Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => Players => Topic started by: DanBess13 on January 03, 2014, 07:44:29 PM
-
I am a bit spectacle when I heard Borthwick was in as a spinner because he doesn't bowl that much for Durham anymore and he is more of a batsman now. I wouldn't off minded if he bowled more for Durham in First class cricket but he didn't and i'm not confident with him at the moment but we will have to see what he does with the bat when he comes in.
-
I too am spectacle so will be having a very close look!
From what I saw he certainly isn't going to be one who can tie up an end
-
Yeah if he bowled more for Durham and took wickets I wouldn't be so spectacle but he looked like he hadn't bowled for a while so I guess it's up to his batting at the moment but we'll see
-
I don't think we're exactly blessed with spinning talent at the moment so I guess its a case of giving people a try. I'm sure given the fact he can bat and how poor our batting has been so far made a contribution to him being picked. Out of interest what number is he down to bat?
-
Yeah well our batting does need strengthening so that's a good point, I just hope he get's some runs in the 1st Innings and he can go from there and he's down at number 8
-
Don't get though why anyone would pick him over Adil Rashid, who is a better bat and a better bowler....ah, its the face fitting thing again!
-
Well Adil Rashid has been out of the England picture for a while now and obviously Borthwick has been on there radar but Rashid is a good bowler to be honest maybe with a few good performances he might be in there again.
-
I too am spectacle so will be having a very close look!
From what I saw he certainly isn't going to be one who can tie up an end
You'll see why he was selected in good time ;)
-
You'll see why he was selected in good time ;)
You're quick ;)
-
Don't get though why anyone would pick him over Adil Rashid, who is a better bat and a better bowler....ah, its the face fitting thing again!
Obviously, I mean Rashid took a full one more wicket (but went for 200 more runs) and Borthwick scored 200 more runs in the CCD1 batting and bowling on that green seamer that is the riverside, not to mention how many catches he takes at 2nd slip. But obviously Rashids better!
-
Obviously, I mean Rashid took a full one more wicket (but went for 200 more runs) and Borthwick scored 200 more runs in the CCD1 batting and bowling on that green seamer that is the riverside, not to mention how many catches he takes at 2nd slip. But obviously Rashids better!
Rashid's batting average was 51 as opposed to Borthwick's 39, rashids bowling 46 and Borthwicks at 38.
what was Borthwick picked as?
-
Obviously, I mean Rashid took a full one more wicket (but went for 200 more runs) and Borthwick scored 200 more runs in the CCD1 batting and bowling on that green seamer that is the riverside, not to mention how many catches he takes at 2nd slip. But obviously Rashids better!
Aah, but Rashid is from Yorkshire.
Strong Yorkshire = Strong England.
Root,Ballance, Bairstow, Bresnan. If they had all played in the same team we would have thrashed the Aussies.
-
Fair enough he might average a few more, but for me the fact Borthwick bats and bowls on the greenest most seamer friendly deck in England where games rarely go into the 4th day compared to a relatively dry deck at Headingley and still have comparable batting and better bowling average shows Borthwick is a better cricketer than Rashid.
-
Rashid's batting average was 51 as opposed to Borthwick's 39, rashids bowling 46 and Borthwicks at 38.
what was Borthwick picked as?
Again stats only tell half a story. Borthwick scored 200 more runs batting in the top order. I'm guessing Rashid's average was inflated by some not outs...
-
Aah, but Rashid is from Yorkshire.
Strong Yorkshire = Strong England.
Root,Ballance, Bairstow, Bresnan. If they had all played in the same team we would have thrashed the Aussies.
With Root, Bairstow and Bresnan they were hopeless so one more Yorkshireman couldn't have hurt, the side wouldn't get any worse at any rate!
-
If England's pomp of Vaughan's Ashes win, there spinner was Ashley Giles who wasn't a great spin bowler, didn't turn it miles but was fairly consistent and set good fields.
I am sure Borthwick could easily be as good, given time, and will be a better batsman.
Saying that, whether it is Borthwick, Kerrigan, Rashid or any other spinner, settling in the aide is a long slow process and cannot be rushed.
-
If England's pomp of Vaughan's Ashes win, there spinner was Ashley Giles who wasn't a great spin bowler, didn't turn it miles but was fairly consistent and set good fields.
I am sure Borthwick could easily be as good, given time, and will be a better batsman.
Saying that, whether it is Borthwick, Kerrigan, Rashid or any other spinner, settling in the aide is a long slow process and cannot be rushed.
But The King of Spain had the control to hold up an end.
This control will come with time but I don't think any of the current crop can do that currently. That's the gap Swanny's retirement has left (and the fact he took wickets at key times).
-
Definitely in some trouble in the spin department
-
Definitely in some trouble in the spin department
Nah, no trouble. Just needs time.
Look at Tahir in South Africa, nowt too flash, but does ok in a strong bowling line up.
Look at Lyon. Wasn't holding down the first choice spinners role on tour to India, yet now look a world-beater.
Neither are going to hit records like Warne and Muralitharan, but both do a job for their countries.
-
Nah Tahir is really bad can only bowl well when there's alot of spin that's why he bowled well over in Pakistan but in the series against India in South Africa he bowled really poorly and I would choose Robin Peterson all the time infront of Tahir
-
Obviously, I mean Rashid took a full one more wicket (but went for 200 more runs) and Borthwick scored 200 more runs in the CCD1 batting and bowling on that green seamer that is the riverside, not to mention how many catches he takes at 2nd slip. But obviously Rashids better!
You've quoted first class stats rather than Championship, and Borthwick had the advantage of UCCE games etc to boost his. Aside from which, did you not notice that Rashid average a full 12 runs more per innings, and that he was making runs in the role that either man would bat for England? Or that his career bowling record is far better in terms f wickets taken and match hauls? Or that he has a record of performing in pressure situations?
-
But The King of Spain had the control to hold up an end.
More pertinently he had four genuinely world class quick bowlers rotating around him, so was only ever required to perform a limited role.
Aside from any other debate, English spin resources post Swann are almost as bad as Australia's since Warne (and I still maintain that Lyon is just a club bowler). In first class cricket last year, no division one spinner took wickets in significant volume or speed - indeed, Ollie Rayner, who would admit himself that he is some way short of Test class, was probably the most successful spinner in the top tier!
-
As a leggie myself, I was really pleased to see an leggie in the England team, first of all...
However his consistency was pretty grim. He bowled one or two REALLY bad deliveries every over, from waist high full tosses to short and wide garbage. It is how ever, his first test, and he was bowling against Haddin etc who will put you off line and length. When he got it right, he showed he could beat the bat, so he has potential. I'm hoping that his batting comes into the fore too. Congratulations on getting a test wicket though, not a bad achievement.
Play up Scotty. Loving the encouragement from Bairstow behind the stumps, he adds so much energy when he is excited, unlike Prior.
-
Yeah he does need some time to get used to this kind of cricket facing the best batsman in the word and i'm sure he'll do well for England not that often England have a Leggie so it will be interesting
-
You've quoted first class stats rather than Championship, and Borthwick had the advantage of UCCE games etc to boost his. Aside from which, did you not notice that Rashid average a full 12 runs more per innings, and that he was making runs in the role that either man would bat for England? Or that his career bowling record is far better in terms f wickets taken and match hauls? Or that he has a record of performing in pressure situations?
No mate, no UCCE games included, all county championship as the link shows
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/batting/most_runs_career.html?id=7905;type=tournament (http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/batting/most_runs_career.html?id=7905;type=tournament)
I'm sure Scott would have had a lot higher average batting where Rashid did due to the number of red inkers, Rashid, is this the same lad that got dropped to the 2s last year in favour of Rafiq because his bowling was so bad. If Scott can score runs at number 3 I'm sure he can score runs at 8 (where he batted for most of his career).
-
Borthwick averages 31 with the ball, Rashid averages 35, with Rashid bowling on a more spinner friendly wicket. Borthwicks economy rate is 3.7 Rashids is 3.55 hardly that much better? Those are career stats in FC cricket by the way, also some of those stats from Rashid will be from division 2 against teams such as Leicestershire. Don't understand how you can say Rashid is a better cricketer?
-
Is borthwick mates with smith? He'll of a lot of half trackers and full tosses!!
Keep the faith with the young lad, it'll take him a while to develop and mentally feel like he belongs
-
More pertinently he had four genuinely world class quick bowlers rotating around him, so was only ever required to perform a limited role.
Aside from any other debate, English spin resources post Swann are almost as bad as Australia's since Warne (and I still maintain that Lyon is just a club bowler). In first class cricket last year, no division one spinner took wickets in significant volume or speed - indeed, Ollie Rayner, who would admit himself that he is some way short of Test class, was probably the most successful spinner in the top tier!
England didn't have 4 'world class' fast bowlers.
Hoggard was a hard trier. Nothing more.
Harmison had a purple patch from 2004-05. Mostly average in the test of his career.
Jones was world class. Shame injuries destroyed his career.
Flintoff wasn't ever world class. A couple of decent series in his whine career.
-
England didn't have 4 'world class' fast bowlers.
Hoggard was a hard trier. Nothing more.
Harmison had a purple patch from 2004-05. Mostly average in the test of his career.
Jones was world class. Shame injuries destroyed his career.
Flintoff wasn't ever world class. A couple of decent series in his whine career.
Jones and Flintoff 2004 onwards were worldclass (Flintoff has less spells of it due to injury after 2005)
Hoggy was never near world class
Harry as Gerry said had a spell where he was but even by 2005 was a fading force
-
From what I saw of Borthwick, I'd say he's the most ordinary leg spinner I've seen since Piyush Chawla got an India Test cap.
His bowling is worst than Chawla's.
He's up the with Tahir with the charity full tosses.
-
Jones and Flintoff 2004 onwards were worldclass (Flintoff has less spells of it due to injury after 2005)
Hoggy was never near world class
Harry as Gerry said had a spell where he was but even by 2005 was a fading force
IMO Jones was an absolute star from the first time I saw him bowl. Had him down as a 300 Test wicket bowler.
Flintoff was a hard trier, turned it on against Australia. But wasn't world class.
-
Yep. Spot on.
-
Just checked his record for sydney grade this year, seems faily average or maybe he is just out of touch
http://www.sydneygrade.nsw.cricket.com.au/showrvcontent.aspx?locx=PLY&playerID=814031&eID=268&entityID=268&seasonID=0&loc=/cricket/reports/player.asp&loc1/player.asp (http://www.sydneygrade.nsw.cricket.com.au/showrvcontent.aspx?locx=PLY&playerID=814031&eID=268&entityID=268&seasonID=0&loc=/cricket/reports/player.asp&loc1/player.asp)
-
Again stats only tell half a story. Borthwick scored 200 more runs batting in the top order. I'm guessing Rashid's average was inflated by some not outs...
200 more runs in 6 extra innings.
Take away both there 'not outs' and Rashid still has the higher average, and scored bigger tons
-
No mate, no UCCE games included, all county championship as the link shows
[url]http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/batting/most_runs_career.html?id=7905;type=tournament[/url] ([url]http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/batting/most_runs_career.html?id=7905;type=tournament[/url])
I'm sure Scott would have had a lot higher average batting where Rashid did due to the number of red inkers, Rashid, is this the same lad that got dropped to the 2s last year in favour of Rafiq because his bowling was so bad. If Scott can score runs at number 3 I'm sure he can score runs at 8 (where he batted for most of his career).
I think a falling out with the management was also the major cause of his drop down to the 2nds
-
Fair enough he might average a few more, but for me the fact Borthwick bats and bowls on the greenest most seamer friendly deck in England where games rarely go into the 4th day compared to a relatively dry deck at Headingley and still have comparable batting and better bowling average shows Borthwick is a better cricketer than Rashid.
Not sure your account holds that much water here.
Batting - the fact is that his batting average last season is 11 a knock lower (and is inflated by cheap runs against the UCCE that Rashid did not get the opportunity to score) and five runs a pop lower over the course of the two men's respective careers. You site environment but he played a maximum of half his knocks at Chester-le-Street (which is nowhere near the green seamer that it is reputed to be once spring passes - check the average first innings totals). At worst, Rashid is as good - I think anyone who has seen the two bat would say that he is comfortably the better player.
But it is the bowling that is the biggest difference. Whilst their raw figures were similar last year, those numbers do not reflect in full the different roles in which their respective sides used them - Borthwick was given a couple of overs against the tail which allowed the odd cheap wicket, whereas Rashid was asked to bowl sides out in the second dig or to hold up an end on some of the mid season Headingley roads. As such, RAshid was exceptional value for the numbers when compared with Borthwick. I would also point out that Borthwick has never really been a frontline spinner - he has only taken two five wicket hauls in 60 first class matches, compared with Rashid who has taken 17 in 115. I challenge anyone to look at those figures and say that Borthwick is the more likely to take wickets in Test cricket!
-
Again stats only tell half a story. Borthwick scored 200 more runs batting in the top order. I'm guessing Rashid's average was inflated by some not outs...
Not disproportionately - and you have to bear in mind that on most of those occasions he was set, so therefore denied the chance to close that run scoring gap!
-
Borthwick averages 31 with the ball, Rashid averages 35, with Rashid bowling on a more spinner friendly wicket. Borthwicks economy rate is 3.7 Rashids is 3.55 hardly that much better? Those are career stats in FC cricket by the way, also some of those stats from Rashid will be from division 2 against teams such as Leicestershire. Don't understand how you can say Rashid is a better cricketer?
What is this more spinner friendly wicket on which Rashid bowls?
Other than that, I've just made my case - I can't in turn see how anyone would think Borthwick was the better pick!
-
England didn't have 4 'world class' fast bowlers.
Hoggard was a hard trier. Nothing more.
Harmison had a purple patch from 2004-05. Mostly average in the test of his career.
Jones was world class. Shame injuries destroyed his career.
Flintoff wasn't ever world class. A couple of decent series in his whine career.
You do talk some crap. Flintoff was world class, at least from 03 onward through 06 - right up to the end of his career he was the bowler that opposing batsmen feared. Hoggard was also top drawer - a supreme artist when the ball swung, adept at blocking up an end when it didn't. Harmy you may have an arguable point, though anyone who gets to number one in the world rankings... Put the four together and you had a perfect combination of styles to adapt to any conditions.
-
Not sure your account holds that much water here.
Batting - the fact is that his batting average last season is 11 a knock lower (and is inflated by cheap runs against the UCCE that Rashid did not get the opportunity to score) and five runs a pop lower over the course of the two men's respective careers. You site environment but he played a maximum of half his knocks at Chester-le-Street (which is nowhere near the green seamer that it is reputed to be once spring passes - check the average first innings totals). At worst, Rashid is as good - I think anyone who has seen the two bat would say that he is comfortably the better player.
But it is the bowling that is the biggest difference. Whilst their raw figures were similar last year, those numbers do not reflect in full the different roles in which their respective sides used them - Borthwick was given a couple of overs against the tail which allowed the odd cheap wicket, whereas Rashid was asked to bowl sides out in the second dig or to hold up an end on some of the mid season Headingley roads. As such, RAshid was exceptional value for the numbers when compared with Borthwick. I would also point out that Borthwick has never really been a frontline spinner - he has only taken two five wicket hauls in 60 first class matches, compared with Rashid who has taken 17 in 115. I challenge anyone to look at those figures and say that Borthwick is the more likely to take wickets in Test cricket!
As I've already stated I haven't included any UCCE games in this, all CCD1 stats. I'd disagree completely about the Riverside wicket, ask any player, there isn't a more difficult place to bat in the country, possibly Trent Bridge when overhead conditions are favourable. I've seen both bat live and in my opinion Borthwick looks a more compact and relaxed batsman.
You stated earlier where is this spinner friendly wicket both Headingley and Scarbs offer considerably more turn than the Riverside, do you agree? That's a fair enough point about the different roles they play, however there is not much you can do when you have the best pace attack in the country blowing teams away. Obviously Rashid never bowled against the tail and took a cheap wicket, so can't see your argument there. I was at Scarbs when Durham beat Yorkshire and Borthwick comfortably out bowled Rashid, on a surface which offered a bit to the spinner maybe this is why he was picked ahead of Rashid?
Agree totally about Borthwick not running through teams but what I would say is he has to bowl after Onions, Rushworth, Thorpe, Wood, Claydon, Brathwaite and Harrison, after that let's be honest there's not gonna be too many wickets left to take? Rashid as you say bowls a lot more therefore is likely to take more wickets, Borthwick will probably bowl more for England than he does Durham!
-
You do talk some crap. Flintoff was world class, at least from 03 onward through 06 - right up to the end of his career he was the bowler that opposing batsmen feared. Hoggard was also top drawer - a supreme artist when the ball swung, adept at blocking up an end when it didn't. Harmy you may have an arguable point, though anyone who gets to number one in the world rankings... Put the four together and you had a perfect combination of styles to adapt to any conditions.
Only crap talker is you my friend.
Flintoff had two years, typical English purple patch, where he was a stand out bowler.
From 2004-2005, Flintoff took 111 Test wickets @ 25 a piece.
The rest of his career he was average at best.
-
I've seen both bat live and in my opinion Borthwick looks a more compact and relaxed batsman.
You stated earlier where is this spinner friendly wicket both Headingley and Scarbs offer considerably more turn than the Riverside, do you agree? That's a fair enough point about the different roles they play, however there is not much you can do when you have the best pace attack in the country blowing teams away. Obviously Rashid never bowled against the tail and took a cheap wicket, so can't see your argument there. I was at Scarbs when Durham beat Yorkshire and Borthwick comfortably out bowled Rashid, on a surface which offered a bit to the spinner maybe this is why he was picked ahead of Rashid?
Agree totally about Borthwick not running through teams but what I would say is he has to bowl after Onions, Rushworth, Thorpe, Wood, Claydon, Brathwaite and Harrison, after that let's be honest there's not gonna be too many wickets left to take? Rashid as you say bowls a lot more therefore is likely to take more wickets, Borthwick will probably bowl more for England than he does Durham!
I've also seen both bat live, and I see things the other way - Borthwick is a perfectly decent county batsman (who has had one successfulish season and nowt much else) but has not evidenced the potential to be anything more, whereas Rashid appears to have the potential to be a counterattacking seven in Test cricket - the key difference being that Borthwick has not evidenced the temperament or shot range to score off top class bowling.
As for grounds....you really don't make much sense. If you look at average first innings scores, which is the best guide, CLS is not far behind many other county grounds - which may have something to do with the quality of Durham's attack and sometimes the cloudy northern weather rather than the wicket itself. I'll grant you Scarborough does sometimes spin - though if you'd been there for the Notts game you would not have thought it given the shirtfront strip, but Headingley has never been a wicket for spinners - it used to be the archetypal greentop and is now a slow, low, dull wicket that is barely fit for First Class cricket!
-
Only crap talker is you my friend.
Flintoff had two years, typical English purple patch, where he was a stand out bowler.
From 2004-2005, Flintoff took 111 Test wickets @ 25 a piece.
The rest of his career he was average at best.
Not sure how you equate that with his bowling against Australia in 2006 and 2009, nor with his mammoth stints in the West Indies and in the UK.
As for stats - the point with that England attack particularly is that it was set up with five mutually complementary bowlers, so none took as many five wicket bags as they might have in a lesser team.
-
I would love to see Borthwick do well as there is nothing like seeing a good leg spinner turning it big but I don't think he is ready for the big stage at the moment. The problem is I don't see anyone at the moment who can come in and replace Swann with anywhere near the success that he had. It will be interesting to see where the selectors go over the next couple of years because replacing Swann is going to be a massive task.
-
Well Borthwick is picking up wickets. But he makes Steve Smith look like Shane Warne...
-
Well Borthwick is picking up wickets. But he makes Steve Smith look like Shane Warne...
But picking them up when the slog is on in a game that has already been conceded. This is my point - he rarely if ever takes significant wickets.
-
You've got to give Borthwick time with his bowling because as Shane Warne said Leg Spin is an art and it takes time to prefect it
-
You've got to give Borthwick time with his bowling because as Shane Warne said Leg Spin is an art and it takes time to prefect it
And Warne himself got smashed didn't he early on?
-
Yeah his first test match for Australia his figures we 1-153 and look how he turned out so give him time to settle
-
A lot of people seem to get confused with Warne' s first ball in ashes cricket, and his actual test match debut,
Even he admits he had a torrid debut,
-
Yeah his test match debut was against India
-
A lot of people seem to get confused with Warne' s first ball in ashes cricket, and his actual test match debut,
Even he admits he had a torrid debut,
Not a bad ball though :)
-
A lot of people seem to get confused with Warne' s first ball in ashes cricket, and his actual test match debut,
Even he admits he had a torrid debut,
Though to be fair, it was torried because he was bowling at a classy Indian line up on a deck they knew inside out - it wasn't as though he was coming out with overs of half trackers and full bungers!
-
As another forum member did, the first thing I did was look at Borthwicks grade cricket stats on the weetbix cricket website. His bowling on the whole has been far from impressive, with the bat in his first innings he got a ton but has barely done a thing since!
If I recall, they tried to get Tredwell on a plane ASAP, but with it being so close to Christmas I assume he/his family red lighted it. Borthwick was already in the country so was available immediately to join up with the squad and settle in. I think this had a big influence on his selection as Tredwell had little time to acclimatise and practice etc. (could be wrong on this one but I'm sure he didn't travel immediately)
I don't think rashid or Borthwick are good enough to play for England as spinners, and my opinion on bits and pieces cricketers is they have no place in a test squad. If England are going to genuinely go down the route of a 'bob-a-job' then it may as well be Samit, at least he has the advantage of experience.
We have two adequate part time spinners already in KP and Root, the choices of Borthwick, Rashid, Moeen Ali or anyone else who can send a few lobs down (I'll put my hat in the ring in terms of being able to guarantee 2 full tosses an over) can only be made as batsmen. If we throw them the ball when frontline bowlers need a rest or if we need to try something on a dead pitch and they make something happen then great, but we can't be picking these guys as bowlers.
Tredwell appears to be the only realistic option in terms of a proper spinner who is anywhere near the level we need. His problem being he isn't the match winner/breakthrough bowler that Swann was. He'll hold an end up and he won't let anyone down, he's the heir to Gilos crown. Unfortunately, we don't have the class of attack we had in the 2005 era that helped to cover for some of Giles' shortcomings. We can go back and forth about their merits as individuals (as it appears a few of you have done) but Flintoff/Hoggard/Harmison/Jones is about as perfectly balanced a bowling attack as you can get, save for a bit of left arm variety.
-
You've got to give Borthwick time with his bowling because as Shane Warne said Leg Spin is an art and it takes time to prefect it
100%. The fact that you have a kid with the balls to bowl leg spin in a test match is huge. He needs to be treasured and nurtured, not yo yo'ed. Esp given he's a proper batsman.
Test match arena is a cruel master, but he should be given 2 test series go at it.
-
Though to be fair, it was torried because he was bowling at a classy Indian line up on a deck they knew inside out - it wasn't as though he was coming out with overs of half trackers and full bungers!
Don't believe warne was ever that successful against any indian line up to be fair
-
Don't believe warne was ever that successful against any indian line up to be fair
Nope, you're right there. Can't quite recall his phrasing of it but Tendulkar gave him nightmares!
-
Tredwell appears to be the only realistic option in terms of a proper spinner who is anywhere near the level we need. His problem being he isn't the match winner/breakthrough bowler that Swann was. He'll hold an end up and he won't let anyone down, he's the heir to Gilos crown. Unfortunately, we don't have the class of attack we had in the 2005 era that helped to cover for some of Giles' shortcomings. We can go back and forth about their merits as individuals (as it appears a few of you have done) but Flintoff/Hoggard/Harmison/Jones is about as perfectly balanced a bowling attack as you can get, save for a bit of left arm variety.
Having derided Lyon as a clubbie, I think it would be hypocritical of me not to point out that Tredwell, for all his probably qualities as a person, is far worse. Yes, he has done an okay job is some one dayers - though the way the Australian climbed into him at the end of the English SUmmer evidenced that his luck in that regard was in the process of running out - but then, Xavier Doherty looks okay bowling darts for Australia in that format and look what happened to him in Test cricket. But look at Tredwell's first class stats for the last two/three years - he has hardly taken a wicket since picking up seven at Headingley on the last day of the 2011 season, and was leaking four plus an over last year in division two.
-
Only crap talker is you my friend.
Flintoff had two years, typical English purple patch, where he was a stand out bowler.
From 2004-2005, Flintoff took 111 Test wickets @ 25 a piece.
The rest of his career he was average at best.
100% correct Gerry.
If we apply the "English purple patch" formula to guys like Brett Lee, then Lee was an all time great too (even though in Oz he is considered to be nothing more than a serviceable bowler).
Only English supporters would consider bowlers with averages in the 30's (Flintoff, Harmison, Hoggard, Anderson etc) as "world class".
To the rest of the sane cricket following world, they are merely serviceable bowlers.
-
100% correct Gerry.
If we apply the "English purple patch" formula to guys like Brett Lee, then Lee was an all time great too (even though in Oz he is considered to be nothing more than a serviceable bowler).
Only English supporters would consider bowlers with averages in the 30's (Flintoff, Harmison, Hoggard, Anderson etc) as "world class".
To the rest of the sane cricket following world, they are merely serviceable bowlers.
Is Dizzy considered to be an all time great? He has a better average than Thommo!!
-
Having derided Lyon as a clubbie, I think it would be hypocritical of me not to point out that Tredwell, for all his probably qualities as a person, is far worse. Yes, he has done an okay job is some one dayers - though the way the Australian climbed into him at the end of the English SUmmer evidenced that his luck in that regard was in the process of running out - but then, Xavier Doherty looks okay bowling darts for Australia in that format and look what happened to him in Test cricket. But look at Tredwell's first class stats for the last two/three years - he has hardly taken a wicket since picking up seven at Headingley on the last day of the 2011 season, and was leaking four plus an over last year in division two.
You can't still be banging that drum about Lyon, he has bowled excellently all series and is pretty young for a spinner with plenty of scope for improvement. Also flayed a few runs down the order, unlike our pair of 'all-rounders' Broad and Bresnan.
Borthwick, or whichever spinner England go for, would ideally want a decent crack at it. He might need to move County as Jos Butler has done, to help his claim. The home summer might provide a decent introduction into test cricket. On english pitches, with Stokes at 6, the spinners overs might not be huge and Cook (providing he is not sacked and replaced by RHB or Brian Close) might be able to manipulate the time he bowls for his benefit
The bad news is that we are playing traditionally the best two spin-playing nations in world cricket
Wrist spin is a wonderful weapon to have, I hope it works out for him
Vic the bowlers you mention might possibly be classed as servicable individuals but together in a team, with Jones aswell, the were a world-class bowling unit. To win against the 2005 Australian team was a magnificent effort. The Australian unit this year has been superb, yet no one would have said before this series that Harris and Siddle were World-class individuals. Johnson we know was on his day
-
You can't still be banging that drum about Lyon, he has bowled excellently all series and is pretty young for a spinner with plenty of scope for improvement. Also flayed a few runs down the order, unlike our pair of 'all-rounders' Broad and Bresnan.
Borthwick, or whichever spinner England go for, would ideally want a decent crack at it. He might need to move County as Jos Butler has done, to help his claim. The home summer might provide a decent introduction into test cricket. On english pitches, with Stokes at 6, the spinners overs might not be huge and Cook (providing he is not sacked and replaced by RHB or Brian Close) might be able to manipulate the time he bowls for his benefit
The bad news is that we are playing traditionally the best two spin-playing nations in world cricket
Wrist spin is a wonderful weapon to have, I hope it works out for him
Vic the bowlers you mention might possibly be classed as servicable individuals but together in a team, with Jones aswell, the were a world-class bowling unit. To win against the 2005 Australian team was a magnificent effort. The Australian unit this year has been superb, yet no one would have said before this series that Harris and Siddle were World-class individuals. Johnson we know was on his day
Ryan Harris averaged 22 with the ball coming into this series. He was already world class.
-
Johnson was already in that category, 2009 international cricketer of the year. Have a look on youtube at the devistating spells he's delivered over a long time. Check his career record while youre at it alba. We all know he got injured and then lost form for 12-18 months, the difference between johnson snd others is that johnson worked, trained and endured...... not pull the pin becuase it all got too hard....
-
As I said in my original post - on his day. Johnson has contributed as much to two Ashes defeats for Australia as he has to them winning it this time
Harris - not sure you can call a guy who couldnt play consecutive tests due to fitness issues world class. He did bowl well in the home series however and in this series he has been brilliant no doubt. Will he be remembered in time as a great with Lindwall, Lillee and McGrath? No he wont
-
In the same way Shane Bond won't be talked about being a great despite averaging 22 in tests and 20 in ODI's.
-
Shame really, fantastic bowler
-
Yeah felt sorry for Shane Bond he was such a fantastic bowler in Tests and ODI unfortunately injury set him way back in his career
-
Yeah felt sorry for Shane Bond he was such a fantastic bowler in Tests and ODI unfortunately injury set him way back in his career
Indian T20 money was more important to him.
Every time NZ needed him, he always had some injury niggle that prevented him playing.
A great bowler, yes, world class it is correct to say with the heart the size of a pea.
-
As I said in my original post - on his day. Johnson has contributed as much to two Ashes defeats for Australia as he has to them winning it this time
Harris - not sure you can call a guy who couldnt play consecutive tests due to fitness issues world class. He did bowl well in the home series however and in this series he has been brilliant no doubt. Will he be remembered in time as a great with Lindwall, Lillee and McGrath? No he wont
Let's knock this on the head once and for all.
James Anderson vs Australia:
season 2006/07 3 6 93.2 18 413 5 3/98 3/110 82.60
season 2009 5 8 158.0 38 542 12 5/80 6/127 45.16
season 2010/11 5 10 213.1 50 625 24 4/44 7/127 26.04
season 2013 5 10 205.4 43 651 22 5/73 10/158 29.59
season 2013/14 5 10 190.3 43 615 14 4/67 4/93 43.92
Overall Record vs Australia:
2006-2014 23 44 860.4 192 2846 77 5/73 10/158 36.96
Mitchell Johnson vs England
season 2009 5 9 162.1 15 651 20 5/69 6/99 32.55
season 2010/11 4 6 136.3 22 554 15 6/38 9/82 36.93
season 2013/14 5 10 188.4 51 517 37 7/40 9/103 13.97
Overall record vs England
filtered 2009-2014 14 25 487.2 88 1722 72 7/40 9/82 23.91
In this instance, the stats do not lie.
MJ's record is superior to Anderson's and by a long way. Their overall averages against all nations are closer ...a difference of about 2 runs per wicket, but Johnson (nor any other Australian player aside from M. Clarke) has ever played against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe like the English lads have. So the gap would be even wider if all things were equal.
As for Harris, he has taken wickets against everyone, everywhere at an average and strike rate that puts him up there with the best. To suggest he is not world class is seriously delusional.
-
but Johnson (nor any other Australian player aside from M. Clarke) has ever played against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe like the English lads have. So the gap would be even wider if all things were equal.
Anderson has played four tests against said opposition, which is hardly a statistical variant! But why let facts bother you, eh? ;)
-
Would Harris get in a world XI Vic? I dont think he would, even now hes in great form. Maybe our definition of world class is just different here
How old is Harris? Where has he been for previous years when Australia have been opening the bowling with Bollinger and Hilfenhaus?
Who is to say that Harris isnt just having a good 2 or 3 years as you have suggested Flintoff had for England? Flintoff simply played international cricket sooner whilst Harris was crocked watching Australia lose. Just biding his time perhaps
-
Would Harris get in a world XI Vic? I dont think he would, even now hes in great form. Maybe our definition of world class is just different here
How old is Harris? Where has he been for previous years when Australia have been opening the bowling with Bollinger and Hilfenhaus?
Who is to say that Harris isnt just having a good 2 or 3 years as you have suggested Flintoff had for England? Flintoff simply played international cricket sooner whilst Harris was crocked watching Australia lose. Just biding his time perhaps
To be fair, form has never been a problem for Harris ever since he broke into the test side... Injuries have always plagued him, hence a stop-start test career.
-
Hes 34 and hes played 20 test matches, dont know how many years thats spread over but he has very similar stats to Shane Bond who Vic describes as having a pea heart
-
Hes 34 and hes played 20 test matches, dont know how many years thats spread over but he has very similar stats to Shane Bond who Vic describes as having a pea heart
In fairness he was a late bloomer and only made his debut 30/31.
-
Would Harris get in a world XI Vic? I dont think he would, even now hes in great form. Maybe our definition of world class is just different here
How old is Harris? Where has he been for previous years when Australia have been opening the bowling with Bollinger and Hilfenhaus?
Who is to say that Harris isnt just having a good 2 or 3 years as you have suggested Flintoff had for England? Flintoff simply played international cricket sooner whilst Harris was crocked watching Australia lose. Just biding his time perhaps
I suspect Vic has different definitions depending on the point he is trying to make!
As I see it, world class should be applied the same way it is in boxing - ie to someone who is capable of more than holding their own against the very best. You can be world class (as Flintoff was) but not go on to be considered an all time great (he wasn't) and I suspect HArris falls into that category - he is someone who no batsman of any era would really feel comfortable against, but is unlikely to do enough to be remembered as more than someone who held their own.
-
In boxing it is very easy to duck and avoid fighters and plan your career route to being a world champion without really fighting the best. You can be a recognised world champion without being the best.
How people define world class is probably the issue here.
Mayweather is World class, light years above everyone in and around his weight class. He goes up in weight he goes down in weight but still destroys people. A boxer that bloomed late and won a world title such as David Haye is not world class and will never be considered world class. He just won a title and performed at the time that was perfect for him. He didn't beat everyone around him and rise to the top. He beat a freak who no else would fight.
Dale Steyn is world class.
-
Anderson has played four tests against said opposition, which is hardly a statistical variant! But why let facts bother you, eh? ;)
But no Australian player (other than Clarke) has played any.
Give Mitch Johnson and Ryan Harris four tests against either Banglas or Zimbos and let's see what happens.
Johnson's average would go down to the 26s. Ryan Harris would go close to under 20.00.
-
But no Australian player (other than Clarke) has played any.
Give Mitch Johnson and Ryan Harris four tests against either Banglas or Zimbos and let's see what happens.
Johnson's average would go down to the 26s. Ryan Harris would go close to under 20.00.
Oddly, whilst you'd think that might be the case, in practice it would likely make limited difference to either. Even if we were talking about a side being blown away for 150 twice - and Bangladesh tend to do a bit better in their home tests because of the torpid pitches - thats 15 per wicket, so on a four way split of the bag 5/75...hardly enough to make a massive difference in a career average.
-
Let's knock this on the head once and for all.
James Anderson vs Australia:
season 2006/07 3 6 93.2 18 413 5 3/98 3/110 82.60
season 2009 5 8 158.0 38 542 12 5/80 6/127 45.16
season 2010/11 5 10 213.1 50 625 24 4/44 7/127 26.04
season 2013 5 10 205.4 43 651 22 5/73 10/158 29.59
season 2013/14 5 10 190.3 43 615 14 4/67 4/93 43.92
Overall Record vs Australia:
2006-2014 23 44 860.4 192 2846 77 5/73 10/158 36.96
Mitchell Johnson vs England
season 2009 5 9 162.1 15 651 20 5/69 6/99 32.55
season 2010/11 4 6 136.3 22 554 15 6/38 9/82 36.93
season 2013/14 5 10 188.4 51 517 37 7/40 9/103 13.97
Overall record vs England
filtered 2009-2014 14 25 487.2 88 1722 72 7/40 9/82 23.91
In this instance, the stats do not lie.
MJ's record is superior to Anderson's and by a long way. Their overall averages against all nations are closer ...a difference of about 2 runs per wicket, but Johnson (nor any other Australian player aside from M. Clarke) has ever played against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe like the English lads have. So the gap would be even wider if all things were equal.
As for Harris, he has taken wickets against everyone, everywhere at an average and strike rate that puts him up there with the best. To suggest he is not world class is seriously delusional.
I'd take Harris in my world xi. He's always been a good bowler and this series he's shown that if he didn't haven't knackered knee he'd be right up there. Unfortunately he's 34 and his knee is (No Swearing Please) but he is class. I know who I'd have if you listed all the Aussie and eng bowlers. Johnson, Anderson,broad aren't even close to Harris.
I've never rated Anderson as a world class bowler. He's a poor mans Steyn in my opinion. He's not as quick so swings it more. He is a international class bowler but not world class. IMO there are very very few world class bowlers about, some have spells where they take wickets etc but do they have consistency. I'd say Harris has shown that even with his fitness issues. Anderson and Johnson have shown that on their day they tear people apart but off their day they are fodder. 2010-11 doesn't make Mitch a bad bOwler but 2013 doesn't make Anderson a bad bowler. In fairness to Johnson he's come back far better than I thought he ever could but his bowling wasn't that good this series if people are honest. He got the tail out sure and fair play but he was a bit wild most of the time (just not wild like 2010/11). Just my opinion. I'm sure awp is the expert and will tell us what we should think.
Steyn and Harris opening with mortal and philanderer.. All rounder may or may not be needed but it'd be interesting to hear who the best all rounders are currently now the treat mans gone. Spinner would have to be the pak one unfortunately now swanns swanned off. No one else even close spinner wise. England's are poo, aus one is poo, Indians are poo.
-
I'd take Harris in my world xi. He's always been a good bowler and this series he's shown that if he didn't haven't knackered knee he'd be right up there. Unfortunately he's 34 and his knee is (No Swearing Please) but he is class. I know who I'd have if you listed all the Aussie and eng bowlers. Johnson, Anderson,broad aren't even close to Harris.
I've never rated Anderson as a world class bowler. He's a poor mans Steyn in my opinion. He's not as quick so swings it more. He is a international class bowler but not world class. IMO there are very very few world class bowlers about, some have spells where they take wickets etc but do they have consistency. I'd say Harris has shown that even with his fitness issues. Anderson and Johnson have shown that on their day they tear people apart but off their day they are fodder. 2010-11 doesn't make Mitch a bad bOwler but 2013 doesn't make Anderson a bad bowler. In fairness to Johnson he's come back far better than I thought he ever could but his bowling wasn't that good this series if people are honest. He got the tail out sure and fair play but he was a bit wild most of the time (just not wild like 2010/11). Just my opinion. I'm sure awp is the expert and will tell us what we should think.
Steyn and Harris opening with mortal and philanderer.. All rounder may or may not be needed but it'd be interesting to hear who the best all rounders are currently now the treat mans gone. Spinner would have to be the pak one unfortunately now swanns swanned off. No one else even close spinner wise. England's are poo, aus one is poo, Indians are poo.
All rounder for a world XI now that Kallis is gone would be incredibly tough pick....thoughts about Angelo Matthew? not world class but good enough i guess!!
Spinwise only decent ones India has are Ojha, Mishra and Ashwin. I can't stand Mishra and Ashwin, Ojha seems to never really get a decent go at the test level. Lyon might develop into a better spinner more he plays and feels confident but would he ever be great i doubt it...SA don't have a spinner either btw
-
All rounder for a world XI now that Kallis is gone would be incredibly tough pick....thoughts about Angelo Matthew? not world class but good enough i guess!!
Spinwise only decent ones India has are Ojha, Mishra and Ashwin. I can't stand Mishra and Ashwin, Ojha seems to never really get a decent go at the test level. Lyon might develop into a better spinner more he plays and feels confident but would he ever be great i doubt it...SA don't have a spinner either btw
No one does other than pak (ajmal), that's why he'd have to be in the world xi as spinner. All rounder is hard. Angelo Matthews?? Really? Isn't he military medium and lowish order batsman? Watto would beat him surely? Trying to think what genuine all round quality there is tbh..
Matthews (as you mentioned him)
Mclaren
Stokes (just cause he's appeared :)
Al hasan
Watto
Anyone else?
-
No one does other than pak (ajmal), that's why he'd have to be in the world xi as spinner. All rounder is hard. Angelo Matthews?? Really? Isn't he military medium and lowish order batsman? Watto would beat him surely? Trying to think what genuine all round quality there is tbh..
Matthews (as you mentioned him)
Mclaren
Stokes (just cause he's appeared :)
Al hasan
Watto
Anyone else?
Honestly only reason I mentioned Matthews was because I couldn't think anyone other than English and Aussie ones....None in India, Pak, WI really that leave SL, SA, Zim, Banglas, NZ....not a lot to pick from really...
When I pick players from other teams only criteria is if they were playing against India who wouldn't I want to be playing....doesn't always work lol
-
Honestly only reason I mentioned Matthews was because I couldn't think anyone other than English and Aussie ones....None in India, Pak, WI really that leave SL, SA, Zim, Banglas, NZ....not a lot to pick from really...
When I pick players from other teams only criteria is if they were playing against India who wouldn't I want to be playing....doesn't always work lol
lol, I'm struggling to tbh.
-
Best allrounder currently is Ashwin.
Averages 40 with the bat, 27 with the ball.
104 wickets in 18 tests, Better than quite a lot.
The stats are better than most. Not saying he's the best but the stats say he's up there.
-
Best allrounder currently is Ashwin.
Lol
God the world has a dearth of talent as I suspect stats probably back that up :(
-
Hasn't Ashwin just been dropped by India though?
-
I'd suggest we don't really read too much into Ashwins stats and status and the worlds leading allrounder. Without checking I'm sure his decent stats are due to him playing a lot of test cricket in India and against weakened sides at the time where he bowled and batted at his best, against the Aussies and twice against W.I
I'd also say that Matthews is slightly under-rated as a players. Bats well, bowls decent and am I right in thinking he's SL captain? Solid player coming off of the back of a big unbeaten ton in a pressure situation
-
Dwayne Bravo?
-
Mathews bowls even less frequently than Watson though!
If you were picking a world XI - well, there would have to be a case for Shakib as the all rounder and four fast bowlers. Yes Ajmal is a very good bowler, but not to the extent where this would be a terrible plan!
-
I wasn't making the point for Matthews to replace Watson, just highlighting him as a decent allrounder, better than Bravo at least IMO. Bravo doesn't even play test cricket anymore unless I'm wrong?
-
In fairness to Johnson he's come back far better than I thought he ever could but his bowling wasn't that good this series if people are honest. He got the tail out sure and fair play but he was a bit wild most of the time (just not wild like 2010/11). Just my opinion. I'm sure awp is the expert and will tell us what we should think.
You are kidding aren't you. Do you realise out of his 37 wickets 21 were top order batsman (numbers 1-7). Some of you still don't want to give him the credit he deserves. If you are honest you would acknowledge his bowling was that good.
-
What about Darren Sammy as your all rounder......
-
What about Darren Sammy as your all rounder......
Not a chance, I'd struggle to pick him in my Saturday team. Don't rate him one bit, although he's decent in the slips
-
Do you realise out of his 37 wickets 21 were top order batsman (numbers 1-7).
Nice number grouping for the benefit of your argument much? :-[
What do you class as a middle order batsman if 1-7 is top order?
I would say 1-5 top order, then it's 13 wickets. 13/37 isn't bad, but it's a different picture to the one you painted. 1 of those would have been Ballance in the first test as well, so it's 12 really :P
Englands 6 and 7 this tour were unexperienced batsman or an out of form wicket keeper.....
On a side note, MJs cricinfo picture is creepy, not a good headshot!
-
you are just playing with words, make it top & middle order then, not tail enders. Put it this way, only 16 were the tail, that is if you accept the tail starts at 8 which I think most of us would.
-
Englands batters could all be classed as tail-enders in this series - they were that rubbish - and certainly most if not all looked hesitant against Mitch.
The bits I saw of him I thought he bowled very fast and very accurately, and gave a few batters the sh*ts with the short ball. Don't get why people are trying to pick him apart or denigrate his achievements?
-
Further to the all rounder argument. Surely if you were picking a World XI so wouldn't really need an All rounder, what with your Batsman and bowlers being the best in the world?
-
Further to the all rounder argument. Surely if you were picking a World XI so wouldn't really need an All rounder, what with your Batsman and bowlers being the best in the world?
Even the best fail at times, traditionally all rounders have been picked as they provide value to both batting and bowling but that doesn't mean its required...
-
You are kidding aren't you. Do you realise out of his 37 wickets 21 were top order batsman (numbers 1-7). Some of you still don't want to give him the credit he deserves. If you are honest you would acknowledge his bowling was that good.
I didn't think he was that accurate, he sprayed it about a bit but nothing like before. He bowled enough good stuff to get batsmen on the back foot so they weren't picking him off. He bowed bloody well though so well played.
Top order for me is 1-4, middle is 5-7 then tail. No idea what his wickets were but Harris got the good ones out and Johnson blew the tail away
-
I didn't think he was that accurate, he sprayed it about a bit but nothing like before. He bowled enough good stuff to get batsmen on the back foot so they weren't picking him off. He bowed bloody well though so well played.
He didn't bowl as well as his figures suggest, no - Harris was the better of the two but couldn't blow the tail away in quite the same way.
-
He didn't bowl as well as his figures suggest, no - Harris was the better of the two but couldn't blow the tail away in quite the same way.
Agreed Harris was and is by far the better bowler, knows what he's doing with the ball and has the control.
Johnson just uses his pace to frighten and rush the oppo. He did bowl some pretty good accurate short stuff at times though. And the short ball barrage then got him the wickets when he occasionally pitched the ball up, trapping batsmen on the back foot half anticipating a short ball, so lacking any forward footwork.