Graeme Swann

[Craig]

So far he has a good start to his Test career, but those who have seen him play a lot more then what I have (what are the wickets like for his county?), so does he have what it takes to pick up wickets against the Australians? I guess being a finger spinner and all that it can be a lot harder to pick up wickets if there isn't enough turn (unless your Murali, but he is more of a wrist spinner so to speak) and would be fodder to Ricky Ponting and his men (and if he bowls to Phil Hughes, he will look to smash him out of the ground, like he went after Paul Harris).

With Monty Panesar's Test prospects looking bleak for the time being and with the need to play a spinner for 'variety' reasons, I think he will play in the Tests (unless he bowls like ****). So my question is do you think he can be succesful in the Ashes and would you pick him in the first place?

 

[Jakester1288]

So far he has a good start to his Test career, but those who have seen him play a lot more then what I have (what are the wickets like for his county?), so does he have what it takes to pick up wickets against the Australians? I guess being a finger spinner and all that it can be a lot harder to pick up wickets if there isn't enough turn (unless your Murali, but he is more of a wrist spinner so to speak) and would be fodder to Ricky Ponting and his men (and if he bowls to Phil Hughes, he will look to smash him out of the ground, like he went after Paul Harris).

With Monty Panesar's Test prospects looking bleak for the time being and with the need to play a spinner for 'variety' reasons, I think he will play in the Tests (unless he bowls like ****). So my question is do you think he can be succesful in the Ashes and would you pick him in the first place?

I can guarantee that >90% of English cricket followers will be selecting him in their sides. I've been looking here and at various other forums, and most people (can't actually recall someone who hasn't) had him in their XI, at least for the first test.

 

[Goughy]

I think he will play in the Tests (unless he bowls like ****). So my question is do you think he can be succesful in the Ashes and would you pick him in the first place?

My thoughts:

He should be in the Tests. There is noone else clearly better and he can bat.

If he takes more than 12 wickets in the Ashes then I think they will come at over 40 (Ill have an Avatar bet on that is anyone wants)

Im not saying his action is bad, but it does look a little jerky at times.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Best man for the job. At least a couple of the grounds for The Ashes (Swalec & The Oval) are probably going to take spin, so he could end up doing a fair bit of bowling.

He is, essentially, an old-fashioned finger-spinner in that he doesn't have a throwsra (or at least he doesn't bowl one in matches, there's been a few suggestions he's working on one in the nets) but he gives it a fair rip (not as natural a spinner of the ball as Monty, but compensates for this by occasionally giving the ball air) and has a (seemingly) well-disguised arm-ball. Plus he's a decent bat (averages high 20s in FC) and can field too.

As for his county ground, Trent Bridge of late has probably been the ground most likely to swing (Sidebottom & Pattinson have both exploited this) so he's not really got too much assistance there. He did start at Northants tho, whose County Ground is one of the tracks more condusive to spin (Monty's home ground, fwiw), so by moving to a test county he did show ambition to move on, which is never a bad thing in a cricketer.

 

[Richard]

Just for some people's information, the amount a ground assists swing has precisely zero relation to how much it assists spin. However, Trent Bridge does not tend to be an especially spin-friendly deck, but Swann's old home, Wantage Road Northampton, does.

Either way I don't think Swann is likely to be extraordinarily effective because he's a fingerspinner and fingerspinners need turning decks to be effective. If he gets one I'd hope he can be. It seems the prospect of a turner in the First Test is pretty good but it's extremely unlikely in any of the other four. So I don't see him, or any spinner, being much use.

Nonetheless, clearly Swann >>>>>> Hauritz.

 

[roseboy64]

He's looked nothing more than decent TBH. Not quite sure how he's gotten wickets apart from Devon Smith.

 

[rivera213]

I think he'll take wickets in the Ashes, but like Richard says above, he needs a deck with some assistance (like all offies).

Having said that, thus far he has used the conditions pretty well.

Both him and Panesar will play in the 1st test I feel since it does spin there and isn't really good for "hit the deck" seam bowling.

 

[Furball]

He's looked nothing more than decent TBH. Not quite sure how he's gotten wickets apart from Devon Smith.

Because the West Indies middle order seem to have a collective brain explosion when it comes to playing spin. Panesar did exactly the same to them in 2007.

 

[Furball]

My thoughts:

He should be in the Tests. There is noone else clearly better and he can bat.

If he takes more than 12 wickets in the Ashes then I think they will come at over 40 (Ill have an Avatar bet on that is anyone wants)

Im not saying his action is bad, but it does look a little jerky at times.

I'll take that bet.

Harris in the 6 tests recently against Australia took 24 wickets @ 32.

I rate Harris, I think he's a perfectly decent bowler and IMO there isn't particularly much to choose between Harris and Swann.

So I think Swann's perfectly capable of picking up 15 wickets at around 30-35ish.

 

[aussie]

Seeing Paul Harris bowl vs ENG & AUS over the past year. Batsmen have basically been giving away wicket to him in an effort to smash him, thus playing into Smith plans.

In SA's bowling attack, he basically is the carrot option. Since really is a nothing bowler. Swann is better than him by a fair way.

 

[Goughy]

I'll take that bet.

Ok, winner gets to choose the losers avatar for a period of 1 month. Cricket related photo. Sounds ok?

 

[Uppercut]

Seeing Paul Harris bowl vs ENG & AUS over the past year. Batsmen have basically been giving away wicket to him in an effort to smash him, thus playing into Smith plans.

In SA's bowling attack, he basically is the carrot option. Since really is a nothing bowler. Swann is better than him by a fair way.

Obviously weren't watching the third SA-Aus test in March then. Harris well and truly ripped them open.



On Swann, his test record's really quite remarkable considering he hasn't even played on a real turner yet. The closest thing he got to one was the match in Trinidad on the last day.

 

[Furball]

Seeing Paul Harris bowl vs ENG & AUS over the past year. Batsmen have basically been giving away wicket to him in an effort to smash him, thus playing into Smith plans.

In SA's bowling attack, he basically is the carrot option. Since really is a nothing bowler. Swann is better than him by a fair way.

That's the batsmen's own stupid fault though.

Harris is a decent bowler, gets a bit of turn and whenever I've seen him he's generally been tidy and hasn't offered much in the way of free runs.

He's taken 70-odd wickets at 32 or 33, and that's entirely a fair reflection of his ability. He's decent. He's nothing special, but nor is he a rank pie chucker either.

 

[Furball]

Ok, winner gets to choose the losers avatar for a period of 1 month. Cricket related photo. Sounds ok?

Aye.

For me to win, he has to take over 12 wickets and keep his average below 40.

Quite happy with that bet.

 

[four_or_six]

I think yes, Swann has got Devon Smith out a lot, but 34 wickets in 7 tests is a more than decent start regardless. Personally, I liked the way he stuck at it in India, on debut, and took big wickets. And against the WI, apart from Devon Smith (5) the wickets include Sarwan (2), Chanderpaul (3) and Gayle (2), and so it's not as if he didn't get out decent players.

Also, is a good fielder, a capable number 8/9 and just a refreshing kind of bloke to have in the team.

 

[aussie]

Obviously weren't watching the third SA-Aus test in March then. Harris well and truly ripped them open.

I saw the test of course. He got some turn & bowled well - i give him some credit. But he didn't rip them open by any means, the way of Johnson smashed him at the end, showed that maybe again - Australia batting didn't play him with enough conviction.

 

[aussie]

That's the batsmen's own stupid fault though.

Exactly. Thats why his record do date, flatters him.

Harris is a decent bowler, gets a bit of turn and whenever I've seen him he's generally been tidy and hasn't offered much in the way of free runs.

He's taken 70-odd wickets at 32 or 33, and that's entirely a fair reflection of his ability. He's decent. He's nothing special, but nor is he a rank pie chucker either.

I have seen him in 14 test, (3 vs IND, 5 vs ENG, 6 vs AUS). In which in SA's 5-man attack where the quicks 90% excpet of Chennai, Lord's & a on 50/50 basis vs AUS - the quicks have had the opposition batting-lineups under control.

His role has in most cases has been to block up & end given he is an accurate bowler. But too many times batsmen give him wickets, i remember KP & Symonds playing some awful shots to get out to him & a few others as well.

 

[Uppercut]

I saw the test of course. He got some turn & bowled well - i give him some credit. But he didn't rip them open by any means, the way of Johnson smashed him at the end, showed that maybe again - Australia batting didn't play him with enough conviction.

It's odd- you say he only normally gets wickets because batsman are too aggressive to him, but now you're saying he only got wickets in that match because noone was attacking him. There's a bit of a lack of consistency there.

Besides, i give Harris credit for the attitudes batsman take to him in the same way that Warne should be credited for making batsman play him in awe. Everything about Harris just screams "incompetent", from his horrid bleached hairdo to his ridiculously inept batting style to his inadequate-looking action with no front arm (although aesthetics aside, it's actually a pretty efficient one). Then you throw a few fielding gaffes into the mix and the guy just seems like a clown.

All of which makes Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Symonds think "i'll be hitting this bell-end over long-on" and gifts the man big wickets. Once you get over the fact that Harris looks dire it's evident that he's actually a pretty good bowler.

 

[Richard]

Yeah there's always a handful of people too quick to judge on cosmetics, and Harris is going to be one of those most spectacularly understimated by such types. Harris is a perfectly OK bowler, as several have said. No worse than Pat Symcox or Nicky Boje, the two fingerspinners to have extended spells in South Africa's Test team post-readmission. And considerably better than Paul Adams.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I haven't seen a lot of Swann so far, but am looking forward to seeing him bowl in The Ashes.