'Muscular' Cricket

[Goughy]

I have a pretty firm view on what Test cricketers should be like and a number of players (past and present) dont fit the bill.

So much of cricket is played in the mind. Even at the highest level and pressure, doubt and intimidation play huge roles.

I believe in 'muscular' cricket. Based on the physically intimidating (Flintoff, Willey, Merv Hughes), those of a strong steely mind (Steele, Richardson, Wessels) or flawed genius who can turn a game (Vaughan, Harmison, Tufnell).

Obviously World class talent and production is the first thing you would look for but those players are in a limited supply to many countries. What is needed is a plan for selecting the players below the best in the world (a category most mentioned above fall under).

In order to assess such players they all need a body of work behind them as well as showing these traits. Selectors should not be guessing. They should know roughly what they are getting from having a fairly substantial domestic record.

What I dislike are 'nice' cricketers. The type of players that just soften the hardness of a team and make losing respectable rather then chancing everything for a win.

After selecting the World class players, we need to look for physically intimidating players, or mentally tough and obdurate players or those that are potential game changers and offer something unique and different.

With the England team at the moment that means there is no place for Bell, Broad and Sidebottom and possibly Panesar.

If we take the 2005 Ashes winning 12 players. Everyone of them apart from Bell and possibly (depending on POV) Giles fell into one of those categories. It was a side based on talent, aggression and toughness. We have got away from that in recent selection.

Basically, Im saying you pick your superstars and then flesh out the side with those that are physically or mentally strong or that can change a game by offering something unique.

I dont think its any coincidence that the 2 great teams I have witnessed (Aus and WI), in addition to Eng 05, have been aggressive and intimidating teams.

I dont expect everyone to agree but thats ok. This isn't fully fleshed out so Im interested in hearing differing opinions even if I dont agree with them in order to properly analyze this.

 

[Manee]

This is an interesting point of view and certainly one that would ruffle a few feathers in practice when a player who scores a ton of runs in FC cricket is left out because he is a 'weak character' and I feel that it is a theory that can be used to analyse team composition rather than one which is used much to build a team, for the aforementioned reason.

In practice, it is evident that not only the weaker players have been singled out as you have included Sidebottom who has a very strong Test record up till date. He may have looked flat in the last match but it is better than him looking exciting and going for four runs per over. It is often said that if a bowler is not taking wickets, it is best that he holds the runs down - even though, it is quite obvious that it was not desirable as England strived for 157.4 overs for ten West Indian wickets. I also have doubts as to whether Sidebottom was fully fit too.

Bob Willis did raise a good point though, that many point their finger at selectoral decisions, but the fact is that there simply is not that much talent in county cricket at the moment. These tough characters, either physically or mentally may not be present at all in county cricket and the best players are the ones who are in the squad at the moment.

 

[Langeveldt]

Agree about the timidness of Bell, Cook and co.. Not the kind of characters to make an opposition fast bowler slightly apprehensive, even if they are talented batsmen..

 

[wpdavid]

Reasonable theory even if the application is occasionally being twisted to suit your existing opinions about players, especially Harmison: I still find your faith in GBH baffling. And Vaughan to some extent, although I know that's been discussed ad infinitum elsewhere. Personally I don't have a problem with the 'niceness' of players - it's their track record that does it for me. Effectively, some of this is easy with hindsight. If Bell was averaging in the high 40's and gutsing it out like an Atherton or Kirsten, no-one would give a rat's arse about his appearance and no-one would be questioning his character. It certainly wan't obvious when he was first picked. And I don't see that Sidebottom is less tough than, say, Hoggard: just unfit and probably not as good. Broad's mental toughness isn't an issue afaics - there's simply a discussion about how good he is, which is fair enough.

Anyway, you'd be disappointed if I 100% agreed.

 

[Goughy]

Anyway, you'd be disappointed if I 100% agreed.

The thing about Bell and Broad isnt that they are weak per se. It is that they dont check the boxes for the desired skills. Im not accusing them of being mentally weak, just that mental strength and application isnt a strong skill for them.

Are then a World class cricketer? No
Do they possess a strong physical presence? No
Are they known for their levels of concentration and ability to fight in adverse situations? No
Do they possess a rare skills set that is difficult to replicate? No

The one thing I forgot to mention in the original post is the 'mongrel' in a cricketer and the ability to turn the game into a streetfight when the pressure is on and when they are out of form.

Now, selection stil plays a role. Players that possess a rare skillset and can intimidate like Harmison may lack the 'mongrel' and toughness. That balance is a selection issue.

Its also interesting that 2 players that I have never rated (Rob Key and Paul Adams) would be looked on favourably with this. Again, selection plays a role there as well.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Graeme Hick was (and is) 6' 3" & looked like Swarzenegger with his shirt off (was trying to find a pic, but Google wasn't obliging) but his imposing frame & buff abdomen never helped him succeed. I'd also put him (and Ramps too) in the "flawed genius" category because of their domestic records, but the trouble I see in labelling players as such is that it could be used as a carte blanche excuse for prolonged periods of mediocrity. An excuse not afforded to the less obviously blessed.

When was the last time Vaughan or Harmison were consistently performing at test level? Four years ago? More? Largesse shown by selectors to such players must have its limits.

 

[pskov]

Seems to me Goughy that you have created the 'flawed genius' category as a subconscious get out clause for players you like that don't fit your main criteria of physical of mental strength. I mean, by what measure is Harmison a flawed genius and Bell not? Harmison ran through a poor West Indies team and an average at best NZ team in 2004 and has been less hit than miss since. Bell made fine hundreds against a poor Pakistan team in 2006 and a couple against good sides like SA this summer gone, but has been decidedly mixed throughout. Neither of them are very physically strong (indeed if you go by muscleyness then Bell is probably ahead) and certainly neither could be classed as mentally tough, so why do you make the exception for Harmison and not Bell?

 

[Uppercut]

You really think of Ryan Sidebottom as a "nice" cricketer? I know you don't rate him especially highly, but jeez. My mind's first image of him is a hairy, sweaty caveman screaming and swearing at Monty for a misfield.

Anyway, i don't think "nice" and "mentally strong" are mutually exclusive, even if you do take out the world-class players. Look at some of the players having success for South Africa- AB De Villiers, Hashim Amla, Ashwell Prince- they're not assholes, their on-field personalities probably aren't too far from Ian Bell's. There was nothing intimidating about De Villiers+Prince's arse-saving monster-stand at Headingley last summer, it was just quality cricket under pressure.

I'd say what Bell, Broad and Panesar all have in common isn't their personalities, it's that they're not very good at test cricket (and i think you shoehorned Sidebottom's personality in with theirs because you don't think he's good enough either). The general attitude and spirit of the team as a whole quite often actually comes from the setup, John Dyson and Chris Gayle, Mickey Arthur and Graeme Smith or Duncan Fletcher and Michael Vaughan.

 

[Prince EWS]

You really think of Ryan Sidebottom as a "nice" cricketer? I know you don't rate him especially highly, but jeez. My mind's first image of him is a hairy, sweaty caveman screaming and swearing at Monty for a misfield.

Anyway, i don't think "nice" and "mentally strong" are mutually exclusive, even if you do take out the world-class players. Look at some of the players having success for South Africa- AB De Villiers, Hashim Amla, Ashwell Prince- they're not assholes, their on-field personalities probably aren't too far from Ian Bell's. There was nothing intimidating about De Villiers+Prince's arse-saving monster-stand at Headingley last summer, it was just quality cricket under pressure.

I'd say what Bell, Broad and Panesar all have in common isn't their personalities, it's that they're not very good at test cricket (and i think you shoehorned Sidebottom's personality in with theirs because you don't think he's good enough either). The general attitude and spirit of the team as a whole quite often actually comes from the setup, John Dyson and Chris Gayle, Mickey Arthur and Graeme Smith or Duncan Fletcher and Michael Vaughan.

Mendis.

 

[pskov]

Or another is Muralitharan. He couldn't look convincingly nasty if he made it his life's ambition, but he's taken more test wickets than anyone else.

 

[Precambrian]

Blah,

Sachin Tendulkar

Brian Lara

Donald Bradman

All these players were 5 foot 7 inches or shorter.

Maybe there is a point as regards to fast bowlers, but skill is more important than physique.

 

[Goughy]

Seems to me Goughy that you have created the 'flawed genius' category as a subconscious get out clause for players you like that don't fit your main criteria of physical of mental strength. I mean, by what measure is Harmison a flawed genius and Bell not? Harmison ran through a poor West Indies team and an average at best NZ team in 2004 and has been less hit than miss since. Bell made fine hundreds against a poor Pakistan team in 2006 and a couple against good sides like SA this summer gone, but has been decidedly mixed throughout. Neither of them are very physically strong (indeed if you go by muscleyness then Bell is probably ahead) and certainly neither could be classed as mentally tough, so why do you make the exception for Harmison and not Bell?

Based on the fact that Harmison intimidates and people dont want to face him. Admitedly when he is bowling 80 mph he isnt much of a threat but he is one bowler batsmen do not want to face.

He can and does intimidate. I cant think of any bowlers that Bell has scared.

Harmison also is a very unique cricketer with a rare combination of skills. Bell doesnt possess anything special.

I probably should have used a different example to Hamison rather than have the discussion get sidetracked but he does fit the bill as do others. Possibly add a Devon Malcolm in this MacGill etc

 

[Uppercut]

Blah,

Sachin Tendulkar

Brian Lara

Donald Bradman

All these players were 5 foot 7 inches or shorter.

Maybe there is a point as regards to fast bowlers, but skill is more important than physique.

Goughy did say that world-class players aren't subject to the analysis tbf.

 

[Goughy]

Blah,

Sachin Tendulkar

Brian Lara

Donald Bradman

All these players were 5 foot 7 inches or shorter.

Maybe there is a point as regards to fast bowlers, but skill is more important than physique.

Jeez, read the post.

The attributes I mention are for players below top quality. Also, all the players you mention above intimidated in there own way.

 

[godofcricket]

I believe in 'muscular' cricket. Based on the physically intimidating (Flintoff, Willey, Merv Hughes), those of a strong steely mind (Steele, Richardson, Wessels) or flawed genius who can turn a game (Vaughan, Harmison, Tufnell).

Obviously World class talent and production is the first thing you would look for but those players are in a limited supply to many countries. What is needed is a plan for selecting the players below the best in the world (a category most mentioned above fall under).

What I dislike are 'nice' cricketers. The type of players that just soften the hardness of a team and make losing respectable rather then chancing everything for a win.

After selecting the World class players, we need to look for physically intimidating players, or mentally tough and obdurate players or those that are potential game changers and offer something unique and different.
.

After talent the most important thing is mental toughness and that is not in the same as muscularity. Lets put it this way, two players with equal amount of talent but one is muscular and the other is mentally tough, you would always pick the player who is tough, the rest comes later for the simple fact that players who are mentally tough can win you matches or deliver at more crucial times and wont get intimadated that easily. So from my point of view you really cant put mental toughness and physique in the same level, you always have to prefer someone who is mentally tough.

 

[Uppercut]

One thing I'd like to see happen more- pick players who don't drop catches. The importance of catching is seriously undervalued.

 

[pskov]

Based on the fact that Harmison intimidates and people dont want to face him. Admitedly when he is bowling 80 mph he isnt much of a threat but he is one bowler batsmen do not want to face.

He can and does intimidate. I cant think of any bowlers that Bell has scared.

Harmison also is a very unique cricketer with a rare combination of skills. Bell doesnt possess anything special.

I probably should have used a different example to Hamison rather than have the discussion get sidetracked but he does fit the bill as do others. Possibly add a Devon Malcolm in this MacGill etc

I don't see how Devon Malcolm or, to try and pick a contemporary example that I think would fit your concept, Darren Powell are better bowlers than Ryan Sidebottom or Damien Fleming purely because they are big, get angry and bowl quick.

At the end of the day bowling is about a) Accuracy b) Pace c) Movement. All three and you are an all-time great, two from three and you are a good quality bowler, one from three and you are not good enough. Doesn't matter which one it is.

 

[Precambrian]

I believe this analysis is essentially limited to fast bowlers. I cannot think of a batsman being physically intimidating apart from Matt Hayden, and he is an exception than the rule. And I cannot remember any spinner who intimidated physically.

However if intimidation is including mental intimidation, like the kinds of Sehwag, Lara etc, then there is some scope. However the definition of "intimidation" would overlap with that of "skill". So am not really sure that is meant here.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I believe this analysis is essentially limited to fast bowlers. I cannot think of a batsman being physically intimidating apart from Matt Hayden, and he is an exception than the rule. And I cannot remember any spinner who intimidated physically.

However if intimidation is including mental intimidation, like the kinds of Sehwag, Lara etc, then there is some scope. However the definition of "intimidation" would overlap with that of "skill". So am not really sure that is meant here.

Nah, there's quite a few. Off the top of my head: Smith, Gayle, Pietersen, IVA Richards, Clive Lloyd. All specialist batsmen and all big, big guys. 6' plus and built.

 

[silentstriker]

How much is physical intimidation worth if you're not very good? Doesn't the majority of intimidating factor come from being a world class player, like a Flintoff or Hayden? They're big, but they're intimidating because of the way they play, not how big they are.