Tremlett as an ODI bowler

[Nostromo]

Watching Chris Tremlett bowl, I thought his high action was awkward for most batsmen and he can be difficult to get away. I don't think he has the variety to be a serious contender at Test level if all the regular bowlers are fit and available, but I feel that he is ideally suited for ODIs. I feel that both he and the selectors should look at making him a regular part of England ODI team. Also, at 26, he will have more years left as an ODI bowler than in the longer version of the game.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Nostromo

I don't think he has the variety to be a serious contender at Test level if all the regular bowlers are fit and available, but I feel that he is ideally suited for ODIs.

Is this a typo? Last time I checked... Test bowling was basically about consistency on/around the top of off stump (with the emphasis on keeping the pressure up by limiting loose deliveries)... whereas those same bowlers needed variations in ODI cricket as specialist ODI batsmen are supposedly inclined to get after anyone "predictable".

If Tremlett can bowl consistently on the top of off stump... in the manner of everyone from Statham and Fraser through Hadlee to Caddick, Ambrose and McGrath... then I see no problem with him having a successful Test career.

If Tremlett wants a successful ODI career he might, instead, need to take a look at the exemplary ODI variations of Joel Garner, Wasim Akram, Darren Gough, Shoaib Akhtar: greats of the ODI game and renowned for mixing in things like yorkers, bouncers, cutters and slower balls (none of which should trouble a Boycott-like Test batsman with good footwork and technique and a focus on defense, but all of which have proven remarkably effective, over the years, at undoing attacking ODI specialists looking to score off every ball).

[Nostromo]

What I mean was that if guys like Hoggard and Harmison - both of whom have shrugged off ODIs - are fir and available along with Flintoff, Tremlett would have to join a long queue of other wannabees for a place in the test XI. He is no spring chicken at 26 and very tall guys are more vulnerable to back problems, which in turn are more likely in those playing the longer version of the game.

IMO, Tremlett has a better chance of being a regular in the England ODI side.

[Rachael]

Right now, I'd say Chris Tremlett has a brighter future as a Test bowler than one Andy Flintoff: sure, Flintoff would walk back into the side if he could shoulder a full bowling workload... but if the side is going to be based on three seamers and a spinner.... I'd be inclined to go with Tremlett (offering 20-30 overs a day) rather than with a delicate Flintoff who is perhaps limited to 12-15 overs / day.

Tremlett vs. Harmison is tougher... but Harmison must now realise that he's not the only option for pace and bounce... and that if he carries on serving up the sort of dross he's been associated with, on and off, pretty much ever since that flattering return at Sabina Park.... Tremlett will have his spot.

I'd not be averse to seeing Hoggard, Sidebottom and Tremlett as England's first choice seamers for the next couple of years... especially with Anderson next in line any time there's an injury.

[greg]

I think it goes without saying that Tremlett is a better long term bet than Flintoff as a bowler simply due to the injury record of Flintoff but there is surely space for both of them in the squad for a while.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Tremlett vs. Harmison is tougher... but Harmison must now realise that he's not the only option for pace and bounce...
.... Tremlett will have his spot.

Not really. Harmison offers something that Tremlett will never have.. Genuine pace.

At the moment its the one thing the English attack lacks and its been evident throughout this current test. For England havent bowled badly but the the Indians have been able to bat sensibly and leave balls that they would be dragged into playing at if they were 2 yards quicker because to put it simply you dont have the time.

[Rachael]

As I understand it, Tremlett bowls at pretty much the same pace that Harmison usually manages: 86-87-88 mph. Quite enough for any seam bowler, and especially so for a bowler of his height. He might have bowled slightly wider of off stump than he should ahve done... but at no time has ANY commentator suggested that he was too pedestrian (or that the attack lacked penetration).

Your analaysis of the failure to take wickets is also curious: the last time I checked on the reason Sidebottom was not taking wickets, the major reason was quite simply that the batsmen (including Tendulkar) were simply not good enough to get an edge on deliveries that they looked to play. The bat has been beaten many times throughout the day... so you could argue Sidebottom too quick: if he'd been slower the batsmen might have had more time to follow balls that left them.

Sometimes you just have to credit the batting... and to be grateful for great Test cricket: "bowlers on top, batsmen not getting out" - as good as Test cricket ever gets.

ps. The bowling has been top notch... but the deliveries that have taken wickets have by and large NOT been the better ones - I'd like to say "most odd"... but it's not, it's a fairly familiar feature of Test cricket!

[pie_chucker]

I didnt think Tremlett was that quick and Harmy can bowl well in excess of 90mph, something Tremlett will never be able to do.

I will admit England have bowled well without luck this match, but it tells you something when a finger spinner has the best figures from the England side on a swinging/seaming track .

[Milo]

Originally Posted by Rachael

If Tremlett can bowl consistently on the top of off stump... in the manner of everyone from Statham and Fraser through Hadlee to Caddick, Ambrose and McGrath... then I see no problem with him having a successful Test career.

If Tremlett wants a successful ODI career he might, instead, need to take a look at the exemplary ODI variations of Joel Garner, Wasim Akram, Darren Gough, Shoaib Akhtar: greats of the ODI game and renowned for mixing in things like yorkers, bouncers, cutters and slower balls (none of which should trouble a Boycott-like Test batsman with good footwork and technique and a focus on defense, but all of which have proven remarkably effective, over the years, at undoing attacking ODI specialists looking to score off every ball).

So by this, are you trying to imply that Ambrose, Hadlee and McGrath did not have successful one day careers? Also, I never remember seeing Joel Garner bowl any slower balls in either form of cricket, in fact he had very little variety. He also never played during the years of many attacking one day batsmen and actually flourished in the era when Boycott like batsmen played the game. To suggest that Garner and Akram could not get out defensive batsmen is surely some mistake.

[darksideofthemoon]

In this Test Tremlett has been bowling 78-82 mph and has been able to worry the batsmen with his bounce. He can do what Harmison does without having to bowl fast. All he needs to do is to bowl at the batsmen more and not so many balls that batsmen can leave.

His ODI stats are not really that impressive 6 matches 7 wickets at 44.16 econ 5.01 s/r 52.83

Two of those games were against Bangladesh. Take them out and his stats change to
4 matches 2 wickets at 103.50 econ 5.52 s/r 112.50
I'd stick with him in Tests for the moment and have Broad in the ODIs.