Who would you have?

[Pup Clarke]

Ntini > Nel

 

[Nishant]

Ntini > Nel

agreed!

 

[vic_orthdox]

Umm... Andre Nel? Andrew Flintoff? Matthew Hoggard? All emerged within the last 3-4 years.

I think Asif has the potential to be better than those three.

 

[Richard]

Ntini > Nel

Well, yeah, but Ntini's been an established high-class bowler for 7 years now.

 

[Richard]

I think Asif has the potential to be better than those three.

Oh, yes, considerably, but all are good bowlers, and non-Australians, and emerged in the late-2003\early-2004 time.

 

[Matt79]

Umm... Andre Nel? Andrew Flintoff? Matthew Hoggard? All emerged within the last 3-4 years.

Emphasis on the word decent, rather than "flash in the pan for couple of series here and there, mixed in with long periods of injury or pronounced averageness", which would be a better description for the accomplishments of both of those players to be harsh but accurate. Plus Nel debuted in 2001-2, and while it was a couple of years before he got another game, it wasn't like he emerged then - he was clearly already about. And Flintoff debuted in the 90s, and had played something like 25 tests before the period you're discussing. By emerge I mean "first come to notice", in the manner Asif has.

And rather than decent I should have said very good/potentially great, and that rules out Hoggy. He's decent, but nobody thinks he's the number 1 bowler in the world or likely to attain that status for any length of time.

 

[Richard]

They may have debuted around the 1998-2000 time, but none of them were remotely good bowlers until late-2003\early-2004.

And TBH I think it's harsh to describe Nel and Flintoff in such manners.

If you say no-one good has emerged in the last near-decade, no-one good from anywhere - Australia included - has done so. Simple as.

 

[SJS]

I think Asif has the potential to be better than those three.

Asif has to bowl like this for another ten years and we have a Pakitani McGrath. This is not a tongue in cheek remark. What I am trying to say is not that he needs to bowl well for ten years to prove anything but that he is a world class bowler and the only thing missing is a record over a longer period.

He is fabulous for one so young.

 

[howardj]

Given our dearth of spinners, I'd go for Monty.

Followed closely by Asif.

 

[Matt79]

They may have debuted around the 1998-2000 time, but none of them were remotely good bowlers until late-2003\early-2004.

Richard, did you actually read my posts before you leaped in to debate it. I said "emerged", as in came to notice, began playing at a serious level, entered the public consciousness. Making an international debut would count in that context. Not actually achieving some decent results after 3-5 years as a journeyman. If I meant to say "fulfilled their potential", I would have said that instead of "emerged".

And TBH I think it's harsh to describe Nel and Flintoff in such manners.

I already said I was being harsh towards Nel and Flintoff. I also said that I felt it to be nevertheless accurate. Both have produced very average results in many series, interspersed with a few series where they've ranged from good to outstanding. Neither has achieved anything like the consistency at the international level to be rated as top-level performers.

If you say no-one good has emerged in the last near-decade, no-one good from anywhere - Australia included - has done so. Simple as.

And the ENTIRE point of my post was that Asif was the first really good prospect to emerge in several years. Clark would be another, although I'd agree that his relatively lengthy FC apprenticeship means its debatable as to whether he's actually "emerged" recently or not.

 

[Richard]

Richard, did you actually read my posts before you leaped in to debate it. I said "emerged", as in came to notice, began playing at a serious level, entered the public consciousness. Making an international debut would count in that context. Not actually achieving some decent results after 3-5 years as a journeyman. If I meant to say "fulfilled their potential", I would have said that instead of "emerged".

I've seen plenty of people who play 1 or 2 Tests without entering the public consciousness TBH. D'you remember Mohammad Khalil? K Eric Upashantha? Dinuk Hettiarachchi (don't even know if that's spelt right, that's how obscure he is)? Shaun Young (several people when David Hoitink mentioned him recently said they'd "forgotten he ever played for Australia")? Worst of all - Patterson Thompson?

IMO, none of the 3 aforementioned bowlers were doing anything to make anyone take any note at all until the 2003\04 season. All would probably have been forgotten without trace had they been injured in October 2003 (or, in Hoggard's case, January 2004).

I already said I was being harsh towards Nel and Flintoff. I also said that I felt it to be nevertheless accurate. Both have produced very average results in many series, interspersed with a few series where they've ranged from good to outstanding. Neither has achieved anything like the consistency at the international level to be rated as top-level performers.

No, they haven't, but I still think your assessment is harsh and inaccurate. Flintoff since winter 2003\04 has been almost without fail an excellent bowler, and Nel in all bar the odd Test here and there.

And the ENTIRE point of my post was that Asif was the first really good prospect to emerge in several years. Clark would be another, although I'd agree that his relatively lengthy FC apprenticeship means its debatable as to whether he's actually "emerged" recently or not.

Whoops, forgot Clark. Asif emerged before him though. And it seems that, while he played for Australia A as far back as 2002\03, plenty were still not expecting any great deal from him when he debuted.

I'd thought, TBH, that the entire point of your OP was that Asif was the first good non-Australian prospect. It is this, all this time, that I've taken exception to. If that was not your meaning I apologise, but it did seem pretty inequivocal.

 

[Matt79]

I cede the "emerged" point as one that could go either way depending on your interpretation. I've explained in my subsequent post what I meant. And the reason I meant that is because there's a big difference between the hype generated by players who come back as better players after a poor debut and a couple of years on the fringe with some solid performances, and someone who makes as startlingly good a debut as Asif has.

And the point re: non-Australian prospect - the non-Australian-ness of the description was the less important part - my point was getting at there hadn't been many prospects, and if you are correct in saying there weren't any decent Aussies emerging in that period, that only adds to my point about why I think Asif has, excellent start notwithstanding, been somewhat over-hyped and over-romanticised by a fanbase starved for exciting new bowling talent.

On Nel and Flintoff, Nel is the classic case of the kind of bowler I'd expect you to rant against. He has some talent but excites much more interest and positive opinion because of his attitude and demeanour. He's done well against a pretty weak WIs line up, excluding Lara who has made scores of 202, 196, 176, 115, 86, and 72 off attacks Nel was a part of, and yet the WIs were still unable to produce a win, and the 4th test runs feast in 04/05 which he missed (with the side effect of preserving his series figures). He's gone well against India in two tests at home, and in one test against England. He's cleaned up versus Zimbabwe. He's done rather worse against Australia, and failed to make any kind of impact against New Zealand, Pakistan or Sri Lanka. So against the decent batting he's come across, Lara did well, the Aussies did well, but he did well against India. I think my assessment is fair enough, although I'll allow that he might continue to improve.

Flintoff needs to show he can recapture the vein of form he had in 2005 vs Australia and in India before that form can be considered to be much more than an all-too-brief display of his potential as a bowler. He toiled manfully in Australia when he wasn't fully fit, but at the moment, despite his excitement quotient, his record has as much dross as it does gold.

 

[Richard]

I cede the "emerged" point as one that could go either way depending on your interpretation. I've explained in my subsequent post what I meant. And the reason I meant that is because there's a big difference between the hype generated by players who come back as better players after a poor debut and a couple of years on the fringe with some solid performances, and someone who makes as startlingly good a debut as Asif has.

Easy to forget, ain't it, but Asif actually did make a terrible debut. At the time he was no better than Khalil. Had he not come back an inestimatably better bowler he too would have sunk without trace.

And the point re: non-Australian prospect - the non-Australian-ness of the description was the less important part - my point was getting at there hadn't been many prospects, and if you are correct in saying there weren't any decent Aussies emerging in that period, that only adds to my point about why I think Asif has, excellent start notwithstanding, been somewhat over-hyped and over-romanticised by a fanbase starved for exciting new bowling talent.

Hmm, I disagree really. He might fade away, anyone can, but his impact to date has been nothing short of astonishing. He's had multiple setbacks, but still nothing seems to trip him up, he just has an ability to bowl the same time after time again. I think he deserves everything said about him to date.

On Nel and Flintoff, Nel is the classic case of the kind of bowler I'd expect you to rant against. He has some talent but excites much more interest and positive opinion because of his attitude and demeanour. He's done well against a pretty weak WIs line up, excluding Lara who has made scores of 202, 196, 176, 115, 86, and 72 off attacks Nel was a part of, and yet the WIs were still unable to produce a win, and the 4th test runs feast in 04/05 which he missed (with the side effect of preserving his series figures). He's gone well against India in two tests at home, and in one test against England. He's cleaned up versus Zimbabwe. He's done rather worse against Australia, and failed to make any kind of impact against New Zealand, Pakistan or Sri Lanka. So against the decent batting he's come across, Lara did well, the Aussies did well, but he did well against India. I think my assessment is fair enough, although I'll allow that he might continue to improve.

His terrible record against New Zealand does disappoint me greatly, but circumstances have conspired against him IMO (he bowled terribly in his first game at Hamilton, pretty well - though the figures weren't outstanding at all - in his second, and in his 2nd series missed 2 juicy surfaces and played on a very flat one). Certainly they did against Pakistan - I lost count of the number of wickets he was denied by bad decisions in the 2 Tests he played in the recent series (and likewise the previous one against India). And beyond all question his series against Australia in 2005\06 did not do him justice - he suffered more than anyone from the ridiculous number of dropped catches, and was not fit in the final game of the 6. Even then, he only had 1 really bad game, the Fifth Test.

He's still only played 22 Tests since becoming a serious bowler. This is not a huge number. Nonetheless, he is 30 now and crunch-time is upon us. It's now or never.

If anything, though, the talk of his attitude and demeneaur is overstated. Several people say it's all he has going for him, which is quite untrue, he's a very multi-talented bowler

Flintoff needs to show he can recapture the vein of form he had in 2005 vs Australia and in India before that form can be considered to be much more than an all-too-brief display of his potential as a bowler. He toiled manfully in Australia when he wasn't fully fit, but at the moment, despite his excitement quotient, his record has as much dross as it does gold.

I disagree, I feel in this period he has rarely failed to bowl well or at least fairly well, though the overall figures are not outstanding. Look through - out-and-out bad games are rare.

Of course, before this he was terrible full-stop, and this often intrudes on the thinking.

 

[Matt79]

And beyond all question his series against Australia in 2005\06 did not do him justice - he suffered more than anyone from the ridiculous number of dropped catches, and was not fit in the final game of the 6. Even then, he only had 1 really bad game, the Fifth Test.

He's still only played 22 Tests since becoming a serious bowler. This is not a huge number. Nonetheless, he is 30 now and crunch-time is upon us. It's now or never.

I watched nearly all of that series, and honestly don't recall thinking Nel was particularly unlucky at any stage, or even thinking that SA dropped many more catches than you'd normally expect. I thought in general they were just outplayed by a better team on that team's homepatch. That said, I haven't since sat down and gone through match reports over by over.

 

[Richard]

You're kidding me surely? SA dropped more catches that series than I can ever remember being dropped in such a short period - even Pakistan have never been that bad.

And all bowlers will suffer in those eventualities, because even if catches don't go down off them, they'll get the 2-89s rather than the 2-34s.

 

[Matt79]

Hmmm... I remember a few dropped catches, which always happens in any series, but nothing that struck me as terribly out of the ordinary.

 

[Richard]

Maybe because dropped catches don't infuriate you the way they do me.

What about The Ashes 2005? Did you think an abnormal amount of catches went down that series?

'Cos I certainly did then too - both sides' catching was nothing short of terrible.

Or how about England in Pakistan 2005\06 (if you watched it)?

 

[Matt79]

Thought on some days in the 2005 Ashes it was terrible. KP was involved one way or another in those days. On other days it was good or not noticeable.

Didn't see England in Pakistan - no cable back then.

 

[Richard]

I honestly just think, then (and this is no criticism) that dropped catches just don't stick in your mind the way they do mine.

It's perfectly conceivable, and happens often enough, for a whole series to go by with no more than 5 or 6 dropped catches. Any more than that is excessive, and I'd say there'd have been 15 absolute minumum in the first 4 Tests (IRR got better in the last 2) and that's just from SA (Aus were generally pretty good that series, for the first time in absolutely ages).

 

[Matt79]

15 in 4 tests, is under two per innings. I'm not sure what your thresholds for categorisations like "bad miss", "tough chance but should have taken it", and "tough chance, would have been a great catch but hard to blame him for not taking it" are like, but unless we're talking two "bad misses" per innings, that's not exceptional in my eyes.

Maybe Nel had some sitters dropped off him - for that to alter my opinion of him as a bowler, I'd need to be convinced that it had happened to him more than it might happen to any bowler. I'd also want convincing that he'd never had counterbalancing good luck, in the form of brilliant catches unexpectedly held, or unmerited lbws, that would negate the effect of those drops. That isn't my recollection of seeing him bowl. 7 tests is starting to get beyond a point where you'd accept that genuine misfortune would play a part in shaping somebody's record.