Graeme Swann

[Furball]

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.

To be expected. SA's quicks are better bowlers than Harris.

Harris has a role in the South Africa side, and he does it well because he's a decent bowler. Given the right conditions he can pose problems, but if opposition batsmen want to have brain explosions and gift him wickets then that's up to them.

Uppercut put it quite nicely actually. If Warne is bowling beautifully, getting a bit of drift, landing it on a perfect length 6 balls out of 6 and ripping it, no batsman in his right mind would dream of giving him the charge. It's the same with any bowler, you play the ball and not the man.

 

[Furball]

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.

Pietersen is an interesting example to use. At times he's played Warne and Murali very well, even smashed them on a couple of occasions, yet he's got himself into plenty of trouble against spinners who aren't anywhere near as good as those two. Primarily in my opinion because of a lack of respect.

 

[Oasisbob]

I think that to a large extent, England's fortunes will depend on how well Graeme Swann bowls to the Australian left handers. In his short career so far he has excelled at bowling against left handed batsmen and has bagged a number of high class batsmen. He has the control and variation to cause them problems if and it's a big if the pitches offer some turn. We are due a hot summer by English standards so fingers crossed he can get the job done.

I'm guessing he will take 22 wickets at 28's - including one match winning performance.

 

[Bonnie Prince C]

Swann>>>Hauritz

I think Swann will be key to any chance England possess.

 

[aussie]

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.

I'm not changing my position. That one instance in Capetown, the series was already won by Australia & did play a bit lazily. But overall Harris doesn't get wicket because he does anything special with the ball - but rather due to batsmen being stupidy aggressive towards him.

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.

I don't see how you can give him credit. Harris as i mentioned before, gets wickets given that batsmen as an ease in pressure after Steyn/Ntini/Morkel come out of the attack.

If batsmen play him with controlled aggression, the pressure would back on the pace trio to take more wickets.

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.

I am not judging him on his demenour at all. I'd say if KP & Symo hadn't played such shots againts him he would look even more pedestrian.

 

[Richard]

If batsmen play him with controlled aggression, the pressure would back on the pace trio to take more wickets.

"Controlled aggression" is essentially a figment of imagination. It basically means "aggression that comes-off". If agressive strokes fail they're perceived as reckless; if they succeed they're perceived as controlled aggression.

It's the result that determines the term, not the other way around.

 

[Uppercut]

If batsmen play him with controlled aggression, the pressure would back on the pace trio to take more wickets.

That's like saying "if batsmen played Shane Warne with more conviction, he wouldn't be so effective". Or "if batsmen weren't so terrified of Curtly Ambrose, they wouldn't get out to him so often." The attitudes batsmen take to you are part and parcel of your bowling, and hence you deserve credit when it benefits you. Batsmen didn't play Warne with more conviction, and they didn't counter the fear factor of Ambrose, so it's a stupid thing to say.

 

[Goughy]

That's like saying "if batsmen played Shane Warne with more conviction, he wouldn't be so effective". Or "if batsmen weren't so terrified of Curtly Ambrose, they wouldn't get out to him so often." The attitudes batsmen take to you are part and parcel of your bowling, and hence you deserve credit when it benefits you. Batsmen didn't play Warne with more conviction, and they didn't counter the fear factor of Ambrose, so it's a stupid thing to say.

But they could have. It is intimidation. Guy like Ambrose, Warne, Tyson and Lomu (the last 2 I had a conversation about this topic today) were all great players but were better because they could intimidate. Those that could get past that still faced great players but they were mortal. Those that were intimidated faced 'Gods'.

 

[Richard]

That's pretty much exactly the point Will was making. Those who incite a certain reaction in the batsman - whether it be intimidation or contempt or whatever - have done so because of something off their own back. So thus, they deserve credit for it when it benefits them.

Equally, batsmen who are able to be strong-willed enough to play the ball and not the man tend to come rather closer to competing on terms.

 

[Jakester1288]

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

Same here. I'm really keen to see how he goes, how the Aussies handle him, and if the Australian batmsen (particularly the left handers) can nullify him.

 

[aussie]

"Controlled aggression" is essentially a figment of imagination. It basically means "aggression that comes-off". If agressive strokes fail they're perceived as reckless; if they succeed they're perceived as controlled aggression.

It's the result that determines the term, not the other way around.

Yea your right. But looking back @ the instances with KP @ TB & Symo @ Perth, fact reamins those shots where utterly reckless, they basically threw their wickets away in utter disdain for Harris.

KP especially was horrific given how he played Warne & Murali in the past battles.

So maybe "controlled aggression" is the right term, but they certainly with better play should not have gotten out to Harris.

That's like saying "if batsmen played Shane Warne with more conviction, he wouldn't be so effective". Or "if batsmen weren't so terrified of Curtly Ambrose, they wouldn't get out to him so often.".

They couldn't. These where two legends who combined the ability to initidate best of batsmen - through a great ability to tie them down & produce fantastic deliveries.

So unless they where the calibre of Lara, Tendy - they couldn't have shown has much conviction as they wanted. They generally came out second best.


Harris on the other hand, as i said before. Is a nothing bowling who basically in a SA attack of the last 2 years, in which the pace trio of has been the main soruce of wickets. Harris main use is to block up and end, given that he's accurate - and batsmen generally due to the fact that they see him as garbage, foolishly get themselves out.

Now that Ntini is in delcine, Morkel not yet stepping up & Kallis days as a bowler coming to an end. Just leaving Steyn as the big quick. He will be well exposed & I expect my point to be validated in the next year or so.

If not well so be it, i aint nostradamus

The attitudes batsmen take to you are part and parcel of your bowling, and hence you deserve credit when it benefits you. Batsmen didn't play Warne with more conviction, and they didn't counter the fear factor of Ambrose, so it's a stupid thing to say.

Or rather the SA pace trio deserves credit for putting batsmen under pressure, thus basically turning him into a "smash me please" option for batsmen. He deserves no credit.

Could you imagine him being in NZ's side in the games they played vs Australia since 2000.

The batsmen super aggressive, generally average opening bowlers & him having to basically contain & get batsmen out like Vettori did?. He would have been destroyed, since he does nothing with the ball, his little ability to be accurate wouldn't mean a thing.

Fact is guys like Giles, Wiseman could to the job he is doing for SA just as well...

 

[Uppercut]

If that's the case, I'd like to ask why he continues to take wickets even when the rest of the attack are bowling badly? Check out- as the most prominent examples of Harris's contempt-invoking success- KP's hole-out to De Villiers mid-on (followed closely by Flintoff in the same over), Symonds's skier to McKenzie at deep midwicket and his match-winning performance in the third test against Australia recently, and you'll notice that in all three scenarios, the rest of the attack had already failed to break down the batsmen. How does the "welcome relief" theory stand up to that?

 

[Furball]

"Controlled aggression" is essentially a figment of imagination. It basically means "aggression that comes-off". If agressive strokes fail they're perceived as reckless; if they succeed they're perceived as controlled aggression.

It's the result that determines the term, not the other way around.

No it's not. Tendulkar, particularly in ODIs, has been an absolute master of it.

You don't strike at 87 opening the batting in ODIs without being aggressive. Likewise, you don't average 47 if you don't exercise some element of control.

You can be wrecklessly aggressive, where you basically look to hit the bowler out of the ground. If it pays off, you look like a genius, if it doesn't you look like an idiot (see Kevin Pietersen vs Australia, 5th Test 2005, South Africa, 3rd Test 2008 and West Indies, 1st Test 2008/09). You can also bring an element of control into being aggressive, where you look to hit boundaries off a bowler without resorting to the aerial route.

 

[Furball]

Fact is guys like Giles, Wiseman could to the job he is doing for SA just as well...

No they wouldn't. Giles wasn't a good enough bowler.

Harris averages 32 with the ball for a reason. He is not an outstanding spin bowler like Murali or Warne, but by the same token he isn't utterly hopeless with the ball either.

 

[Richard]

There's really not a lot between Giles and Harris. If Harris plays as often as Giles did when he should not his average will end-up somewhere close to Giles'. It's easy to judge a player when his career is in full motion and another's is finished.

As I say, Harris is decent but his record to date flatters him.

Both are bowlers who offer something on a turning deck and nothing else.

 

[Richard]

No it's not. Tendulkar, particularly in ODIs, has been an absolute master of it.

You don't strike at 87 opening the batting in ODIs without being aggressive. Likewise, you don't average 47 if you don't exercise some element of control.

You can be wrecklessly aggressive, where you basically look to hit the bowler out of the ground. If it pays off, you look like a genius, if it doesn't you look like an idiot (see Kevin Pietersen vs Australia, 5th Test 2005, South Africa, 3rd Test 2008 and West Indies, 1st Test 2008/09). You can also bring an element of control into being aggressive, where you look to hit boundaries off a bowler without resorting to the aerial route.

Even Shahid Afridi - who in reality is just idiotically aggressive every time he bats - has been said to be showing controlled aggression simply when it comes-off. Afridi never really looks like a genius to me, he just looks like someone who has enough talent to make an utterly stupid way of batting come-off every now and then.

Tendulkar is good - not controlled aggressive, just good. It's natural, and nothing else, for him to score like that. He doesn't control anything, he just plays. Same true of the likes of Lara and Ponting. Pietersen is much more manufactured and often goes OTT. But still, when it comes-off people praise him to the high heavens. Pietersen is, however, quite capable of playing reservedly and is generally at his best when more measured.

 

[Uppercut]

Even Shahid Afridi - who in reality is just idiotically aggressive every time he bats - has been said to be showing controlled aggression simply when it comes-off. Afridi never really looks like a genius to me, he just looks like someone who has enough talent to make an utterly stupid way of batting come-off every now and then.

Tendulkar is good - not controlled aggressive, just good. It's natural, and nothing else, for him to score like that. He doesn't control anything, he just plays. Same true of the likes of Lara and Ponting. Pietersen is much more manufactured and often goes OTT. But still, when it comes-off people praise him to the high heavens. Pietersen is, however, quite capable of playing reservedly and is generally at his best when more measured.

Hmm, not sure if i agree. I've always thought he's been at his best when he sees himself in then hits out. When he tries to go nuts from ball one, he usually fails. When he tries to play like a "proper batsman" he doesn't score as many runs. It's the get set-->go nuts combination that KP specialises in IMO.

 

[Richard]

Certainly Pietersen is better when he gets set rather than tries to blast from ball one. However, pretty much no batsman has ever been best in "go nuts" fashion. Even Viv Richards, who legend might tell you did such a thing, actually played his best innings' in generally orthodox manner, apart from whipping anything on off and straigher through leg.

Batsmen always need to treat each ball on its merits rather than having a predetermined plan, in Test cricket (under "standard" circumstances - if you're going for a declaration in 6 overs' time or are chasing 130 in 25 overs, clearly it's different). It's always the best method for success. Those merits change as you get more established - while Pietersen might leave a short-of-length ball just outside off early in his innings, he might well whack it through mid-wicket later on - but it's never, ever a good idea to be thinking "this over's going for eight minimum", or similar.

 

[Uppercut]

Certainly Pietersen is better when he gets set rather than tries to blast from ball one. However, pretty much no batsman has ever been best in "go nuts" fashion. Even Viv Richards, who legend might tell you did such a thing, actually played his best innings' in generally orthodox manner, apart from whipping anything on off and straigher through leg.

Batsmen always need to treat each ball on its merits rather than having a predetermined plan, in Test cricket (under "standard" circumstances - if you're going for a declaration in 6 overs' time or are chasing 130 in 25 overs, clearly it's different). It's always the best method for success.

KP's aggression isn't about having a predetermined plan, it's about having a broad definition of the term "bad ball". How short and wide does a ball have to be before you swing at it? How full before you drive it? How full before you use your feet to the spinners? KP at his best treats a lot more balls as "bad" than he does when he's playing defensively.

Despite his well-publicised holing out on 94, he gets out a lot more often playing defensive strokes than attacking ones IMO. He's not tight enough in defence for "trying to eliminate risk" (a ridiculous concept, but anyway) to be his best method of scoring runs.

 

[Richard]

KP's aggression isn't about having a predetermined plan, it's about having a broad definition of the term "bad ball". How short and wide does a ball have to be before you swing at it? How full before you drive it? How full before you use your feet to the spinners? KP at his best treats a lot more balls as "bad" than he does when he's playing defensively.

This is a point I make regularly about strokeplaying batsmen. A bad ball to a Pietersen or Gilchrist is not a bad ball to a Boycott or Gavaskar - but there is no difference in the effectiveness of such players; they're all outstanding, even though they have different methods of achieving this outstandingness.

However, some batsmen do clearly suffer for having predetermined plans - and Pietersen to my mind has occasionally done so.

Despite his well-publicised holing out on 94, he gets out a lot more often playing defensive strokes than attacking ones IMO. He's not tight enough in defence for "trying to eliminate risk" (a ridiculous concept, but anyway) to be his best method of scoring runs.

I don't disagree that he's gotten out more often to defensive shots than attacking ones, not at all. The stupid thing is that when he gets out to attacking shots he's pilloried for not being more defensive and when he gets out to defensive shots he's pilloried for not playing more expansively (usually the latter is quieter than the former but it's still certainly there).

However, I happen to think that Pietersen is quite capable of scoring plenty of runs playing in either fashion. He's done so more than once with each.