|
Test_Fan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
My prediction is, unless the hype about the pitch ends up to be nonsense, the side who bats first will struggle to get 150, definitely not more than 200. Both sides bowling is stronger than its batting.
However I have my doubts a very green pitch is also going to be a very hard fast bouncy pitch. We will see soon enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test_Fan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xVihari can bowl spin but I think had nothing to do with his selection. He is the only other specialist batsman in the squad with Shaw and Sharna injured, he had to play.With Ashwin injured I do not see how India can possibly justify bringing in Jadeja ahead of Kumar. Kumar surely must play. I suspect if Lyon was injured Australia would play 4 pacemen rather than bringing in Holland. As for reports that Khawaja might open, normally I would not like it. However with only one opener in the squad, Harris, someone has to open who is not really an opener. At least Khawaja has done well there recently and him being there might take some pressure off of Harris and perhaps let him build a score. Still if Khawaja goes in the first over it might just open the door to the team being routed for a small score as there is no other number 3 in the team. Burns really should be playing this test match, the selectors have got this totally wrong. Dhawan could have been put on a plane from his holiday home in Melbourne and Ind A has a full squad in NZ - trust me - they have more than enough batting options, like oh so many... I agree Kumar should play... Vihari was selected in the squad ahead of Dhawan and all the others, why would they go outside the squad when they have a player who averages almost 60 in FC available?
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xVihari can bowl spin but I think had nothing to do with his selection. He is the only other specialist batsman in the squad with Shaw and Sharna injured, he had to play.With Ashwin injured I do not see how India can possibly justify bringing in Jadeja ahead of Kumar. Kumar surely must play. I suspect if Lyon was injured Australia would play 4 pacemen rather than bringing in Holland. As for reports that Khawaja might open, normally I would not like it. However with only one opener in the squad, Harris, someone has to open who is not really an opener. At least Khawaja has done well there recently and him being there might take some pressure off of Harris and perhaps let him build a score. Still if Khawaja goes in the first over it might just open the door to the team being routed for a small score as there is no other number 3 in the team. Burns really should be playing this test match, the selectors have got this totally wrong. Dhawan could have been put on a plane from his holiday home in Melbourne and Ind A has a full squad in NZ - trust me - they have more than enough batting options, like oh so many... I agree Kumar should play...
|
|
|
|
|
Test_Fan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x Look at this "green monster". Lot of moisture under the surface me thinks. Will be litening quick..should suit our faster men more. Pity tho Oz do not have a specialist swing bowler in our attack. Why will it suit your faster men more? The ball will bounce and skid more. As we have the quickest attack that will benefit us. Oh - that 1km/h - yeah..... nah. Not based on the last test its not. If that grass grips, Sharma and Bumrah are going to be asking some questions... Australia has to outbowl India this time. Or start dropping people... So are Haze and Cummins. Cummo will be quicker. Starc needs to lift his game. Cummins is a back of a length bowler who sometimes gets some outswing. I don't see him trying to seam it around tbh. And I don't see him bowling any faster this week neither... Starc is facing the axe... It is that simple... Then with one enforcer sadly out of form and Cummins no longer express we are in the poo. Pattinson could play the enforcer role. But where is he? Pattinson just played for Vic... And he is a fine bowler, when fit. I rate him highly. Good pace, lovely outswing, nice in seam - seems a complete enough bowler to me to be a star cricketer. Pattinson needs half season to demonstrate match fitness. He needs to more than just demonstrate match fitness if he was to get back in the test team. He needs to bowl well and be the best Victorian quick. At the moment Tremain and Bolland are out bowling him. There is no doubting the quality of the old James Pattinson, but can the new James Pattinson show the same quality?
|
|
|
|
|
Test_Fan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Vihari can bowl spin but I think had nothing to do with his selection. He is the only other specialist batsman in the squad with Shaw and Sharna injured, he had to play. With Ashwin injured I do not see how India can possibly justify bringing in Jadeja ahead of Kumar. Kumar surely must play. I suspect if Lyon was injured Australia would play 4 pacemen rather than bringing in Holland. As for reports that Khawaja might open, normally I would not like it. However with only one opener in the squad, Harris, someone has to open who is not really an opener. At least Khawaja has done well there recently and him being there might take some pressure off of Harris and perhaps let him build a score. Still if Khawaja goes in the first over it might just open the door to the team being routed for a small score as there is no other number 3 in the team. Burns really should be playing this test match, the selectors have got this totally wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xLook at this "green monster". Lot of moisture under the surface me thinks. Will be litening quick..should suit our faster men more. Pity tho Oz do not have a specialist swing bowler in our attack. Why will it suit your faster men more? The ball will bounce and skid more. As we have the quickest attack that will benefit us. Oh - that 1km/h - yeah..... nah. Not based on the last test its not. If that grass grips, Sharma and Bumrah are going to be asking some questions... Australia has to outbowl India this time. Or start dropping people... So are Haze and Cummins. Cummo will be quicker. Starc needs to lift his game. Cummins is a back of a length bowler who sometimes gets some outswing. I don't see him trying to seam it around tbh. And I don't see him bowling any faster this week neither... Starc is facing the axe... It is that simple... Then with one enforcer sadly out of form and Cummins no longer express we are in the poo. Pattinson could play the enforcer role. But where is he? Pattinson just played for Vic... And he is a fine bowler, when fit. I rate him highly. Good pace, lovely outswing, nice in seam - seems a complete enough bowler to me to be a star cricketer. Pattinson needs half a season to demonstrate match fitness.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
https://www.cricketcountry.com/news/india-vs-australia-2nd-test-r-ashwin-rohit-sharma-ruled-out-of-2nd-test-hanuma-vihari-ravindra-jadeja-in-13-member-squad-777446India has gone full retard and picked two spinners for Perth. Ashwin and Rohit are injured... 1 Vijay 2 Rahul (Shaw still injured) 3 Pujara 4 Kohli 5 Rahane 6 Vihari 5 7 Pant + 8 Jadeja 4 9 Sharma 2 10 Shami 3 11 Bumrah 1 What I would have done? Simple. Swap Jadeja for Kumar and that is the team I would have gone with.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xLook at this "green monster". Lot of moisture under the surface me thinks. Will be litening quick..should suit our faster men more. Pity tho Oz do not have a specialist swing bowler in our attack. Why will it suit your faster men more? The ball will bounce and skid more. As we have the quickest attack that will benefit us. Oh - that 1km/h - yeah..... nah. Not based on the last test its not. If that grass grips, Sharma and Bumrah are going to be asking some questions... Australia has to outbowl India this time. Or start dropping people... So are Haze and Cummins. Cummo will be quicker. Starc needs to lift his game. Cummins is a back of a length bowler who sometimes gets some outswing. I don't see him trying to seam it around tbh. And I don't see him bowling any faster this week neither... Starc is facing the axe... It is that simple... Then with one enforcer sadly out of form and Cummins no longer express we are in the poo. Pattinson could play the enforcer role. But where is he? Pattinson just played for Vic... And he is a fine bowler, when fit. I rate him highly. Good pace, lovely outswing, nice in seam - seems a complete enough bowler to me to be a star cricketer.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xLook at this "green monster". Lot of moisture under the surface me thinks. Will be litening quick..should suit our faster men more. Pity tho Oz do not have a specialist swing bowler in our attack. Why will it suit your faster men more? The ball will bounce and skid more. As we have the quickest attack that will benefit us. Oh - that 1km/h - yeah..... nah. Not based on the last test its not. If that grass grips, Sharma and Bumrah are going to be asking some questions... Australia has to outbowl India this time. Or start dropping people... So are Haze and Cummins. Cummo will be quicker. Starc needs to lift his game. Bumrah will. I see him as our biggest danger on this deck. Bumrah is fierce. The cricket world has never seen anything like him. I would have loved to have seen SSmith v Bumrah... That is the real pity right now... it wasn't Kohli vs Smith - we've seen that already... Bumrah vs Smith - that is what the neutrals wanted. Because had Smudger dragged Bumrah outside his offstump like he has to everyone else with great success, Bumrah can fire it in at the stumps on a dime with total accuracy... Would have been a great and enthralling chess match between the two... I personally think Smith would had played him out - then farmed off Sharma, Shami and Ash. If I were Steve Smith - that's what I would have done...
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xLook at this "green monster". Lot of moisture under the surface me thinks. Will be litening quick..should suit our faster men more. Pity tho Oz do not have a specialist swing bowler in our attack. Why will it suit your faster men more? The ball will bounce and skid more. As we have the quickest attack that will benefit us. Oh - that 1km/h - yeah..... nah. Not based on the last test its not. If that grass grips, Sharma and Bumrah are going to be asking some questions... Australia has to outbowl India this time. Or start dropping people... So are Haze and Cummins. Cummo will be quicker. Starc needs to lift his game. What about on those overcast days. Worried these will suit India more. Oh for sure, more so if Bhuvi Plays. But Shami swings it big and both ways when its going...
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xLook at this "green monster". Lot of moisture under the surface me thinks. Will be litening quick..should suit our faster men more. Pity tho Oz do not have a specialist swing bowler in our attack. Why will it suit your faster men more? The ball will bounce and skid more. As we have the quickest attack that will benefit us. Oh - that 1km/h - yeah..... nah. Not based on the last test its not. If that grass grips, Sharma and Bumrah are going to be asking some questions... Australia has to outbowl India this time. Or start dropping people... So are Haze and Cummins. Cummo will be quicker. Starc needs to lift his game. Bumrah will. I see him as our biggest danger on this deck.
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xLook at this "green monster". Lot of moisture under the surface me thinks. Will be litening quick..should suit our faster men more. Pity tho Oz do not have a specialist swing bowler in our attack. Why will it suit your faster men more? The ball will bounce and skid more. As we have the quickest attack that will benefit us. Oh - that 1km/h - yeah..... nah. Not based on the last test its not. If that grass grips, Sharma and Bumrah are going to be asking some questions... Australia has to outbowl India this time. Or start dropping people... So are Haze and Cummins. Cummo will be quicker. Starc needs to lift his game. Cummins is a back of a length bowler who sometimes gets some outswing. I don't see him trying to seam it around tbh. And I don't see him bowling any faster this week neither... Starc is facing the axe... It is that simple... Then with one enforcer sadly out of form and Cummins no longer express we are in the poo. Pattinson could play the enforcer role. But where is he?
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xLook at this "green monster". Lot of moisture under the surface me thinks. Will be litening quick..should suit our faster men more. Pity tho Oz do not have a specialist swing bowler in our attack. Why will it suit your faster men more? The ball will bounce and skid more. As we have the quickest attack that will benefit us. Oh - that 1km/h - yeah..... nah. Not based on the last test its not. If that grass grips, Sharma and Bumrah are going to be asking some questions... Australia has to outbowl India this time. Or start dropping people... So are Haze and Cummins. Cummo will be quicker. Starc needs to lift his game. What about on those overcast days. Worried these will suit India more.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xLook at this "green monster". Lot of moisture under the surface me thinks. Will be litening quick..should suit our faster men more. Pity tho Oz do not have a specialist swing bowler in our attack. Why will it suit your faster men more? The ball will bounce and skid more. As we have the quickest attack that will benefit us. Oh - that 1km/h - yeah..... nah. Not based on the last test its not. If that grass grips, Sharma and Bumrah are going to be asking some questions... Australia has to outbowl India this time. Or start dropping people... So are Haze and Cummins. Cummo will be quicker. Starc needs to lift his game. Cummins is a back of a length bowler who sometimes gets some outswing. I don't see him trying to seam it around tbh. And I don't see him bowling any faster this week neither... Starc is facing the axe... It is that simple...
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xLook at this "green monster". Lot of moisture under the surface me thinks. Will be litening quick..should suit our faster men more. Pity tho Oz do not have a specialist swing bowler in our attack. Why will it suit your faster men more? The ball will bounce and skid more. As we have the quickest attack that will benefit us. Oh - that 1km/h - yeah..... nah. Not based on the last test its not. If that grass grips, Sharma and Bumrah are going to be asking some questions... Australia has to outbowl India this time. Or start dropping people... So are Haze and Cummins. Cummo will be quicker. Starc needs to lift his game.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xLook at this "green monster". Lot of moisture under the surface me thinks. Will be litening quick..should suit our faster men more. Pity tho Oz do not have a specialist swing bowler in our attack. Why will it suit your faster men more? The ball will bounce and skid more. As we have the quickest attack that will benefit us. Oh - that 1km/h - yeah..... nah. Not based on the last test its not. Aren't bounce and skid more typically mutually exclusive except where "tennis bally"? If that grass grips, Sharma and Bumrah are going to be asking some questions... Australia has to outbowl India this time. Or start dropping people... *looks at Starc*
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Fri  35°19° Sat  28°17° Sun  24°15° Mon 24°14 °Tue 25°16° Five day Perth forecast.
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xLook at this "green monster". Lot of moisture under the surface me thinks. Will be litening quick..should suit our faster men more. Pity tho Oz do not have a specialist swing bowler in our attack. Why will it suit your faster men more? The ball will bounce and skid more. As we have the quickest attack that will benefit us.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xLook at this "green monster". Lot of moisture under the surface me thinks. Will be litening quick..should suit our faster men more. Pity tho Oz do not have a specialist swing bowler in our attack. Why will it suit your faster men more?
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Look at this "green monster". Lot of moisture under the surface me thinks. Will suit our seamers. Pity tho Oz do not have a specialist swing bowler in our attack.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xIf he has a poor series again India..then you have something. So wait and see. He has started on a good note. Well I am giving the first game to the Indian bowlers... I am not partitioning the Aus attack - that is for you and Mike to do... I am just going to group them together :P
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
If he has a poor series again India..then you have something. So wait and see. He has started on a good note.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
:P Of course...
But my view doesn't change just because Morne had awful test career starting stats where his sole role was to bowl short stuff (under instruction for the good of the team - not his own stats) - when he was actually a very good line and length man for the back half to third of his career.
Morne used to rough them up for Steyn to mop them up. Later after manuy coaches and new fast men in the team - Morne was allowed to play his own game. Which was far more efficient for his stats. Hence you will see his last few years were very good.
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
I expect all bowlers have a poor series at some stage.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xMike - I think you're getting very very very close on the bowler SR thing - but I don't think you have nailed it just yet. I have put a lot of time and thought into it - and there is a very good argument that is able to be sighted through stats patterns. This applies to tons of test cricketers. Basically - shift your focus on Haze vs Starc, to Haze and Starc - and you might just have the argument you've been looking for for a long time :P Basically - I think you're right - SR matters for the team - but why? I have the answer - but if you work it out for yourself - you will totally get it too. I am betting Hazlewood has taken more top order wickets on a match for match basis than Starc. So how about we centre the s/r debate of these two on that aspect of the game. Now Paddles what are the most valuable wickets.. top order or tail? If we had the stats to prove this I will back myself to be correct. I say that Haze would get at least 70% of his wickets from top seven batsmen. Starc no more than 40%. Being generous with perhaps 50%. A majority of Starc's victims are defenceless tailenders so his bowling figures are inflated... disproportinately. Captains want seamers in their opening attack to find whatever is in the surface to exploit with the new seam. The reason CA and Paine want Hazlewood there. Someone like Starc who is neither a specialist seamer or swing bowler only has one vital asset and that is pace. How often does he actually use that pace? He should be at the body all the time restricting and making life merry hell for the batsman. Instead a good percentage of his deliveries are wasted as he sprays them all over the shop. Admittedly he does get the new ball to swing late and york unsuspecting batsmen but that is all too rare. On those occasions he is world class. The other times he looks grade cricket standard. Mike has the top middle and tail breakdown. Him and I discussed it last week. I had a similar hunch as yours and Mike confirmed it - but its nowhere near in the proportions you think it to be... but it is there... IMO Starc needs a stock ball - whether that is mid pitch, or line and length - it doesn't matter - but he needs a stock ball. Spraying it around and leaking runs is doing little good for himself and makes it easy for batsman to score from, they can stay on the crease with a half step forward and just wait for the over pitched straight or down leg half volley. So whether it is short stuff like Mitch J or back of a length length like Cummins, or length like Haze, Starc needs to sort something out soon. Also in your opinion who of the two is more valuable to a cricket side. A bloke that has pace as his only potent weapon.. leaks runs and produces fewer than average wicket taking balls to actual batsmen. Or someone that is at you all the time.. giving you little in freebies and taking his wickets more by building pressure. There is no real answer here. I want the guy who takes wickets for the fewest runs as swiftly as possible. How they do that is irrelevant. Be it pace, bouncers, swing, seam, line and length pressure. An excellent bowler is an excellent bowler - they don't need to fit a pre-defined batch. I mean I get the point you're trying to make, but you're building a bit of a straw man towards Mike here. I get Mike is rather anti-NSW bias. But just read what he has to say anyway - filter out the wheat from the chaff - there may be some good stuff in there regardless. End of the day - SR does matter. It gives all the bowlers a new batsman to get out, when he is at his most vulnerable. That is perpetuation of SR, and you can observe it with the WI 4 prong, Waqar* and Wasim then without, Vettorri and Bond, Morrisson with Hadlee and then without Hadlee. I suspect even Lillee benefitted from Thommo. The most obvious example was Boult's 6 for vs England last year when Southee down hil skii'd on his back for a 4 for. It was all Boult creating the initial collapse and the panic set in for batsmen - but Southee still bagged 4 wickets... A bowler who takes wickets swiftly - drops the average of the rest of the bowling attack... because he gives the breakthrough wicket for a new batsman to start batting. Basically the best SR bowlers improve the stats of the rest of the entire bowling attack. So a guy leaking at 5 runs per over, but taking a wicket every 6 overs is going to win a team a hell of a lot of games despite averaging 30 runs per wicket. And it will be very easy to downshill ski a bowling average in the 20's off of him. Intuitively this is why captains always want to a select a strike bowler when the stats don't seem to add up... They want a guy who breaks partnerships and stops big partnerships from forming. That is why SA went with Morkel over Pollock... I didn't want to give the answer to Mike - I wanted him realise it for himself - because he was so close to doing so. *Doesn't apply to Waqar in reverse but perhaps Wasim missed easy beat games. Makes sense. Still reckon a bloke that builds pressure for another to take that wicket is a valuable commodity to have in any team. Haze does that better than most. I never rated Morkel. Should I have? I did rate Pollock. Morne was high quality and just kept getting better and better. His bowling over the last 3 to 4 years was simply outstanding in any format, in any conditions. I rate him better than Jimmy Anderson. But perhaps he was benefiting from Steyn, Abbot, Vern and Rabada... Because it really is the thing, Its like Brett Lee playing with Warne and McGrath and then being asked to lead the attack - and the numbers take a massive dive... It is a team game, and down hill skiing exists for bowlers as well as batsmen. But Morne was damn fine over the last 4 years, easily stood up proud with all those Great Saffir fast men and held his own. Led the attack in England last year. Very sad that he has retired prematurely for the rich tapestry of county cricket where he took wickets this year 10 runs a piece or so... Morkel 86 m. 306 wk @27.66 3.10 e/r. 53.33 s/r H/wood 41 m. 155 wk @26.7 2.79 e/r 57.5 s/r. Morkel has 8 five wicket hauls. Haze already has 6 five wicket hauls. Both do not have a 10 wk innings haul. Compare the two records. Haze has Morkel covered on all stats except s/r. But he is half Morkel's age with half of his career still to go.. so plenty of time to improve that. When do fast bowlers peak? So Paddles Morkel is hi quality in your eyes but Haze is over rated.
Yips. Morkel is underrated and high quality, and Haze is overrated especially where Haze gets a new ball and Morkel gets an old ball. Look at the series they played together this year: | POS | PLAYER | CURRENT TEAM | MATCH | INNS | ECO | AVG | SR |
|---|
| 1 | Vernon Philander | South Africa | 4 | 8 | 2.09 | 16.81 | 48.38 | | 2 | Lungi Ngidi | South Africa | 1 | 2 | 2.83 | 15.00 | 31.80 | | 3 | Josh Hazlewood | Australia | 4 | 8 | 2.94 | 39.25 | 80.00 | | 4 | Chadd Sayers | Australia | 1 | 2 | 2.98 | 73.00 | 147.00 | | 5 | Pat Cummins | Australia | 4 | 8 | 3.03 | 21.45 | 42.45 | | 6 | Kagiso Rabada | South Africa | 4 | 8 | 3.15 | 19.26 | 36.74 | | 7 | Nathan Lyon | Australia | 4 | 8 | 3.23 | 42.56 | 79.06 | | 8 | Morne Morkel | South Africa | 3 | 6 | 3.24 | 19.60 | 36.27 | | 9 | Keshav Maharaj | South Africa | 4 | 8 | 3.55 | 33.65 | 56.94 | | 10 | Mitchell Starc | Australia | 3 | 6 | 3.78 | 34.42 | 54.67 | | 11 | Dean Elgar | South Africa | 4 | 2 | 4.00 | 16.00 | 24.00 | | 12 | Mitchell Marsh | Australia | 4 | 6 | 4.02 | 42.25 | 63.00 |
I wouldn't worry about 5fors and 10fors, Morkel shared wickets with Steyn, Philander, Rabada, Ngidi, Abbott... et al. But seriously - how did Morkel just slice through Australia so easily when Haze couldn't buy a wicket? The difference you want to ignore appears to be that Haze is in decline and Morkel was just getting better and better all the time...
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Mods why when I have changed my u/n are you still putting baggyreenmania on my posts?
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xMike - I think you're getting very very very close on the bowler SR thing - but I don't think you have nailed it just yet. I have put a lot of time and thought into it - and there is a very good argument that is able to be sighted through stats patterns. This applies to tons of test cricketers. Basically - shift your focus on Haze vs Starc, to Haze and Starc - and you might just have the argument you've been looking for for a long time :P Basically - I think you're right - SR matters for the team - but why? I have the answer - but if you work it out for yourself - you will totally get it too. I am betting Hazlewood has taken more top order wickets on a match for match basis than Starc. So how about we centre the s/r debate of these two on that aspect of the game. Now Paddles what are the most valuable wickets.. top order or tail? If we had the stats to prove this I will back myself to be correct. I say that Haze would get at least 70% of his wickets from top seven batsmen. Starc no more than 40%. Being generous with perhaps 50%. A majority of Starc's victims are defenceless tailenders so his bowling figures are inflated... disproportinately. Captains want seamers in their opening attack to find whatever is in the surface to exploit with the new seam. The reason CA and Paine want Hazlewood there. Someone like Starc who is neither a specialist seamer or swing bowler only has one vital asset and that is pace. How often does he actually use that pace? He should be at the body all the time restricting and making life merry hell for the batsman. Instead a good percentage of his deliveries are wasted as he sprays them all over the shop. Admittedly he does get the new ball to swing late and york unsuspecting batsmen but that is all too rare. On those occasions he is world class. The other times he looks grade cricket standard. Mike has the top middle and tail breakdown. Him and I discussed it last week. I had a similar hunch as yours and Mike confirmed it - but its nowhere near in the proportions you think it to be... but it is there... IMO Starc needs a stock ball - whether that is mid pitch, or line and length - it doesn't matter - but he needs a stock ball. Spraying it around and leaking runs is doing little good for himself and makes it easy for batsman to score from, they can stay on the crease with a half step forward and just wait for the over pitched straight or down leg half volley. So whether it is short stuff like Mitch J or back of a length length like Cummins, or length like Haze, Starc needs to sort something out soon. Also in your opinion who of the two is more valuable to a cricket side. A bloke that has pace as his only potent weapon.. leaks runs and produces fewer than average wicket taking balls to actual batsmen. Or someone that is at you all the time.. giving you little in freebies and taking his wickets more by building pressure. There is no real answer here. I want the guy who takes wickets for the fewest runs as swiftly as possible. How they do that is irrelevant. Be it pace, bouncers, swing, seam, line and length pressure. An excellent bowler is an excellent bowler - they don't need to fit a pre-defined batch. I mean I get the point you're trying to make, but you're building a bit of a straw man towards Mike here. I get Mike is rather anti-NSW bias. But just read what he has to say anyway - filter out the wheat from the chaff - there may be some good stuff in there regardless. End of the day - SR does matter. It gives all the bowlers a new batsman to get out, when he is at his most vulnerable. That is perpetuation of SR, and you can observe it with the WI 4 prong, Waqar* and Wasim then without, Vettorri and Bond, Morrisson with Hadlee and then without Hadlee. I suspect even Lillee benefitted from Thommo. The most obvious example was Boult's 6 for vs England last year when Southee down hil skii'd on his back for a 4 for. It was all Boult creating the initial collapse and the panic set in for batsmen - but Southee still bagged 4 wickets... A bowler who takes wickets swiftly - drops the average of the rest of the bowling attack... because he gives the breakthrough wicket for a new batsman to start batting. Basically the best SR bowlers improve the stats of the rest of the entire bowling attack. So a guy leaking at 5 runs per over, but taking a wicket every 6 overs is going to win a team a hell of a lot of games despite averaging 30 runs per wicket. And it will be very easy to downshill ski a bowling average in the 20's off of him. Intuitively this is why captains always want to a select a strike bowler when the stats don't seem to add up... They want a guy who breaks partnerships and stops big partnerships from forming. That is why SA went with Morkel over Pollock... I didn't want to give the answer to Mike - I wanted him realise it for himself - because he was so close to doing so. *Doesn't apply to Waqar in reverse but perhaps Wasim missed easy beat games. Makes sense. Still reckon a bloke that builds pressure for another to take that wicket is a valuable commodity to have in any team. Haze does that better than most. I never rated Morkel. Should I have? I did rate Pollock. Morne was high quality and just kept getting better and better. His bowling over the last 3 to 4 years was simply outstanding in any format, in any conditions. I rate him better than Jimmy Anderson. But perhaps he was benefiting from Steyn, Abbot, Vern and Rabada... Because it really is the thing, Its like Brett Lee playing with Warne and McGrath and then being asked to lead the attack - and the numbers take a massive dive... It is a team game, and down hill skiing exists for bowlers as well as batsmen. But Morne was damn fine over the last 4 years, easily stood up proud with all those Great Saffir fast men and held his own. Led the attack in England last year. Very sad that he has retired prematurely for the rich tapestry of county cricket where he took wickets this year 10 runs a piece or so... Morkel 86 m. 306 wk @27.66 3.10 e/r. 53.33 s/r H/wood 41 m. 155 wk @26.7 2.79 e/r 57.5 s/r. Morkel has 8 five wicket hauls. Haze already has 6 five wicket hauls. Both do not have a 10 wk innings haul. Compare the two records. Haze has Morkel covered on all stats except s/r. But he is half Morkel's age with half of his career still to go.. so plenty of time to improve that. When do fast bowlers peak? So Paddles Morkel is hi quality in your eyes but Haze is over rated.
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xMike - I think you're getting very very very close on the bowler SR thing - but I don't think you have nailed it just yet. I have put a lot of time and thought into it - and there is a very good argument that is able to be sighted through stats patterns. This applies to tons of test cricketers. Basically - shift your focus on Haze vs Starc, to Haze and Starc - and you might just have the argument you've been looking for for a long time :P Basically - I think you're right - SR matters for the team - but why? I have the answer - but if you work it out for yourself - you will totally get it too. I am betting Hazlewood has taken more top order wickets on a match for match basis than Starc. So how about we centre the s/r debate of these two on that aspect of the game. Now Paddles what are the most valuable wickets.. top order or tail? If we had the stats to prove this I will back myself to be correct. I say that Haze would get at least 70% of his wickets from top seven batsmen. Starc no more than 40%. Being generous with perhaps 50%. A majority of Starc's victims are defenceless tailenders so his bowling figures are inflated... disproportinately. Captains want seamers in their opening attack to find whatever is in the surface to exploit with the new seam. The reason CA and Paine want Hazlewood there. Someone like Starc who is neither a specialist seamer or swing bowler only has one vital asset and that is pace. How often does he actually use that pace? He should be at the body all the time restricting and making life merry hell for the batsman. Instead a good percentage of his deliveries are wasted as he sprays them all over the shop. Admittedly he does get the new ball to swing late and york unsuspecting batsmen but that is all too rare. On those occasions he is world class. The other times he looks grade cricket standard. Mike has the top middle and tail breakdown. Him and I discussed it last week. I had a similar hunch as yours and Mike confirmed it - but its nowhere near in the proportions you think it to be... but it is there... IMO Starc needs a stock ball - whether that is mid pitch, or line and length - it doesn't matter - but he needs a stock ball. Spraying it around and leaking runs is doing little good for himself and makes it easy for batsman to score from, they can stay on the crease with a half step forward and just wait for the over pitched straight or down leg half volley. So whether it is short stuff like Mitch J or back of a length length like Cummins, or length like Haze, Starc needs to sort something out soon. Also in your opinion who of the two is more valuable to a cricket side. A bloke that has pace as his only potent weapon.. leaks runs and produces fewer than average wicket taking balls to actual batsmen. Or someone that is at you all the time.. giving you little in freebies and taking his wickets more by building pressure. There is no real answer here. I want the guy who takes wickets for the fewest runs as swiftly as possible. How they do that is irrelevant. Be it pace, bouncers, swing, seam, line and length pressure. An excellent bowler is an excellent bowler - they don't need to fit a pre-defined batch. I mean I get the point you're trying to make, but you're building a bit of a straw man towards Mike here. I get Mike is rather anti-NSW bias. But just read what he has to say anyway - filter out the wheat from the chaff - there may be some good stuff in there regardless. End of the day - SR does matter. It gives all the bowlers a new batsman to get out, when he is at his most vulnerable. That is perpetuation of SR, and you can observe it with the WI 4 prong, Waqar* and Wasim then without, Vettorri and Bond, Morrisson with Hadlee and then without Hadlee. I suspect even Lillee benefitted from Thommo. The most obvious example was Boult's 6 for vs England last year when Southee down hil skii'd on his back for a 4 for. It was all Boult creating the initial collapse and the panic set in for batsmen - but Southee still bagged 4 wickets... A bowler who takes wickets swiftly - drops the average of the rest of the bowling attack... because he gives the breakthrough wicket for a new batsman to start batting. Basically the best SR bowlers improve the stats of the rest of the entire bowling attack. So a guy leaking at 5 runs per over, but taking a wicket every 6 overs is going to win a team a hell of a lot of games despite averaging 30 runs per wicket. And it will be very easy to downshill ski a bowling average in the 20's off of him. Intuitively this is why captains always want to a select a strike bowler when the stats don't seem to add up... They want a guy who breaks partnerships and stops big partnerships from forming. That is why SA went with Morkel over Pollock... I didn't want to give the answer to Mike - I wanted him realise it for himself - because he was so close to doing so. *Doesn't apply to Waqar in reverse but perhaps Wasim missed easy beat games. Makes sense. Still reckon a bloke that builds pressure for another to take that wicket is a valuable commodity to have in any team. Haze does that better than most. I never rated Morkel. Should I have? I did rate Pollock. Morne was high quality and just kept getting better and better. His bowling over the last 3 to 4 years was simply outstanding in any format, in any conditions. I rate him better than Jimmy Anderson. But perhaps he was benefiting from Steyn, Abbot, Vern and Rabada... Because it really is the thing, Its like Brett Lee playing with Warne and McGrath and then being asked to lead the attack - and the numbers take a massive dive... It is a team game, and down hill skiing exists for bowlers as well as batsmen. But Morne was damn fine over the last 4 years, easily stood up proud with all those Great Saffir fast men and held his own. Led the attack in England last year. Very sad that he has retired prematurely for the rich tapestry of county cricket where he took wickets this year 10 runs a piece or so...
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xMike - I think you're getting very very very close on the bowler SR thing - but I don't think you have nailed it just yet. I have put a lot of time and thought into it - and there is a very good argument that is able to be sighted through stats patterns. This applies to tons of test cricketers. Basically - shift your focus on Haze vs Starc, to Haze and Starc - and you might just have the argument you've been looking for for a long time :P Basically - I think you're right - SR matters for the team - but why? I have the answer - but if you work it out for yourself - you will totally get it too. I am betting Hazlewood has taken more top order wickets on a match for match basis than Starc. So how about we centre the s/r debate of these two on that aspect of the game. Now Paddles what are the most valuable wickets.. top order or tail? If we had the stats to prove this I will back myself to be correct. I say that Haze would get at least 70% of his wickets from top seven batsmen. Starc no more than 40%. Being generous with perhaps 50%. A majority of Starc's victims are defenceless tailenders so his bowling figures are inflated... disproportinately. Captains want seamers in their opening attack to find whatever is in the surface to exploit with the new seam. The reason CA and Paine want Hazlewood there. Someone like Starc who is neither a specialist seamer or swing bowler only has one vital asset and that is pace. How often does he actually use that pace? He should be at the body all the time restricting and making life merry hell for the batsman. Instead a good percentage of his deliveries are wasted as he sprays them all over the shop. Admittedly he does get the new ball to swing late and york unsuspecting batsmen but that is all too rare. On those occasions he is world class. The other times he looks grade cricket standard. Mike has the top middle and tail breakdown. Him and I discussed it last week. I had a similar hunch as yours and Mike confirmed it - but its nowhere near in the proportions you think it to be... but it is there... IMO Starc needs a stock ball - whether that is mid pitch, or line and length - it doesn't matter - but he needs a stock ball. Spraying it around and leaking runs is doing little good for himself and makes it easy for batsman to score from, they can stay on the crease with a half step forward and just wait for the over pitched straight or down leg half volley. So whether it is short stuff like Mitch J or back of a length length like Cummins, or length like Haze, Starc needs to sort something out soon. Also in your opinion who of the two is more valuable to a cricket side. A bloke that has pace as his only potent weapon.. leaks runs and produces fewer than average wicket taking balls to actual batsmen. Or someone that is at you all the time.. giving you little in freebies and taking his wickets more by building pressure. There is no real answer here. I want the guy who takes wickets for the fewest runs as swiftly as possible. How they do that is irrelevant. Be it pace, bouncers, swing, seam, line and length pressure. An excellent bowler is an excellent bowler - they don't need to fit a pre-defined batch. I mean I get the point you're trying to make, but you're building a bit of a straw man towards Mike here. I get Mike is rather anti-NSW bias. But just read what he has to say anyway - filter out the wheat from the chaff - there may be some good stuff in there regardless. End of the day - SR does matter. It gives all the bowlers a new batsman to get out, when he is at his most vulnerable. That is perpetuation of SR, and you can observe it with the WI 4 prong, Waqar* and Wasim then without, Vettorri and Bond, Morrisson with Hadlee and then without Hadlee. I suspect even Lillee benefitted from Thommo. The most obvious example was Boult's 6 for vs England last year when Southee down hil skii'd on his back for a 4 for. It was all Boult creating the initial collapse and the panic set in for batsmen - but Southee still bagged 4 wickets... A bowler who takes wickets swiftly - drops the average of the rest of the bowling attack... because he gives the breakthrough wicket for a new batsman to start batting. Basically the best SR bowlers improve the stats of the rest of the entire bowling attack. So a guy leaking at 5 runs per over, but taking a wicket every 6 overs is going to win a team a hell of a lot of games despite averaging 30 runs per wicket. And it will be very easy to downshill ski a bowling average in the 20's off of him. Intuitively this is why captains always want to a select a strike bowler when the stats don't seem to add up... They want a guy who breaks partnerships and stops big partnerships from forming. That is why SA went with Morkel over Pollock... I didn't want to give the answer to Mike - I wanted him realise it for himself - because he was so close to doing so. *Doesn't apply to Waqar in reverse but perhaps Wasim missed easy beat games. Makes sense. Still reckon a bloke that builds pressure for another to take that wicket is a valuable commodity to have in any team. Haze does that better than most. I never rated Morkel. Should I have? I did rate Pollock. Morne was high quality and just kept getting better and better. His bowling over the last 3 to 4 years was simply outstanding in any format, in any conditions. I rate him better than Jimmy Anderson. But perhaps he was benefiting from Steyn, Abbot, Vern and Rabada... Because it really is the thing, Its like Brett Lee playing with Warne and McGrath and then being asked to lead the attack - and the numbers take a massive dive... It is a team game, and down hill skiing exists for bowlers as well as batsmen. But Morne was damn fine over the last 4 years, easily stood up proud with all those Great Saffir fast men and held his own. Led the attack in England last year. Very sad that he has retired prematurely for the rich tapestry of county cricket where he took wickets this year 10 runs a piece or so...
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xMike - I think you're getting very very very close on the bowler SR thing - but I don't think you have nailed it just yet. I have put a lot of time and thought into it - and there is a very good argument that is able to be sighted through stats patterns. This applies to tons of test cricketers. Basically - shift your focus on Haze vs Starc, to Haze and Starc - and you might just have the argument you've been looking for for a long time :P Basically - I think you're right - SR matters for the team - but why? I have the answer - but if you work it out for yourself - you will totally get it too. I am betting Hazlewood has taken more top order wickets on a match for match basis than Starc. So how about we centre the s/r debate of these two on that aspect of the game. Now Paddles what are the most valuable wickets.. top order or tail? If we had the stats to prove this I will back myself to be correct. I say that Haze would get at least 70% of his wickets from top seven batsmen. Starc no more than 40%. Being generous with perhaps 50%. A majority of Starc's victims are defenceless tailenders so his bowling figures are inflated... disproportinately. Captains want seamers in their opening attack to find whatever is in the surface to exploit with the new seam. The reason CA and Paine want Hazlewood there. Someone like Starc who is neither a specialist seamer or swing bowler only has one vital asset and that is pace. How often does he actually use that pace? He should be at the body all the time restricting and making life merry hell for the batsman. Instead a good percentage of his deliveries are wasted as he sprays them all over the shop. Admittedly he does get the new ball to swing late and york unsuspecting batsmen but that is all too rare. On those occasions he is world class. The other times he looks grade cricket standard. Mike has the top middle and tail breakdown. Him and I discussed it last week. I had a similar hunch as yours and Mike confirmed it - but its nowhere near in the proportions you think it to be... but it is there... IMO Starc needs a stock ball - whether that is mid pitch, or line and length - it doesn't matter - but he needs a stock ball. Spraying it around and leaking runs is doing little good for himself and makes it easy for batsman to score from, they can stay on the crease with a half step forward and just wait for the over pitched straight or down leg half volley. So whether it is short stuff like Mitch J or back of a length length like Cummins, or length like Haze, Starc needs to sort something out soon. Also in your opinion who of the two is more valuable to a cricket side. A bloke that has pace as his only potent weapon.. leaks runs and produces fewer than average wicket taking balls to actual batsmen. Or someone that is at you all the time.. giving you little in freebies and taking his wickets more by building pressure. There is no real answer here. I want the guy who takes wickets for the fewest runs as swiftly as possible. How they do that is irrelevant. Be it pace, bouncers, swing, seam, line and length pressure. An excellent bowler is an excellent bowler - they don't need to fit a pre-defined batch. I mean I get the point you're trying to make, but you're building a bit of a straw man towards Mike here. I get Mike is rather anti-NSW bias. But just read what he has to say anyway - filter out the wheat from the chaff - there may be some good stuff in there regardless. End of the day - SR does matter. It gives all the bowlers a new batsman to get out, when he is at his most vulnerable. That is perpetuation of SR, and you can observe it with the WI 4 prong, Waqar* and Wasim then without, Vettorri and Bond, Morrisson with Hadlee and then without Hadlee. I suspect even Lillee benefitted from Thommo. The most obvious example was Boult's 6 for vs England last year when Southee down hil skii'd on his back for a 4 for. It was all Boult creating the initial collapse and the panic set in for batsmen - but Southee still bagged 4 wickets... A bowler who takes wickets swiftly - drops the average of the rest of the bowling attack... because he gives the breakthrough wicket for a new batsman to start batting. Basically the best SR bowlers improve the stats of the rest of the entire bowling attack. So a guy leaking at 5 runs per over, but taking a wicket every 6 overs is going to win a team a hell of a lot of games despite averaging 30 runs per wicket. And it will be very easy to downshill ski a bowling average in the 20's off of him. Intuitively this is why captains always want to a select a strike bowler when the stats don't seem to add up... They want a guy who breaks partnerships and stops big partnerships from forming. That is why SA went with Morkel over Pollock... I didn't want to give the answer to Mike - I wanted him realise it for himself - because he was so close to doing so. *Doesn't apply to Waqar in reverse but perhaps Wasim missed easy beat games. Makes sense. Still reckon a bloke that builds pressure for another to take that wicket is a valuable commodity to have in any team. Haze does that better than most. I never rated Morkel. Should I have? I did rate Pollock.
|
|
|
|