Adam Shantry vs James Tomlinson, September 2008

[bryce]

I'd say it will be more be a case of wanting to get bang for buck out of Thorp so bowling him more rather than risking Davies an injury, plus they had Onions, Plunkett & Killeen in the mix. I mean, a club going to lengths to protect a player's average?

 

[tooextracool]

I dont think they are trying to protect his average per se. I just think that they have done a pretty good job by not bowling him to the ground when the conditions have not suited his style of bowling. It seems to me like Thorp and Harmison have essentially done the hard yards whenever the ball isnt seaming around corners and Davies has only really bowled a lot of overs when the conditions have favored him. However, I am making this judgement based on what I have seen on the scorecards rather than having watched the games so I cant guarantee its accuracy, its just something I noticed.

 

[Richard]

He's a tall, bouncy bowler. Richard hates those types.

Eh? I "hated" (for that read: didn't think was much good) Andy Caddick, Angus Fraser, Glenn McGrath, Curtley Ambrose, Courtney Walsh, and several others, did I?

 

[Richard]

Has it been proven yet that he is, infact, an 80 year old county cricket club member?

You think I was sending my 20-year-old grandson to the 2 CW meets we've both attended in my place, do you?

 

[Richard]

Having just looked at Davies FC performances this season it appears as though Durham have gone through lengths trying to protect his average. The majority of his wickets have come in a small number of games in the season( more than a third of his wickets this season came in 2 innings) and hes generally protected by bowling less overs whenever hes not taking wickets. Out of curiousity has anyone seen him bowl yet?

I'd say it will be more be a case of wanting to get bang for buck out of Thorp so bowling him more rather than risking Davies an injury, plus they had Onions, Plunkett & Killeen in the mix. I mean, a club going to lengths to protect a player's average?

I dont think they are trying to protect his average per se. I just think that they have done a pretty good job by not bowling him to the ground when the conditions have not suited his style of bowling. It seems to me like Thorp and Harmison have essentially done the hard yards whenever the ball isnt seaming around corners and Davies has only really bowled a lot of overs when the conditions have favored him. However, I am making this judgement based on what I have seen on the scorecards rather than having watched the games so I cant guarantee its accuracy, its just something I noticed.

I've not actually seen Davies bowl since a one-dayer in 2001 (at which point he was a notably poor bowler, who had yet to achieve any success, and was smashed all over the park by Paul Pollard) so I can't offer that much of an assessment in that department. However, Durham have played a very large number of games this season on pitches that appear to have done plenty off the seam. There has been a game or three where Davies has bowled something like 15 overs for 35 with no wickets, or similar. Davies has also been injury-prone all his career, so it'd make sense for them to try not to overbowl him.

That said, I don't really think many people would dispute he's clearly a much better bowler than Onions or Plunkett (and the same applies to Neil Killeen who didn't even play First-Class cricket after April last season) and that there were 4 games mid-season where both were preferred to Davies is nothing short of inexplicable. Not terribly surprising, however, given that Plunkett has played for England many times and Onions has featured in England A reckoning not irregularly either. This despite the fact neither have achieved anything much for Durham, even despite the mentioned-earlier fact that Durham play on seaming wickets with great regularity.

 

[Uppercut]

Eh? I "hated" (for that read: didn't think was much good) Andy Caddick, Angus Fraser, Glenn McGrath, Curtley Ambrose, Courtney Walsh, and several others, did I?

Difficult to make a case for Curtly, McGrath or Walsh being not much use, even for you. What was meant was that generally you feel swing>>>bounce. And "anyone who suggests otherwise is just ignorant IMO", to paraphrase.

 

[Richard]

Why does the fact that I think swing (and\or seam) is a more important asset than bounce even come remotely close to what Kerr effectively put in my mouth, which was that low bounce > high bounce?

If you can get good bounce as well as swing, clearly that's far better than getting moderate bounce as well as swing.

 

[Uppercut]

It doesn't, but it means you tend to rate bowlers like Sidebottom over those like Harmison. As an example. Everyone knows Sidebottom's better.

 

[FBU]

From the matches I have watched Davies seems to take most of his wickets in the first innings. At 18 he suffered collapsed lungs. Maybe he runs out of steam.

Checked up on when he takes his wickets

1st - 65 inns - 158 wickets
2nd - 53 inns - 65 wickets

and does well anywhere and doesn't rely on the new ball for his wickets as he is usually 2nd or 3rd change.

Home 812.0 overs 107 wickets at 21.61 econ 2.84 s/r 45.53
Away 874.5 overs 116 wickets at 20.76 econ 2.75 s/r 45.25

 

[Richard]

At 18 he suffered collapsed lungs.

 

[tooextracool]

From the matches I have watched Davies seems to take most of his wickets in the first innings. At 18 he suffered collapsed lungs. Maybe he runs out of steam.

Checked up on when he takes his wickets

1st - 65 inns - 158 wickets
2nd - 53 inns - 65 wickets

and does well anywhere and doesn't rely on the new ball for his wickets as he is usually 2nd or 3rd change.

Home 812.0 overs 107 wickets at 21.61 econ 2.84 s/r 45.53
Away 874.5 overs 116 wickets at 20.76 econ 2.75 s/r 45.25

Interesting. Either way he's more deserved of a placein the performance squad over a lot of other bowlers in county cricket such as Liam Plunkett (who barely makes it into the Durham side) and Sajid Mahmood