This Krejza kid

[silentstriker]

You guys need to cut him a little slack. Even Warne never took an eight wicket haul in the first innings of a Test match. 8/200 is a good return in the first innings for a spinner. It really is. Granted, many of those were lower order wickets - 5/15 or such, but the Indian tail has been a thorn in Aussie side anyway, so they were vital wickets.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Caught his last three wickets over breakfast this morning. Admire the way that, even after the fearful stick he'd taken, he backed himself and his method and kept giving the ball some air. It was proper, old-fashioned test spinning of the kind one sees all too rarely now. With the amount of limited overs played nowadays the main function of the slow bowler has become run-saving and so many dart the ball in at pace. In such a context The Razor's perfomance was like a breath of fresh air.

Kudos to PEWS for standing by his man too. Krejza's FC record would've been flattered if described as mediocre, but the boy clearly has ability. I guess it shows the virtues of actually having seen cricketers before one ventures forth opinions. As some other inferior posters are wont to do...

 

[SJS]

You're obviously going to have a chance to take a lot of wickets when you bowl 40+ plus overs on anything that's offering even the slightest bit of turn. Even Sehwag got a 5-for bowling a similar amount of overs. However, I'm not going to be too critical has he took 8 wickets, but then, it's not like he took 8-70 either.

As Sambit Bal wrote today,he also secured the unflattering record of having conceded the highest number of runs on debut; without him, though, India might have got to 600. Single-handed he has kept Australia in the game.

One needs to look at his performance not with reference to his economy rate but where Australia might have been without him.

 

[Richard]

I think it'd be more accurate to say that his economy-rate has potentially cost Australia a lot, where a better spinner would have maintained a better economy-rate.

We wait to see, of course, but should Australia lose this by a relatively slender margin it'd bear more than a little similarity to Nathan Hauritz in 2004/05 - the fact he got a few tailenders out meant his figures looked damn good, but in reality they were poor and his ineptitude cost Australia the Test.

In that case, they'd already won the series, so the impact was much less than might be the case now.

 

[NUFAN]

I think it'd be more accurate to say that his economy-rate has potentially cost Australia a lot, where a better spinner would have maintained a better economy-rate.

We wait to see, of course, but should Australia lose this by a relatively slender margin it'd bear more than a little similarity to Nathan Hauritz in 2004/05 - the fact he got a few tailenders out meant his figures looked damn good, but in reality they were poor and his ineptitude cost Australia the Test.

In that case, they'd already won the series, so the impact was much less than might be the case now.

No that would not be accurate. Who would have taken the wickets? Yes, India wouldn't have batted as fast, but as Australia need to win the match, I would take 8/200 for sure.

 

[Richard]

Kudos to PEWS for standing by his man too. Krejza's FC record would've been flattered if described as mediocre, but the boy clearly has ability. I guess it shows the virtues of actually having seen cricketers before one ventures forth opinions. As some other inferior posters are wont to do...

Cribb hasn't exactly said he's going to be a Test-class spinner, simply that sometimes he'll be effective on pitches like the one in the ongoing match.

Krejza's First-Class record accurately reflects exactly what Cribb says about him - from time to time he'll bowl really well on a turning pitch. Mostly, Tests aren't played on pitches like this, especially in Australia, so mostly Krejza will get the pasting without the cleaning-up the tail to make awful figures look pretty decent. What he has the ability to do isn't something that's useful in the long-term in Tests. Incidentally, that's the opinion I hold.

 

[Richard]

No that would not be accurate. Who would have taken the wickets? Yes, India wouldn't have batted as fast, but as Australia need to win the match, I would take 8/200 for sure.

The point is that a good spinner would have taken the wickets at a better economy-rate.

 

[Goughy]

You guys need to cut him a little slack. Even Warne never took an eight wicket haul in the first innings of a Test match. 8/200 is a good return in the first innings for a spinner. It really is.

We will have to disagree with the bolded part but it does raise an interesting question. Has a bowler conceeded 200+ runs in the first innings and been on the winning team? If so how frequently and has a spinner done it?

 

[silentstriker]

We will have to disagree with the bolded part but it does raise an interesting question. Has a bowler conceeded 200+ runs in the first innings and been on the winning team? If so how frequently and has a spinner done it?

First innings spinners generally aren't as useful, so to average 26 or so in the first innings isn't bad at all. Obviously, this one is a little misleading due to his 5/15 or so from lower order, but as a general rule, I'd be happy with that return.

To answer your question, here is that list of all spinners having conceded more than 200 in the first innings.

Your point is taken re: winning the game, but none of those spinners took eight wickets while conceding so many runs either.

This is a list of all bowlers who conceded 200+ runs (not just spin bowlers) in the first innings.

 

[Langeveldt]

Strikes me as the poor mans Colin Miller

 

[Ikki]

The point is that a good spinner would have taken the wickets at a better economy-rate.

Who cares though? If he were to have a better economy-rate he probably would have struck much slower. At wickets at about 33 balls per wicket is excellent, and the time is just as valuable as the runs given. And the runs given were 26 per wicket. No down-side to it from me.

 

[Richard]

Who cares though? If he were to have a better economy-rate he probably would have struck much slower.

Absolutely no reason to presume that. Economy-rate and strike-rate are not two negatively-correlated things.

Especially with spinners, whose can attack only under certain circumstances. With certain types of seamers, there is some amount of give-runs-away-take-wickets payoff.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

First innings spinners generally aren't as useful, so to average 26 or so in the first innings isn't bad at all. Obviously, this one is a little misleading due to his 5/15 or so from lower order, but as a general rule, I'd be happy with that return.

Not sure how the 5-15 against the lower order is meant to be a criticism, though. It was a lower order containing the likes of Ganguly, Dhoni, and Zaheer. It wasn't as if he picked up McGrath, Martin, and Walsh.

If he hadn't played, India would in all likelihood be five or six down before they declared (again). I thought he bowled well and was gutsy enough to keep throwing it up when they went after him and it paid off. I would take his 4-215 at five an over over White's bull**** ten over spell of 0-20 odd when all he did was both wide rubbish no one could expect to reach.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Absolutely no reason to presume that. Economy-rate and strike-rate are not two negatively-correlated things.

I reckon there is. Had Sehwag (and probably Laxman and Dhoni) not been scoring so freely against him and treated him with some more respect, they wouldn't have been dismissed when they were because I doubt they would've played the ridiculous shots they did.

 

[Richard]

If he'd bowled better, they'd not have been able to treat him with contempt. That's the point. The bowler dictates the game - even a spinner can, if he's good enough.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

And funnily enough, if he had bowled better I don't reckon he would've taken eight.

 

[Top_Cat]

As Sambit Bal wrote today,he also secured the unflattering record of having conceded the highest number of runs on debut; without him, though, India might have got to 600. Single-handed he has kept Australia in the game.

One needs to look at his performance not with reference to his economy rate but where Australia might have been without him.

Spot. Who cares whether his economy rate blew out or how many runs he had belted off him, without those wickets in between, Aus would probably still be in the field.

 

[tooextracool]

And to be honest, as far as variation goes, I reckon stuff like just bowling wider on the crease occasionally and maybe a few slightly faster balls would be all he'd need. Would keep the batsmen guessing at least.

Would also help if he could develop an arm ball IMO. It is true that he bowled his stock delivery for the entire game.

 

[tooextracool]

We will have to disagree with the bolded part but it does raise an interesting question. Has a bowler conceeded 200+ runs in the first innings and been on the winning team? If so how frequently and has a spinner done it?

All figures have to be looked at in context. Its rather nonsensical to assume that just because he went for over 200 runs that he bowled poorly or that those are poor figures. Much like assuming that someone who takes 3/20 odd bowled well.
I have immense respect for Krejza simply because he did what 99% of bowlers would not have done when the Indians are going after them. He continually tossed the ball up and got more purchase from the pitch than either Harbhajan and Mishra and as I've said many a time before, the bowlers who have had the most success in the subcontinent (Boje, Giles etc) have all been bowlers who have not been afraid to toss the ball up (Hopefully Monty is listening). 8/200 might be poor in certain circumstances, but against supposedly the best players of spin in the world and in the first innings of a test match, not to mention on debut is admirable to say the very least. None of the other Australian bowlers looked like taking a wicket in the entire inning and he provided the foil that was required by being the onlly one looking to take wickets while the rest were attempting to stifle the RR.

 

[Top_Cat]

Would also help if he could develop an arm ball IMO. It is true that he bowled his stock delivery for the entire game.

I was really suggesting what I did for him to be competitive. If he developed a good arm-ball, he'd surely be a seriously good bowler.