Fast bowlers: more ego than brains

[Mongoose]

Having seen the chart of where Saj Mahmood has pitched it in the current England v Pakistan test at The Oval, it is clear that he has tended to bowl too short. He is by no means the only bowler in international cricket who does this, and it is a very regular occurrence.

However, this got me thinking ... while it is often shown that pace bowlers bowl too short, how often can it be shown that they bowl too full? The answer is almost never.

So, what is the reason for this discrepancy? Is there any evidence that bowling shorter is generally a good tactic? I'd say no, in most conditions. If anything, the seasoned observers, coaches, commentators and journalists, are prepared to see a bowler driven a few times as long as they are giving the ball a chance to swing, or giving themselves a chance of hitting the stumps or getting an outside edge.

So if pace bowlers bowl short, despite it being a less effective tactic, why do they do it? The answer must surely be that their ego gets in the way. Being driven off the front foot is a sign of confidence and dominance by the batsman, and a fast bowler takes it as an insult. Being pulled or cut for four is different, as the batsman has to take a backward step to play the shot, and a batsman can often look less assured playing, say, a pull rather than a cover drive. There is nothing worse for a bowler's ego than being driven.

So the likes of Saj Mahmood, Steve Harmison, Tino Best et al need to forget about trying to knock the batsman's head off, of engaging in chat and maintaining their ego. Instead they should concentrate on getting the ball into areas where they will take wickets.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Mongoose

So the likes of Saj Mahmood, Steve Harmison, Tino Best et al need to forget about trying to knock the batsman's head off, of engaging in chat and maintaining their ego.

You are basically saying that as human beings they need to grow up.... and lo and behold, if you look at any seamer who DOES grow up (e.g. Wasim, Ambrose, Pollock) you find exactly what you expect: intelligent bowling.

The problem is perhaps with selectors: at every stage from school through clubs to international cricket, faster bowlers are promoted to their level of incompetence: even Wasim and Waqar bowled in brainless fashion when they started... as did Ambrose and Walsh... and even Pollock for that matter - they were too raw for international cricket when they started - and it showed.

Mahmood should be no-where near international cricket: he needs 3-4 years at county level learning from old pros and becoming the "finished article" - Fletcher and co are getting what they deseerve for overlooking the greater experience of Lewis.

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Rachael

You are basically saying that as human beings they need to grow up

My experience of human beings is that they often don't grow up much if they haven't done so by the age of 25. It's more to do with attitude than age or experience I feel. Often the older bowlers are just as culpable. Can you imagine, you are a 29 year old pace bowler and some new kid smacks you down the ground ... what is the typical response? Whistle one round his ear-holes to show him who's boss. I remember as a 15-year-old, a 30-something batsman smacked me straight down the ground and said "Don't bowl there, lad". If I had been an international paceman, rather than a club medium pacer, I would have been likely to stick one in short to show him. Which is what the guy clearly expected me to do, as I nearly got him with the yorker I followed up with. Bowlers don't like being hit for four. Even worse is to be hit for four when the batsman looks in control. As the fast bowler's saying goes: If you can't get 'em out, knock 'em out. It rarely produces wickets.

[Lemming]

I agree with Mongoose that it is certainly about ego rather than age. Brett Lee is around the 30 mark yet can often be found bowling way too short regardless of the fact that he can swing the ball in suitable conditions. The same can be sometimes be said of Shoaib Akhtar.

It does maybe take time to learn the value of accuracy for many bowlers and this can be learned in first-class cricket. Of course it is in test cricket where lack of accuracy costs bowlers dearly and they learn quicker. I don't agree that someone has to have played 'x' years before test cricket. There are some things about test cricket that cannot be learned elsewhere - this is undoubtedly true. For example, Monty Panesar is 24 years of age, has played 35 four-day games yet has come into test cricket and impressed with his maturity and patience with the ball in his hand. He has a great attitude and will go far.

There are some people for whom years of experience will never make a difference. Brett Lee came out the other day and quite rightly stated that fast bowlers mature after the age of 30, but then he incorrectly thought this meant he could get faster and hinted his wish is to strive for more pace. Even after his ridiculous racing with Shoaib to reach 100mph, he still thinks that adding an extra 1mph to his average will mean he's a mature fast bowler. He's got a few years left in his career and he'd better learn because he's a very talented bowler.

Without getting off the topic of fast bowlers, Alistair Cook has walked into the England team - at the age of only 21 - and looked as though he'd been there for 10 years. I mean, what an attitude! His technique is not amazing, yet he has managed to find a way to play. Spin is a weakness, yet he doesn't fail to make runs against it. He has the ability to put the bad ball out of his mind, because he knows that that is what is required.

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Lemming

Brett Lee came out the other day and quite rightly stated that fast bowlers mature after the age of 30, but then he incorrectly thought this meant he could get faster and hinted his wish is to strive for more pace. Even after his ridiculous racing with Shoaib to reach 100mph, he still thinks that adding an extra 1mph to his average will mean he's a mature fast bowler.

you only need to see the way Curtly and Courtney matured to see how wrong Lee is. In 2000, the two Cs were something like 37 and 38 years old, but bowled as well as they did 10-15 years earlier, when they were both fast and fierce. Walsh spent the final 3-4 years in test cricket bowling anout 75 mph, but going for about 2 an over and maintaining his career average. He certainly didn't do that by bowling half track pies like we've seen some of England's attack do in the Oval test, and like we saw Brett Lee do in the Ashes last year.

[Lemming]

Yes. Of course, pace is always an asset. But control and self-discipline is the way to bowl and there's no reason why that cannot be understood by a 12 year old more than a 32 year old.

No one is saying that Lee should look to slow down. But it is true that being over 30 will not increase your speed and Lee will start to slow within a few years. Ambrose and Walsh appreciated the value of accuracy and knew they would eventually slow down. They worked hard to keep themselves fit and strived for accuracy - hence the career ending at 37 rather than 33. If Lee refuses to learn fast, his inaccuracy will not be hidden by his pace as his bowling will undoubtedly slow in the latter years of his career.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Mahmood should be no-where near international cricket: he needs 3-4 years at county level learning from old pros and becoming the "finished article" - Fletcher and co are getting what they deseerve for overlooking the greater experience of Lewis.

I think Rachael that you are as wrong as it gets.
Remember in 2004 when this forum opened, how I supported Flintoff at his worst, well only 2 years down the line Flintoff is a world class pace bowler, if not thee best when fit.
Sorry Mongoose I don't agree with your post - a pace bowler needs an "ego" , line and length will follow if the bowler is good enough.

What we don't need from a pace bowler is a trundler just putting the ball on the spot over and over again at 80 mph or so, may not go for many in the right conditions, but will never set cricket alight IMO.

As for Lewis he could never play while Hoggard is in the team, he just has not enough penetration on pitches with no swing.

Mahmood given a break IMO will come good, ot would it be better to treat him like Ramp's, confidence breaking drops from the side.

Oh I hope this thread is well seperate from the A Team selection thread.

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Sorry Mongoose I don't agree with your post - a pace bowler needs an "ego" , line and length will follow if the bowler is good enough.

What we don't need from a pace bowler is a trundler just putting the ball on the spot over and over again at 80 mph or so

I absolutely agree Ern. I am a big fan of pace. And I think Mahmood has the raw materials to justify England working with him over the long course.

My post was to highlight the discrepancy between bowling too short and bowling full. This clearly can't be accounted for simply by inaccuracy, as there would be an equal split. Pace bowlers, if bowling the wrong length for a sustained spell, tend to drop short. My point is that this must surely be an ego issue, not wanting the batsmen to drive them, rather than simply a case of scattergun pacemen. A guy like Andy Caddick could put the ball on the spot consistently. But he often found a consistent length that was too short. Harmison similarly. He takes more wickets when he gets the batsman prodding around off stump at good length balls, as with the Akmal dismissal today. There is no need to go banging the middle out of pitch, to see an average player like Farhat, who has few shots besides the cut, tuck into a procession of short pies.

[Lemming]

Ern, there's nothing wrong with a pace bowler - or indeed any bowler - having an ego. But, like McGrath and Warne, they have to be able to back their egos up on the field of play. There's no point Lee publicly stating that he wants to bowl faster and faster if he is to simply serve up dross, albeit at a quicker pace.

McGrath is a great example of a pace bowler with the correct "ego" - if you see what I mean. He publicly states that he will 'get' Mr. X, Y or Z, but he knows that he has the game to back that up, he knows that most find him difficult to play.

[mudney]

I can remember when Harmison started out, he wasn't particularly good with his control, and look what happened to him in 04-05. Mahmood could just as easily do a harmy and take a 7-12 type of haul and then we can all eat our words.