English Cricket going down hill?

[Rachael]

Surely the point with McGrath is that he hunts for wickets through subtle variations in line and length and by shaping the ball either slightly in or away from the bowler.. all from a virtually identical action.. and in such a way that batsmen sooner or later read the delivery wrong and make a hash of it.. or just get so bamboozled that they end up just giving up the unequal struggle, playing a percentage game of picking a line and basically trusting that they can ride their luck to see out his spell (usually without making any attempt to score) - a largely doomed policy as the batsman ends up losing all timing and touch and form.

I liken it to playing a spinner like Kumble by thrusting a pad down the pitch and hiding the bat behind the pad: it's not getting forward using your feet to get to the pitch of the ball.. it's not getting back and using soft hands to pick the ball off the stumps.. it's just a negative, method based compromise that relies on spectacular concentration and eventually leads to the batsman becoming completely becalmed and therefore to the batsman becoming a liability to himself and his team the moment he tries doing something else to someone else.

Same with Pollock.. but also with all the other truly great seam bowlers: it's not about the dramatic mix of bouncers and yorkers, slower balls, leg cutters and so on that can so effectively tie down batsmen in the ODI game... and which are sometimes the point of last resort on an unresponsive pitch... and it doesn't involve looking for the occasional miracle ball that's damn near unplayable (surely no-one in cricket has ever really mastered consistently sending down stacks of such deliveries).. but it IS what Test bowling is all about - Testing the batsman.

Ernest seems rather averse to acknowledging the above: quality seam bowling, in his book, is about a cruder craft: outright pace backed by basic variation (bouncer, yorker, slower ball rather than subtle changes in the shape of the delivery) and accuracy (meaning absence of width and minimal number of long hops, not the ability to master the subtle variations in line and length that I'm talking about).

I'm quite happy that pace and accuracy can be effective: it worked for Alan Donald and works now for Shoaib Akhtar. I'm quite happy that pace and variety can be effective: it worked for Darren Gough and Chris Cairns, especially in the ODI game. I'm just prepared to acknowledge that as bowlers.. the likes of McGrath and Pollock (with all their wiles and subtleties) are (in the vast majority of situations, and excluding only, perhaps, sub-continental dustbowls) frequently the more effective type of bowler.

McGrath has been a great.. and maybe (though I doubt it) he is in decline.. but the key point remains that even at the height of his game (when he was effective enough to be worth talking about as one of the very greatest seamers EVER).. he wasn't that fast. Saying he's lost his pace is a bit like telling Teddy Sheringham he's lost his pace: you leave yourself open to the retort that "he never had any anyway".

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

McGrath has been a great.. and maybe (though I doubt it) he is in decline.. but the key point remains that even at the height of his game (when he was effective enough to be worth talking about as one of the very greatest seamers EVER).. he wasn't that fast. Saying he's lost his pace is a bit like telling Teddy Sheringham he's lost his pace: you leave yourself open to the retort that "he never had any anyway".

No you are not right Rachael, McGrath did have some pace, and he could be hostile when he wanted, as could Pollock, another player who you think was just a trundler full of deft skills.not true, Pollock in particular loved to bowl short at times, and at the body.

Now your analogy between McGrath and Teddy Sheringham if very flawed, for a start McGrath is a pace bowler, look at his description at cricinfo, he has not got a lot more to offer, other than being accurate, and frustrating to the batsmen.

Sheringham on the other hand, has different skills to offer, and pace as never been one of them, but he can score goals, he can pass the ball with inteligence, he can take a penalty if need be, he can fall back and defend, or he can use the wings.
In other words you can never compare a footballer with a cricketer.

Ern

PS I am not saying there is no role for the likes of McGrath, and Pollock, what I am saying is that they are bound to be less effective as NEW ball opening bowlers, I think they will be missed, unless Australia in particular find another top class F or FM seam bowler, within the next year or so.

Pollock is another matter, he is part of a rag bag team, with a strange coach, but the prospect of playing South Africa in a way is more worrying to me than is Australia.
You can never tell when the PLAYERS will start playng for pride, I think we will win, but South Africa have some good players who can't be underestimated.So unpredictable.

[Rachael]

I believe McGrath has written a book.. might be an auto-biography.. not sure.. but one thing it contains (apparently: haven't read it myself) is the Glen McGrath method for undoing all the great batsmen he has faced. As one commentator put it... in pretty much every single case... the strategy is more or less "bowl with metronomic accuracy on / around the top of off stump". The differences are to do with the subtle variations within the corridor of uncertainty.. not things like bowling at the body!

Sure, McGrath varied his length depending on pitch / conditions / the batsman... basically in search of the line and length that gave the batsman the most to think about in terms of playing / leaving and getting forward / back... and at times that was shorter than a classically "full" length... but for heavans sake: we are talking about pretty much the ultimate "corridor of uncertainty" bowler... hunting for his wickets, yes, but not mucking around with short pitched stuff, yorkers, slower balls and that sort of thing...

Was McGrath ever "hostile"? Not in the sense that Holding was hostile: he was a damn lively prospect when taking the new ball on a wicket with stacks of pace and bounce.. but then almost ANY tallish, fast-medium seam bowler with a high action is going to seem pretty hostile when pitching the ball on a good length in Perth. The point is that McGrath has been successful because he's always induced doubts in the batsman's mind. You can't induce doubts with short pitched bowling: when bowling short you simply telegraph the fact that any shot is going to be (a) optional (as the ball's going to carry the stumps) and (b) played off the back foot.

Pollock's just the same but in spades: like any youngster he lacked the refinement to do the job properly from day 1.. and so may well have resorted to cruder tactics... but as with any seam bowler he was still learning his trade: even Ambrose resorted to a barrage of short stuff before he mastered doing something more constructive. I think this is the big issue that divides us though, Ernest: you seem reluctant to appreciate just how long it takes for a bowler to master his craft... and if anything to prefer the raw bowler who doesn't know any better.

Wasim Akram, Curtley Ambrose, Courtney Walsh and many, many other bowlers have resorted to short pitched bowling in their youth... but that has never been a sign of strength for any of them... more one of desperation: when you haven't mastered the subtleties of doing anything better... it's a crude but dramatic tactic that allows you to do a job for the team.

Some bowlers master their craft earlier than others... and some never do really master their craft. Those who succeed gradually give up the short stuff.. not because they can't manage it any longer.. but because they have graduated to a level of play where they can do better things with the ball. Whereas they once knew no better thing to do.. they have reached the point where they see each ball that drops too short as a delivery wasted.

This has been true of the best of virtually all the top fast and fast-medium bowlers I've ever seen (exception: Waqar Younis): they muck around with "chin music" in their youth.. and then graduate to senior bowler status and start doing something more impressive.. something acknowledged, I belive, by King: see here.

[haseebbutt007]

I Really Think That English Cricket Is On The Downfall . The R Not Producing The Players Of Same Calliber As They Used To Have In Th Past . They Always Play Convensional Cricket. They Do Not Try Some Thing Different . This Is One Of The Reason Of Their Downfall

[Occasional Fan]

I know the opposition may not have been the strongest over the last few months, but it's pretty difficult to square that comment with three series wins in a row and two whitewashes, an expected series win over South Africa this winter and a run against the Aussies next summer which is generally expected to be the closest one for two decades! Conventional? Maybe. Problems with players coming through: certainly - but they're working on that. Downfall? No way, my friend!

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

I know the opposition may not have been the strongest over the last few months, but it's pretty difficult to square that comment with three series wins in a row and two whitewashes, an expected series win over South Africa this winter and a run against the Aussies next summer which is generally expected to be the closest one for two decades! Conventional? Maybe. Problems with players coming through: certainly - but they're working on that. Downfall? No way, my friend!

Well said OF. I would disagree with the players coming through part though - England now have probably the best pool of A team and fringe talent for quite a while, and it compares favourably with most other Test playing nations at the current stage - hence there are quite a few players coming through. When was the last time England had a summer when so many new debutants gave a good account of themselves (Key, Strauss, Bell, and before them, Jones).

Yes, it is always difficult to convert raw skill and ability into consistent Test-standard class, but that difficulty is shared by all countries.

[Occasional Fan]

Absolutely! The Academy could well be a step on England's road back to the top. We're all entitled to our opinions, of course, and Heaven knows some of mine are pretty wild, but talk of England's downfall is just daft, I'm afraid (or extremely premature)!

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by haseebbutt007

I Really Think That English Cricket Is On The Downfall . The R Not Producing The Players Of Same Calliber As They Used To Have In Th Past . They Always Play Convensional Cricket. They Do Not Try Some Thing Different . This Is One Of The Reason Of Their Downfall

Yes, I can really see where your coming from with this - after all England have only won 10 of their last 11 test matchs, a sure sign of decline if ever there was one!

Perhaps you are confusing us with South Africa?

We shall see where England stand in the scheme of things in the coming year!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Kirsty Harris

Yes, I can really see where your coming from with this - after all England have only won 10 of their last 11 test matchs, a sure sign of decline if ever there was one!

Perhaps you are confusing us with South Africa?

We shall see where England stand in the scheme of things in the coming year!

LOL Kirsty, nice to have you back, been working to hard as usual?.

Ern

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by Ernest

LOL Kirsty, nice to have you back, been working to hard as usual?.

Ern

Nice to be back, ernest - yes, been very busy at work, but had a lot of other problems as well!!

Never mind, things are looking up again!!!

Looking forward to Aus v NZ - 1st test starts tonight/tomorrow morning on Sky !! Cricket at last, yeah!!!