Team selection issue

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

Pace is a great weapon if the bowling [is] accurate, just ask the Windies teams of the 80's, IMO they would destroy the current Aussie team.

Lateral movement at pace is a great weapon. It doesn't really matter whether that's a tiny bit of seam movement allied to steepling bounce off full-length deliveries (Ambrose), the ability to swing the ball both ways (Wasim Akram, or Roberts, who could also turn the ball over in his delivery stride to ensure the bowler didn't know what was coming) or a reverse-swinging yorker (classically Waqar, but he's not been the only exponent).

So.. yes... if you can get that lateral movement at 95 mph then it's better than getting that movement at 85 mph. If you could get a quartet to match the best of Ambrose, Andy Roberts, Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis you'd be doing very nicely.

Now take away the lateral movement.... and even bowlers of this pace have had to find something else to do with the ball: straight up and down bowling at their pace did not, and does not, trouble the very best: it's not a matter of accuracy... it's one of guile.

Marshall was, of course, brilliant at bowling when the seam bowlers stood no chance of getting the ball to seam or swing and on slow and low decks where bounce was minimal and the pace off the pitch was indifferent. Sure, he continued to bowl fast... but what set him apart from the rest? Surely it was the sort of guile normally associated with spinners: his mastery of variations like Underwood-style cutters...

What is Shoaib Aktar's finest delivery? Surely it's the superbly disguised slower ball... the one that is as well disguised as any Anil Kumble variation... and arguably the greatest in the history of cricket. Akhtar's mastery of guile transforms him from straight-up-and-down to devastating when Pakistan's pitches (as so often) offer no significant lateral movement.

Take away the mastery of lateral movement from a fast bowler and without a spinner's guile he's no match for a quality medium pace bowler. Forget accuracy.. that's an irrelevence: Flintoff was accurate in the early 1990s (pre 2004) and what good did it do him? He had no more penetration than the medium pace bowlers because he couldn't do anything with the ball. Waqar Younis could actually be a liability against well set, top order batsmen when the ball wasn't swinging or reversing!

If you can get fast bowlers who are masters of lateral movement... play them... otherwise play medium pace bowlers who can get lateral movement: someone like Mohammed Asif.. or like Stuart Clark... or like Matthew Hoggard: now there's a trio who (alongside a great spinner) would grace any Test side. All can be devastating with the new ball (which is when seamers are supposed to win matches) and all can do enough with the old ball to maintain pressure through to the second new ball (which, if a side has a good spinner, is all seamers need to be able to do once the shine is gone).

ps. if you had a choice of an English attack to match the current-form Flintoff, Harmison, Lee and Mahmood... or an attack of Clark, Asif, Hoggard and Warne... which would you pick? I'd go for the medium pace trio and the spinner myself

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Lateral movement at pace is a great weapon. It doesn't really matter whether that's a tiny bit of seam movement allied to steepling bounce off full-length deliveries (Ambrose), the ability to swing the ball both ways (Wasim Akram, or Roberts, who could also turn the ball over in his delivery stride to ensure the bowler didn't know what was coming) or a reverse-swinging yorker (classically Waqar, but he's not been the only exponent).

Agreed, but all of the greats had great control and didnt give runs away.
I'll ask you a question, I bowl medium pace, can swing and seam the ball, reverse it (without knowing how)and have a decent slower ball so why arent I at least playing for my county? Why because I'm not accurate enough! (and lack a yard or two of pace)

Originally Posted by Rachael

ps. if you had a choice of an English attack to match the current-form Flintoff, Harmison, Lee and Mahmood... or an attack of Clark, Asif, Hoggard and Warne... which would you pick? I'd go for the medium pace trio and the spinner myself

Also agreed, but Warne makes a big differance to that attack! Also the pace attack would give away too many runs, especially Lee and Mahmood.

[Ernest]

Hey pc - Don't be lulled by Rachael's clever post, she misleads in a big way, also her comparason with respect to Rachael between Marshall and Underwood is at best astonishing, I have watched both players and it's not IMO an accurare comparason.

Marshall could bowl fast on slow wickets, Ambrose could still get bounce, and Garner probably more.

Notice she picks Flintoff - Lee - Mahmood - Harmison, against Clarke - Asif - Hoggard, and Warne.

Notice how she tags Warne at the end of her list, even so the former four on form would give as good an account of itself than her medium pace attack, WARNE or not.

Notice she did not pick Flintoff - Harmison - Mahmood and Warne, against Hoggard - Asif - Clark and Lee, suddenly the picture has changed - and not one medium pacer in sight .

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Notice how she tags Warne at the end of her list

Forget Warne: stick Panesar or Kumble in and the speedsters still look second best.

I trust that you would not think Lee, Harmison and Mahmood alongside Warne (on the form they have all shown in this Ashes series) would be preferable to (Ashes / most recent form) Hoggard, Asif, Clark and Warne: the medium pace trio have looked far, far superior!

The former trio would waste the new ball, leak runs with the old ball and MIGHT rip through the tail... where the latter would make great use of the new ball, strangle the opposition with the old ball and PERHAPS let the tail last a few more overs.

[Speedboy Salesman]

IMO you can talk about pace and accuracy all day, till the cows come home, till it's 2008, but you need to a mixture IMO, bowlers that are similiar will not trouble anyone, you need a mixture of speed bowlers, and swing bowlers.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Speedboy Salesman

IMO [...] you need a mixture

In a perfect world I guess you'd have a combination like Lillee, Wasim Akram, Macolm Marshall and Murali... but if you decide you need a right-arm over swing bowler and a left arm over new ball swing bowler to take the new ball, a guy who can mix it up a bit to provide genuine threat when the ball is older and a world class spinner... but in the real world you need to just take your best bowlers... with the proviso that you have at least two seamers and at least one spinner.

England briefly flirted with the notion that you needed variety... and lumbered themselves with Mullally on the basis that he was left arm over and Malcolm on the basis that any speed camera capable of working out which direction his deliveries were going in might just find them going there quite quickly.

There's no WAY they were the best available options in English cricket... and for match after match, in conditions demanding they use the new ball and make the batsmen play... the pair of them consistently ensured batsmen only had to play 2-3 balls out of every 6 - a true low point in England's Test history!

Sure... if Mahmood comes good then he should be included... and if Harmison and Jones recover previous form they should also be included... but if the best three seamers in 2009 are clones of Stuart Clark, Mohammed Asif and Matthew Hoggard... the three clones should play!