Who would you have picked instead of Darren Pattinson ?

[BoyBrumby]

Have played against him, and no-one likes facing him. Hits the gloves pretty hard, still gets some movement in doing so. Hit our opening batsman one day on the chest, thought it had put a whole in him.

Basically, the guy was bowling very well in District Cricket about 5-6 years ago, a good year or two from really pushing his way up the ranks. Then he and his partner had a kid, bills need paying and the local clubs came calling. Went back and played with Doveton with mates, got a bit of coin. Was lured back down to Dandenong a year or two later, bowling very well still. Victoria had a plethora of injuries to their fast bowlers in 06/07, he took the opportunity and performed well. Got a contract the next season (this one just gone) , but had an ankle operation at the start of it, only came back after Christmas and by then others had leapfrogged ahead of him. Guys who I don't think are better bowlers.

Actually handles the stick okay too.

Yeah, as zaremba said, cheers for that. Nice to hear from someone who knows what he's talking about.

Not suggesting any other CWers might not know what they're talking about, obv.

 

[mikeW]

Would be interesting if brothers played against each other in an Ashes series.

 

[Richard]

Absurd. It's a bit like removing the centuries from a batsman's career analysis on the grounds that these are the "minority stuff".

Nah, good batsmen make centuries regularly. Far more regularly than Harmison had good figures in Tests.

In any case, an innings doesn't have to be a century to be a good one.

 

[Goughy]

Im not even going to comment your your selective use of statistics.

What Ill talk about is Harmison and cricket in general. Its no secret that Harmison has serious troughs in performance. Both confidence and technically related.

When he is spraying it around at 80 mph and sulking he is a liability.

However, he is in good form right now. I dont know how much of the technical stuff has been fixed but he is hiting 90+ mph at the moment.

When he is doing that, he is possibly Englands most dangerous bowler and the opposition dont want to face him.

He deserves criticism for being below standard (130 kph) too often but that isnt what you want from him. England need the 90+ mph bowler that scares the **** out of batsmen.

England dont have the riches to ignore him in that form.

 

[Richard]

I've seen Harmison be totally ineffective bowling 140kph+ far too many times to believe that all he needs to do is that to be effective.

Both because of the fact that he mostly sprays it, whatever speed he's bowling at, be it slow or fast, and because even on the very rare occasions he bowls in the right areas, he doesn't do much if anything with the ball, so still doesn't cause problems to good batsmen.

And I'm honestly amazed that anyone objects to removing a whole 7 Tests in 4 months. Do this to the career of any particularly good player and the difference it makes will be negligable.

That Harmison's average goes from 34 to 39 is huuuuuuuuuge.

 

[Manee]

Im not even going to comment your your selective use of statistics.

What Ill talk about is Harmison and cricket in general. Its no secret that Harmison has serious troughs in performance. Both confidence and technically related.

When he is spraying it around at 80 mph and sulking he is a liability.

However, he is in good form right now. I dont know how much of the technical stuff has been fixed but he is hiting 90+ mph at the moment.

When he is doing that, he is possibly Englands most dangerous bowler and the opposition dont want to face him.

He deserves criticism for being below standard (130 kph) too often but that isnt what you want from him. England need the 90+ mph bowler that scars the **** out of batsmen.

England dont have the riches to ignore him in that form.

Not sure you want him to scar batsmen, but it is good to have someone think similarly to me in terms of pace and the importance of such when determining how good a bowler's form is - although this obviously cannot be used blindly on its own. I truly believe that Harmison's pace is 90% rhythm based and mental - in the FP Trophy, it was quite astounding to see that you could pretty accurately predict his pace from the speed he was running in and occasionally, the expression on his face (okay, perhaps that is a stretch. That ball he bowled at 93mph was always going to be quick as he looked poised and was charging in, similarly, the balls he bowled at 85mph were due to him merely charging in.

Incase I wasn't clear, AWTA in terms of the quoted post.

 

[Goughy]

I've seen Harmison be totally ineffective bowling 140kph+ far too many times to believe that all he needs to do is that to be effective.

Both because of the fact that he mostly sprays it, whatever speed he's bowling at, be it slow or fast, and because even on the very rare occasions he bowls in the right areas, he doesn't do much if anything with the ball, so still doesn't cause problems to good batsmen.

Ok, I cant be bothered to go through all this again re: bounce, footwork, awkward hand position, caught in no mans land etc.

What we need is a guy that swings it like Ealham?

Your lack of respect for pace, bounce and angle is amazing.

 

[Manee]

I've seen Harmison be totally ineffective bowling 140kph+ far too many times to believe that all he needs to do is that to be effective.

The 140kph of Harmison's younger years is the 130kph of today. The fact is that when he bowls at over 145kph, he is and has always been a potent threat - or at least, as far as I have watched.

 

[Manee]

Your lack of respect for pace, bounce and angle is amazing.

No, I am not your secret admirer, but AWTA again - although the latter two can be intangible in that they cannot be quantified, they are very real facets.

 

[Richard]

Ok, I cant be bothered to go through all this again re: bounce, footwork, awkward hand position, caught in no mans land etc.

Your lack of respect for pace, bounce and angle is amazing.

I don't lack respect for it - I simply have never seen anything to demonstrate that bounce and awkward angle in itself, nor pace in itself, are potent weapons. The ball has to go sideways (or else bounce unevenly) in order to present a threat to competant batting. Even if you do get caught in no-man's-land and get slightly late on a ball from time to time, this simply doesn't often result in wickets (in my experience), just a slightly uncomfortable-looking stroke.

What we need is a guy that swings it like Ealham?

No, he was never an effective Test bowler, though he also wasn't anywhere near as bad as some of the rubbish we've had of late like Mahmood.

What we need is something we haven't got - accurate swing\seam-bowlers, ideally who get bounce as well. And of course, the quicker the better. And of course, if they can do things other than move the ball off the seam, good too - but then you've really got Dennis Lillee on your hands.

What we don't need is a Harmison who basically offers nothing against good batting, however quickly he bowls. As he's been quick and harmless more times than I can count.

 

[zaremba]

I simply have never seen anything to demonstrate that bounce and awkward angle in itself, nor pace in itself, are potent weapons.

Well that's perhaps because you've decided that Harmison's demolition spree in 2004 never happened.

It wasn't just that he bowled well, it's that he was feared and respected by the opposition batsmen.

Flintoff is the same - he doesn't get much lateral movement (a bit of seam movement in to the batsman, and occasionally gets reverse swing) but is a good bowler nonetheless. His principal weapons? Erm bounce, awkward angle, and pace.

 

[Richard]

Well that's perhaps because you've decided that Harmison's demolition spree in 2004 never happened.

I haven't decided it never happened. I simply feel that it should be treated as separate from most of his career, as it was notably different from it. It was also poor batting, mostly from batsmen who were poor throughout their Test careers.

It wasn't just that he bowled well, it's that he was feared and respected by the opposition batsmen.

Maybe he was feared and respected... but when they played him well, he still didn't get remotely good figures. Suggesting to me that he wasn't really bowling well.

Flintoff is the same - he doesn't get much lateral movement (a bit of seam movement in to the batsman, and occasionally gets reverse swing) but is a good bowler nonetheless. His principal weapons? Erm bounce, awkward angle, and pace.

But Flintoff's transformation from useless to hugely potent was exactly for the reason that he started to get the ball to move sideways, both through the air and off the pitch. Until the summer of 2004 he never got the ball to do much, and sure enough he mostly took no wicket hauls of any note. But after learning to use the seam, use reverse-swing, and yes, occasionally even use conventional-swing, he's become a much more potent force.

Bounce merely means his edges carry. He doesn't bounce batsmen out. Nor does he beat them for pace, but obviously if they are beaten by something else his extra pace is an advantage as it means it's more difficult to correct.

 

[zaremba]

Maybe he was feared and respected... but when they played him well, he still didn't get remotely good figures. Suggesting to me that he wasn't really bowling well.

It's an easy game to play when you're watching on TV!

Bowlers with height, bounce and pace can make batsmen play ugly shots, and they can get ugly wickets. Harmison is/was one such bowler. You have minimal time to react, you're playing the ball in uncomfortable areas and you find yourself playing shots which you otherwise might not. To write that off as batsman error is to underestimate the role of the bowler.

 

[Pup Clarke]

It's an easy game to play when you're watching on TV!

Exactly.

 

[Goughy]

Bounce merely means his edges carry. He doesn't bounce batsmen out. Nor does he beat them for pace, but obviously if they are beaten by something else his extra pace is an advantage as it means it's more difficult to correct.

Bounce doesnt mean bouncing people out. It means that its difficult to get into the right positions to play the ball.

Half the wickets you think come from batsman error come from the an awkwardness and indecision based on the ball. A bad shot usualy comes from being in a bad position which is based on the ball.

Even hitting a long hop to point isnt just down to batsman error as the ball can get big and hurry on. 'Bad' balls from certain players are far more dangerous than those of others. It isnt about luck.

Bounce adds a variable to where the ball will be. Its the hardest thing for good batsmen to play, far more difficult than basic swing. Thats the reason guys like McGrath, Ambrose, Ntini, Pollock, Harmison have an element of success whilst seldom swinging the ball.

There is a reason why Pomie Mbangwa wasnt very good despite swinging it all over. Its because he was slow and the bounce predictable.

If swing on its own was dangerous then the best opening partneship in recent years for England may be Butcher and Trescothick

 

[zaremba]

Bounce doesnt mean bouncing people out. It means that its difficult to get into the right positions to play the ball.

Half the wickets you think come from batsman error come from the an awkwardness and indecision based on the ball. A bad shot usualy comes from being in a bad position which is based on the ball.

Even hiting a long hop to point isnt just down to batsman error as it can get big and hurry on.

Bounce adds a variable to where the ball will be. Its the hardest thing for good batsmen to play, far more difficult than basic swing. Thats the reason guys like McGrath, Ambrose, Ntini, Harmison have an element of succes whilts seldom swinging the bal.

Completely AWTA.

 

[opener]

Chappels not just too old, he's also shot to pieces and poor.

I don't care what his stats are currently at in the lowly county circuit, although I find it astonishing if they are any good as was previously stated in this thread.

I saw him opening the bowling in that recent SKY televised Championship game Vs Sussex, and he was absolutely decrepid and awful.

 

[Richard]

Bounce doesnt mean bouncing people out. It means that its difficult to get into the right positions to play the ball.

Half the wickets you think come from batsman error come from the an awkwardness and indecision based on the ball. A bad shot usualy comes from being in a bad position which is based on the ball.

Even hitting a long hop to point isnt just down to batsman error as the ball can get big and hurry on. 'Bad' balls from certain players are far more dangerous than those of others. It isnt about luck.

Bounce adds a variable to where the ball will be. Its the hardest thing for good batsmen to play, far more difficult than basic swing.

Why then are there virtually no spells of wicket-taking where this happens constantly? Yeah, you get the odd bad stroke which results in a wicket to bowlers who get the ball to bounce more than the norm, but usually if you rely on this you'll get 2-110 very often. And you see batsmen playing bad shots sometimes, even the best are fallible. Mostly it's not common enough to allow a bowler to get good figures purely by relying on bad batting, even if you are of the opinion that this poor batting is induced by indecision which is a result of bounce.

Thats the reason guys like McGrath, Ambrose, Ntini, Pollock, Harmison have an element of success whilst seldom swinging the ball.

McGrath and Ambrose may not have swung the ball much, but both moved it sideways, off and on all decks, plenty. Pollock and even sometimes Ntini were\are also good at this.

There is a reason why Pomie Mbangwa wasnt very good despite swinging it all over. Its because he was slow and the bounce predictable.

I realise that. I've never said swinging the ball is all anyone needs to do to be Malcolm Marshall. It is a little irritating the way you continually speak as if I've ever so much as once suggested that swing is all a bowler needs to do.

 

[zaremba]

McGrath and Ambrose may not have swung the ball much, but both moved it sideways, off and on all decks, plenty. Pollock and even sometimes Ntini were\are also good at this.

Agree about Pollock who was certainly capable of moving the ball and did so regularly.

Ambrose however didn't get a whole lot of lateral movement.

McGrath could get seam movement (and later in his career a little bit of swing), but took wickets largely through his accuracy, pace and bounce.

Others who got very little lateral movement and yet were great bowlers (greater than GBH) included Garner, Willis, Holding, Thomson.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Vic Marks on Pattinson

From today's Observer.

Interesting read if you have five minutes. Victor basically concludes that, on the evidence of Friday & Saturday, Pattinson hasn't shown enough to warrant jumping to the front of the queue. Which is pretty hard to disagree with, frankly.