks now, and I have never seen such a group of batsmen so determined to score off every delivery - they are mainly converted hockey players, which shows. So I've been throwing in cutters and making life hard. I'm learning fast. It seems to be paying off:- took 4 wickets in the practice match on Sunday!