[My Article] The State of England Bowling

[open365]

Because i don't see being consistent as something trivial which is easily changed with some hard work in nets.

Stuart Broad, now he has potential because he's got a brilliant action, is quite accurate and very consistent.

Notice that Liam Plunket has none of the above things.

Take Anderson as an example, four years ago he had potential because he bowled MoYo with a swinging yorker, he to could bowl mid to high 80s with great seam position and at times swing it.

4 years on, it's the same old story.

He's had 4 years and is still bascialy the exact same bowler.

I don't consider that as having potential.

Saj Mahmood aswell.

3 years ago i saw him play for Lancs 2nds at my home ground, i watched every ball he bowled. He had pace, he had bounce, he made it quite awkward for the batsman at times, yet most of the time he sprayed it around and the batsmen could pick him off for easy runs.

3 years later, he's slightly taller, slightly quicker, gets slightly more bounce, and slightly more swing. He's still as inacurate as a Mark Sheilds' press conference. He's still "got potential" acording to some people, yet he's still getting routinely hit from here to next week by anyone who can hold a bat.

 

[Swervy]

How on earth can anyone say Plunkett does not have potential? He bowls with a near-perfect seam position, bowling up to the mid/high-80s, gets a ton of movement and played for England when he was 20.

I agree, to completely dismiss Plunkett this early in his career is ridiculous

 

[Richard]

Would it be ridiculous to dismiss me at the same age?

Of course it wouldn't.

 

[Swervy]

Would it be ridiculous to dismiss me at the same age?

Of course it wouldn't.

It is very doubtful that if you havent played Premier league type cricket by now Richard, you have very little potential to even dream about County seconds.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Because i don't see being consistent as something trivial which is easily changed with some hard work in nets.

Stuart Broad, now he has potential because he's got a brilliant action, is quite accurate and very consistent.

Notice that Liam Plunket has none of the above things.

Take Anderson as an example, four years ago he had potential because he bowled MoYo with a swinging yorker, he to could bowl mid to high 80s with great seam position and at times swing it.

4 years on, it's the same old story.

He's had 4 years and is still bascialy the exact same bowler.

I don't consider that as having potential.

Saj Mahmood aswell.

3 years ago i saw him play for Lancs 2nds at my home ground, i watched every ball he bowled. He had pace, he had bounce, he made it quite awkward for the batsman at times, yet most of the time he sprayed it around and the batsmen could pick him off for easy runs.

3 years later, he's slightly taller, slightly quicker, gets slightly more bounce, and slightly more swing. He's still as inacurate as a Mark Sheilds' press conference. He's still "got potential" acording to some people, yet he's still getting routinely hit from here to next week by anyone who can hold a bat.

Yea, Anderson who's had his action messed about with and has been messed about with by England is a great example isn't he?

So you're basically saying someone is automatically going to never get any better based on two examples? Your argument is hopeless. You cannot say Plunkett has no potential. You cannot say he'll be the same player in however many years. You're not some comic book hero who sees the future. You're just taking a guess and applies inappropriate levels of certainty to it.

 

[Richard]

It is very doubtful that if you havent played Premier league type cricket by now Richard, you have very little potential to even dream about County seconds.

And it's very doubtful that if Plunkett hasn't managed to work-out how to land 2 balls on the same spot, that he has the potential to even dream about being a Test-standard bowler. Regardless of how old he is.

 

[open365]

Yea, Anderson who's had his action messed about with and has been messed about with by England is a great example isn't he?

So you're basically saying someone is automatically going to never get any better based on two examples? Your argument is hopeless. You cannot say Plunkett has no potential. You cannot say he'll be the same player in however many years. You're not some comic book hero who sees the future. You're just taking a guess and applies inappropriate levels of certainty to it.

I'm giving examples to back up my case that bowling 89mph and being innacurate does not equal potential.

You can say he'll get more accurate but so what? Steve Harmison could learn how to swing a ball, James Anderson could learn how to bat, does that mean they have potential to to become a swing bowler and a batsman?

No, because they haven't shown enough promise in that area to warrant the term potential.

 

[FBU]

'Stephen Harmison who has led the England pace attack as the spearhead is the most likely bowler to get your first wicket'.

On the 92 occasions Harmison has been given the first new ball, he has failed to take a wicket 63 times.

 

[FBU]

Because i don't see being consistent as something trivial which is easily changed with some hard work in nets.

Stuart Broad, now he has potential because he's got a brilliant action, is quite accurate and very consistent.

Notice that Liam Plunket has none of the above things.

Take Anderson as an example, four years ago he had potential because he bowled MoYo with a swinging yorker, he to could bowl mid to high 80s with great seam position and at times swing it.

4 years on, it's the same old story.

He's had 4 years and is still bascialy the exact same bowler.

I don't consider that as having potential.

Saj Mahmood aswell.

3 years ago i saw him play for Lancs 2nds at my home ground, i watched every ball he bowled. He had pace, he had bounce, he made it quite awkward for the batsman at times, yet most of the time he sprayed it around and the batsmen could pick him off for easy runs.

3 years later, he's slightly taller, slightly quicker, gets slightly more bounce, and slightly more swing. He's still as inacurate as a Mark Sheilds' press conference. He's still "got potential" acording to some people, yet he's still getting routinely hit from here to next week by anyone who can hold a bat.

Among the younger English breed, Donald concentrates on four bowlers. "I like Saj Mahmood. He's got real talent but he does need some fine-tuning so he becomes a more consistent threat. [Liam] Plunkett is pretty much the same - if not as quick. If you bring in Stuart Broad, along with [Jimmy] Anderson, then you've got an exciting crop of quicks. Broad and Anderson would be my first two choices - with Mahmood and Plunkett having the next most potential.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

What does FBU stand for? Fast Bowlers Union?

 

[nightprowler10]

It's amazing what being appointed to the moderation team can do to one's attitude...

Haha, I was part of the moderation team at the time I said that when it was entirely true. Things change you know. Besides, my post yesterday wasn't promoting PC but rather showing my displeasure at the way threads turn into...well, you get the point.

 

[stumpski]

My faith lies in the return of Simon Jones, who has the potential to be one of the world's best bowlers. He came on so much in the first few years when playing for England, even Richie Benaud constantly praised him. What a weapon he could prove to be.

It's only a 40 over game I know, but he'll be in action against Derbyshire in a few minutes (the featured game on Sky) at Derby. First time I've seen him bowl since the '05 Ashes.

 

[open365]

*rushes to tv set*

 

[stumpski]

No need to rush - he didn't get the new ball. But Glamorgan are defending a small target so I imagine he'll be told to let rip and go for wickets rather than containment.

That's if he's fit enough to bowl at full pace.

 

[Richard]

'Stephen Harmison who has led the England pace attack as the spearhead is the most likely bowler to get your first wicket'.

On the 92 occasions Harmison has been given the first new ball, he has failed to take a wicket 63 times.

Absolutely. Whoever's idea it was to give him the new-ball, needs shooting.

He's about the worst possible bowler to take the new-ball, he's only exceptionally rarely demonstrated the ability to swing the ball. I'd noticed a pattern, thanks for the stats.