So......was Richard Dickinson right about Harmo and Graeme Smith ?

[silentstriker]

There career numbers and an overall outlook don't, by any means, suggest that they are a top class bowling attack. However, let's face it, Zaheer Khan and Sreesanth have bowled like top class bowlers in the first two test matches.

No. Sreesanth has bowled well, Zaheer as well. Hardly top class.

 

[adharcric]

No. Sreesanth has bowled well, Zaheer as well. Hardly top class.

No. Sreesanth has bowled top-class. Zaheer has bowled well. Neither are top-class right now.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No. Sreesanth has bowled top-class. Zaheer has bowled well. Neither are top-class right now.

Sreesanth has bowled some really good spells but also mixed in a lot of rubbish too. How is that top class?

 

[adharcric]

Sreesanth has bowled some really good spells but also mixed in a lot of rubbish too. How is that top class?

18 wickets @ 19.16 in 5 innings. Top class. Hardly a lot of rubbish, he's bowled two or three bad spells.

 

[silentstriker]

18 wickets @ 19.16 in 5 innings. Top class. Hardly a lot of rubbish, he's bowled two or three bad spells.

He's bowled rubbish about five times. His good spells and high strike rate seem to make up for that, but when the pitch does less or a batting lineup is more determined, he'll struggle for sure.

He has had a very good series, but not top class, regardless of his average. Zaheer Khan is averaging 32.37 with the ball in two very bowler friendly wickets, but you wouldn't say he is having a rubbish series, would you? Zaheer Khan has had a good series and Sreesanth a very good one.

Not top class, no.

 

[silentstriker]

Also, you know who has had a 'Top Class' series? Pollock. In two test matches, he is averaging 13.75, with hardly a bad spell to speak of.

Ntini: average 15.92
Nel: average 24

So he'd be the #3 pace bowler in this series if you go on averages. But in reality, Pollock is the only one who has had a top class series, Ntini and Sreesanth a very good one, and Nel and Zaheer a good one.

 

[silentstriker]

Why must I argue against Indian bowlers even if they are having a good series? Makes me look too negative, but the truth is the truth.

EDIT: But I have been pleasantly surprised with the pace bowlers. They are having a top class series by the [admittedly not very high] standards of Indian pace bowling.

I'll take a very good series each and every time from our pace bowlers, and I do not mean to take anything away from Sreesanth.

 

[Jono]

No way, I'd take Sreesanth over Pollock in this series. Pollock has bowled better than Sree in this game, but I'll take a man that's had dominating and match-changing/winning spells, and some bad ones, then Pollock who has been very consistent but not dominating enough.

If Pollock had opened the bowling at any point, I'd probably agree as he would have had more of an opportunity, but not at this minute.

Dare say Sree has more top order SA wickets as well, compared to Pollock vs. Ind. I'll check that out now.

 

[silentstriker]

No way, I'd take Sreesanth over Pollock in this series. Pollock has bowled better than Sree in this game, but I'll take a man that's had dominating and match-changing/winning spells, and some bad ones, then Pollock who has been very consistent but not dominating enough.

If Pollock had opened the bowling at any point, I'd probably agree, but not at this minute.

Dare say Sree has more top order SA wickets as well, compared to Pollock vs. Ind. I'll check that out now.

Hmm, good point. To me though, top class bowling is also not giving away the initiative by bowling bad spells. If you really have more than a single bad spell, you haven't bowled top class for my money.

 

[Jono]

I'm not get into these definitions of top class, test class, very good, good whatever. Everyone has different standards and different views. Its like Liam pretending that his definitions of world class must be the same as everyone elses.

Fact of the matter is, Pollock only took one wicket in the 2nd test on a bowler friendly track. He bowled tight yes, but in the end Nel and Ntini won them the game. In the 1st test he only got one top order wicket in the 1st innings, the rest were the last 3 batsman. Hardly brilliant.

Plus, Pollock has batted and bowled well, yet everyone is talking about Sree as man of the series. Pretty obvious who has been the better bowler.

 

[Pratters]

Also, you know who has had a 'Top Class' series? Pollock. In two test matches, he is averaging 13.75, with hardly a bad spell to speak of.

So you have to average 13 to be considered top class for a series? I am not arguing whether Sreesanth is top class or not because such debates are redundant for me - a player who is top class over time will perform series after series and most people will be convinced regarding them latter if not sooner.

However, 13 is too strict a standard for a series. Any thing below 20 in a series and you know the bowler has usually done a top job for his team.

 

[TT Boy]

I would suggest Zaheer Khan has had a pretty disappointing series, if only because he has not taken off the tag as a bowler who is only useful with the new ball. Showed in the preceding one day series that once the shine has gone his pretty much cannon fodder and in this test series his been shielded and left to graze in the field once the new ball has run its course. One luxury he won’t have in England this summer.

Sreesanth on the other hand has been top draw and a consistent danger for the South African batsman with new ball or old.

 

[Pratters]

Why must I argue against Indian bowlers even if they are having a good series? Makes me look too negative, but the truth is the truth.

EDIT: But I have been pleasantly surprised with the pace bowlers. They are having a top class series by the [admittedly not very high] standards of Indian pace bowling.

I'll take a very good series each and every time from our pace bowlers, and I do not mean to take anything away from Sreesanth.

I have been telling you for ages that the Indian bowling is not poor. It is certainly the best line up we have after the spin quartet era if we look back at Indian history and fast bowler wise, it can look to compare with the first test bowling line up of India in 1932 - wihch has ironically been easily the best fast bowling attack in our history even though I am not that big a backer of Zaheer Khan.

 

[silentstriker]

So you have to average 13 to be considered top class for a series? I am not arguing whether Sreesanth is top class or not because such debates are redundant for me - a player who is top class over time will perform series after series and most people will be convinced regarding them latter if not sooner.

However, 13 is too strict a standard for a series. Any thing below 20 in a series and you know the bowler has usually done a top job for his team.

It also depends on the pitches. When four bowlers average less than 20 in the first two matches, you have to take that into account (Ntini, Pollock, Kumble, Sreesanth). Averaging 25 in the series against Pakistan last year would have been top class.

 

[silentstriker]

I have been telling you for ages that the Indian bowling is not poor. It is certainly the best line up we have after the spin quartet era if we look back at Indian history and fast bowler wise, it can look to compare with the first test bowling line up of India in 1932 - wihch has ironically been easily the best fast bowling attack in our history even though I am not that big a backer of Zaheer Khan.

I don't disagree. But it has to be proven through performances before it becomes reality.

 

[Jono]

I would suggest Zaheer Khan has had a pretty disappointing series, if only because he has not taken off the tag as a bowler who is only useful with the new ball. Showed in the preceding one day series that once the shine has gone his pretty much cannon fodder and in this test series his been shielded and left to graze in the field once the new ball has run its course. One luxury he won’t have in England this summer.

In ODIs that's definitley true, he's really poor when the ball is old. Almost to the extent that I'd bowl him up front for a 6 over spell, and then finish off his 4 from in between the 20-26 over mark. Never been good at the death IMO.

However whenever I see Zaheer bowling with the old ball, he always looks threatening but never breaks through, and ends up going for runs. He reverses it well IMO, covering the ball and getting it to go both ways, but I don't know whether its his lack of speed or whatever, but he just gets picked off his pads when he tries to bowl straight. Then he'll over-compensate bowling wide and will drag it down or bowl a half-volley.

If Munaf was anywhere near fit he and Sree would ideally bowl with the old ball as much as possible not including Sree. I rate Munaf's reverse.

 

[Pratters]

It also depends on the pitches.

Which is why I mentioned usually.

 

[silentstriker]

Which is why I mentioned usually.

And this doesn't fall into the 'usually'.

 

[Pratters]

And this doesn't fall into the 'usually'.

I would say averaging below 20 in this series is a good effort. Just because 4 bowlers have done it or a specific bowler has averaged 13, doesn't mean an average of 19 in this series is not a good effort. It is not as if we encountered extravagantly pace friendly tracks or that the South Africans are poor players of pace.

 

[silentstriker]

South Africans are poor players of pace.

As Clark showed earlier in the year, that statement may not be false on certain pitches...

I would say averaging below 20 in this series is a good effort. Just because 4 bowlers have done it or a specific bowler has averaged 13, doesn't mean an average of 19 in this series is not a good effort.

Whoa whoa....back up here. When did I say it was not a good effort? When did this change from 'top class' to 'good effort'?