Gough slams England's selection favouritism

[GIMH]

Wow, a whole 1 season.

TBF he's like what, 21? To get those figures at that age, and look as good as he does, suggests a lot, IMO

 

[zaremba]

TBF he's like what, 21? To get those figures at that age, and look as good as he does, suggests a lot, IMO

Four encouraging things about Broad:
1. He's using his left arm in his bowling a lot more than he did even a few months ago (which was his most obvious technical flaw);
2. He's getting quicker and quicker - he's now regularly into the high 80s (mph) and hit 90mph today;
3. He can bat; and
4. He's got a good attitude.

So even though his Test bowling average remains Salisburyesque he continues to show great potential.

 

[GIMH]

Four encouraging things about Broad:
1. He's using his left arm in his bowling a lot more than he did even a few months ago (which was his most obvious technical flaw);
2. He's getting quicker and quicker - he's now regularly into the high 80s (mph) and hit 90mph today;
3. He can bat; and
4. He's got a good attitude.

So even though his Test bowling average remains Salisburyesque he continues to show great potential.

I think this is what makes him a better ODI bowler currently than Test bowler. In Tests it has been suggested stamina, rather than ability is the problem. He looks much more effective at a higher pace which he seems capable of sustaining through a ten over spell in an ODI, but has yet to do such a thing in the long-form. As far as I am aware.

I'm not saying that's all there is to it, but I can't fathom that someone who looks as encouraging as Broad does in ODIs would be no good at tests. Of course, it's happened, before, but as I say, the way Broad bowls in ODIs to me looks transferrable.

 

[zaremba]

I think this is what makes him a better ODI bowler currently than Test bowler. In Tests it has been suggested stamina, rather than ability is the problem. He looks much more effective at a higher pace which he seems capable of sustaining through a ten over spell in an ODI, but has yet to do such a thing in the long-form. As far as I am aware.

I'm not saying that's all there is to it, but I can't fathom that someone who looks as encouraging as Broad does in ODIs would be no good at tests. Of course, it's happened, before, but as I say, the way Broad bowls in ODIs to me looks transferrable.

Yes it is weird. Perhaps the white ball offers that little bit of extra movement which makes all the difference; or perhaps it's that batsmen need to take more risks against him which creates more wicket-taking chances for his back-of-a-length style. But ultimately if you're 6'6" (that's 198cm kids) and you can bowl at 90mph with a reasonable degree of accuracy, and you don't suffer from homesickness, you have a good chance of making it as a Test bowler.

Never thought that lack of stamina could be the issue tbh. If it is, then that's something that he may of course develop with age.

 

[GIMH]

Yes it is weird. Perhaps the white ball offers that little bit of extra movement which makes all the difference; or perhaps it's that batsmen need to take more risks against him which creates more wicket-taking chances for his back-of-a-length style. But ultimately if you're 6'6" (that's 198cm kids) and you can bowl at 90mph with a reasonable degree of accuracy, and you don't suffer from homesickness, you have a good chance of making it as a Test bowler.

Never thought that lack of stamina could be the issue tbh. If it is, then that's something that he may of course develop with age.

I hope in a way that that is the issue as it is obviously something that be artificially addressed more than other things.

 

[zaremba]

I hope in a way that that is the issue as it is obviously something that be artificially addressed more than other things.

I'm weirdly optimistic about the left arm actually

 

[Richard]

Hmmm - 210 odd v India in 1 million degree heat - one of the greatest innings in Test history

Of course, but there's not a lot besides that in live Tests. One innings does not a player make, however superlative it might've been.

No actually I did mean the Semi Final, in which he got a very important half century (I may be wrong in thinking that was the game in which Gibbs dropped him).

The game Gibbs dropped him in was the Super Six match, that had SA won Aus would've been on the plane home and Zim would've been in the semis.

 

[Richard]

TBF he's like what, 21? To get those figures at that age, and look as good as he does, suggests a lot, IMO

22, and I've never actually said it doesn't suggest a lot. However, the fact that his figures were better than Killeen's for 1 season suggests little to nothing. Right now, Killeen remains the bowler who is established as the better one in one-day cricket.

 

[Richard]

Yes it is weird. Perhaps the white ball offers that little bit of extra movement which makes all the difference; or perhaps it's that batsmen need to take more risks against him which creates more wicket-taking chances for his back-of-a-length style. But ultimately if you're 6'6" (that's 198cm kids) and you can bowl at 90mph with a reasonable degree of accuracy, and you don't suffer from homesickness, you have a good chance of making it as a Test bowler.

Not if you don't move the ball.

Thing is, though, Broad does. Just not as often as he might do, and often that movement goes missing after a very short spell in Tests.

It does the same thing in ODIs mind. However, as you suggest, the fact that batsmen need to take more risks against him means he gets wickets regardless - as will most bowlers who hit consistently good areas.

Thing is, though, Broad still only does this perhaps 1 game in 4 or so. When he does hit those areas, he's almost unhittable - most of his best ODI spells have been not merely under 4-an-over, but under 3-an-over and sometimes even around the 2-an-over mark. He's a bit like Paul Collingwood - his good is so good, it disguises how often and how bad the bad is.

 

[zaremba]

Of course, but there's not a lot besides that in live Tests. One innings does not a player make, however superlative it might've been.

No but a Test average of 46.55 does a player make, and that innings was special, however you want to selectively slice up his record...

The game Gibbs dropped him in was the Super Six match, that had SA won Aus would've been on the plane home and Zim would've been in the semis.

Yep. As I say, I was referring to the semi-final in which he scored an important 50. Although 120 in a last-chance-saloon game is an impressive achievement, dropped catch or no dropped catch.

 

[zaremba]

Not if you don't move the ball.

I refer you once again to Joel Garner, although I know his example throws your theory into disarray...

And in any event Broad does move the ball. He just doesn't move it very far. The thing is, you don't need to move it that far (and if you move it too far, that's not much use either). Another half inch of movement, and/or another couple of mph of pace, would be enough. And so in my view he's a tiny percentage away from being a really fine Test bowler.

 

[Richard]

No but a Test average of 46.55 does a player make, and that innings was special, however you want to selectively slice up his record...

That innings being special isn't relevant. I've never said otherwise. However, Jones' record outside the year between 1989 and 1989/90, and in live Tests, is not impressive at all. And there are 33 matches in this category - I've been charitable and excluded the 2 games in 1984 - not a small number at all. In 32 of these 33 matches (the Chennai game being the first of the 33 and the only exception), Jones' performance was decidedly poor.

Yep. As I say, I was referring to the semi-final in which he scored an important 50. Although 120 in a last-chance-saloon game is an impressive achievement, dropped catch or no dropped catch.

The thing is, though, without the drop it wouldn't have been more than 50-odd, and Australia would've gone home. The drop made the knock.

 

[Richard]

I refer you once again to Joel Garner, although I know his example throws your theory into disarray...

I also don't see an abundance of Garners, nor do I have any real hard evidence that he never got the ball to do anything. Because Garner was apparently able to do something (ie, earn wickets without moving the ball sideways) doesn't mean Broad or anyone else is remotely likely to.

And in any event Broad does move the ball. He just doesn't move it very far. The thing is, you don't need to move it that far (and if you move it too far, that's not much use either). Another half inch of movement, and/or another couple of mph of pace, would be enough. And so in my view he's a tiny percentage away from being a really fine Test bowler.

I said this. Please don't selectively quote my posts and make it look as though I've not said something which I have.

 

[zaremba]

That innings being special isn't relevant. I've never said otherwise. However, Jones' record outside the year between 1989 and 1989/90, and in live Tests, is not impressive at all. And there are 33 matches in this category - I've been charitable and excluded the 2 games in 1984 - not a small number at all. In 32 of these 33 matches (the Chennai game being the first of the 33 and the only exception), Jones' performance was decidedly poor.

The thing is, though, without the drop it wouldn't have been more than 50-odd, and Australia would've gone home. The drop made the knock.

You reasoning is a little inconsistent:

With regard to Jones, you ignore what you consider to be the anomalous exceptions to his otherwise poor record.

With regard to Waugh, your entire argument rests on the anomalous exception (ie the ball to which he should have been out) and ignore the other 109 deliveries off which he scored 120 runs.

Can you have it both ways?




ps I know that you'll make a valiant attempt to argue that you're not having it both ways, or why, if you are, there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[zaremba]

I said this. Please don't selectively quote my posts and make it look as though I've not said something which I have.

With great respect, I'm not sure what you're on about. I'm not seeking either to selectively quote your posts or to misrepresent you. If we agree on this, then great!

 

[Richard]

You reasoning is a little inconsistent:

With regard to Jones, you ignore what you consider to be the anomalous exceptions to his otherwise poor record.

With regard to Waugh, your entire argument rests on the anomalous exception (ie the ball to which he should have been out) and ignore the other 109 deliveries off which he scored 120 runs.

Can you have it both ways?




ps I know that you'll make a valiant attempt to argue that you're not having it both ways, or why, if you are, there's nothing wrong with that.

Missed chances are the same, as regards what the batsman has done, as dismissals. Now, yes, deliveries where a batsman is dismissed are of course much rarer than those where he isn't dismissed, but I don't really see the connection with looking at a batsman's Test career innings by innings, I think it's just something that seems rather convenient to try to manufacture contradictions.

Dean Jones, for most of his career, wasn't that good a Test batsman. He played a senasational innings in what, in essence, was his Test debut (he'd played 2 games a good few years earlier and not been seen since) and he had a brilliant year in the seasons of 1989 and 1989/90. However, apart from this (and this makes-up the bulk of his career) he was pretty average in live Tests, though his form in dead ones was indeed superlative.

 

[Richard]

With great respect, I'm not sure what you're on about. I'm not seeking either to selectively quote your posts or to misrepresent you. If we agree on this, then great!

I said:

Not if you don't move the ball.

Thing is, though, Broad does. Just not as often as he might do, and often that movement goes missing after a very short spell in Tests.

You then said:

Not if you don't move the ball.

And in any event Broad does move the ball. He just doesn't move it very far. The thing is, you don't need to move it that far (and if you move it too far, that's not much use either). Another half inch of movement, and/or another couple of mph of pace, would be enough. And so in my view he's a tiny percentage away from being a really fine Test bowler.

Which essentially took the first line of my post and made it appear as though I was saying something I wasn't. I said "Broad moves the ball", but you quoted a line that, in itself, made it appear as though I said he didn't. You then replied to that line saying something fairly similar to what I said in the below paragraph that you omitted.

 

[zaremba]

I think it's just something that seems rather convenient to try to manufacture contradictions..

Indeed it was convenient!

Missed chances are the same, as regards what the batsman has done, as dismissals.

Well you're effectively seeking to play down the achievement of Waugh's 120no on the basis that he was dropped.

That was (as far as I recall) the only chance he gave in that innings.

The fact which your advocacy of the "first chance average" does not seem to me to acknowledge is that in cricket you do get let-offs from time to time, and how you react to those is a vitally important aspect of a batsman's skill. It's one of the principal attributes for which Herbert Sutcliffe, for whom I know you rightly have a lot of respect, was renowned. A batsman - indeed any cricketer, and any sportsman - needs to be able to capitalise on his opponent's mistakes.

For this reason, it's largely academic to me whether Waugh scored those 120 runs before or after his let-off by Gibbs. The fact is, he scored them, and scored them when the chips were down. His performance was no less creditable than that of someone who scored 120 runs, and then gave a chance (which was taken by the fielder) at the end of his innings.

 

[zaremba]

I said: You then said:
Which essentially took the first line of my post and made it appear as though I was saying something I wasn't. I said "Broad moves the ball", but you quoted a line that, in itself, made it appear as though I said he didn't. You then replied to that line saying something fairly similar to what I said in the below paragraph that you omitted.

Since we apparently agree on this I can't see the point of bickering about who said what. However I can see the point you're trying to make and I apologise if I appeared to be misrepresenting you - it certainly wasn't my intention.

 

[zaremba]

Right now, Killeen remains the bowler who is established as the better one in one-day cricket.

A big, surprising, startling, and imho unsustainable claim. Broad's in the top 5 ranked ODI bowlers in the world (unless I'm much mistaken, which is of course possible) and has played 40 ODIs. Is Killeen really in that sort of class? Does he even in truth stake any kind of claim to a place in the ODI team?