Graeme Swann

[Top_Cat]

Think first Test is crucial for Swan. If he takes some tap, I reckon we won't see him for the rest of the series. If he takes a few wickets (not necessaily a bag), I get the feeling he's one of those bowlers who'll just get tougher to play as the series wears on. Has much talent, only seems to be short of experience from what I've seen and doesn't quite have all of the pieces of his bowling entirely in place on the same day. A decent performance early on could change that quickly

 

[Uppercut]

Think first Test is crucial for Swan. If he takes some tap, I reckon we won't see him for the rest of the series. If he takes a few wickets (not necessaily a bag), I get the feeling he's one of those bowlers who'll just get tougher to play as the series wears on. Has much talent, only seems to be short of experience from what I've seen and doesn't quite have all of the pieces of his bowling entirely in place on the same day. A decent performance early on could change that quickly

I don't necessarily agree with that. He's 30, and he's more than used to getting hit around a little. From what I've seen he does prefer when he can tie a batsman down, but it's not going to screw his head over for the rest of the series if he's taken for a few runs in Cardiff.

 

[TT Boy]

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

Bumbaclaat!

Pull the other one. Wiseman averaged close to 50 for NZ and wasn’t even remotely that economical as an international bowler.

Harro in contrast as the above poster mentioned, has more than handy test record (average and economy) and domestically has a record which denotes he is far more than a nothing bowler (and always has time to out-bowl his more alluring Titans spinning teammate, Imran Tahir).

 

[Richard]

I don't necessarily agree with that. He's 30, and he's more than used to getting hit around a little. From what I've seen he does prefer when he can tie a batsman down, but it's not going to screw his head over for the rest of the series if he's taken for a few runs in Cardiff.

Yeah, Swann's one of the more phlegmatic types you'll see. Possibly a more multi-talented bowler than another of the phlegmatic types of recent times, Ashley Giles, too. And, crucially, far more likely to have the team deliberately try to play to his strength at home than Giles ever was.

But yeah, I mean, any bowler who says "the latter" to the question "would you prefer 30 overs for 70 or 30 overs for 110?" is a rather strange fellow. Any bowler will always prefer to tie batsmen down, and with seamers if they're good enough to do it there's nothing the batsman can do to stop them - save getting out, obviously. Against spinners there is sometimes a way to take to them, as they bowl sufficiently slowly.

 

[superkingdave]

I'm not sure England have an advantage in spin - I've seen Swann bowl and Nathan Hauritz is a fairly similar sort of bowler. We have some part-timers who will prove a bit of a handful if the ball turns. We haven't got Warnie now but are they (England spinners) any more of a threat? They had Giles four years ago so they probably have slightly better spinners than they did then.

Heard some commentators claiming that Ponting said Hauritz was as good as Swann...now looking at the quote that's not at all what he really said.

But i've not seen much of Hauritz bowl...is he a similar bowler to Swann?

Not sure i disagree with Ponting's comment on Swann being a slight improvement on Giles, but Giles did an ok job in 05 on pitches that weren't that responsive.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, Swann's one of the more phlegmatic types you'll see. Possibly a more multi-talented bowler than another of the phlegmatic types of recent times, Ashley Giles, too. And, crucially, far more likely to have the team deliberately try to play to his strength at home than Giles ever was.

But yeah, I mean, any bowler who says "the latter" to the question "would you prefer 30 overs for 70 or 30 overs for 110?" is a rather strange fellow. Any bowler will always prefer to tie batsmen down, and with seamers if they're good enough to do it there's nothing the batsman can do to stop them - save getting out, obviously. Against spinners there is sometimes a way to take to them, as they bowl sufficiently slowly.

I didn't mean he prefers not going for runs over going for runs. Some bowlers, like Paul Harris, like batsmen coming after them and excel under such circumstances. Others don't, and prefer batsmen to scratch around nervously. Swann is very much in the latter category.

He's also miles better than Giles. Spins the ball much further and therefore extracts turn from more pitches, drifts the ball better, has better variations. As I've said before, Swann has done remarkable well to have a test average of 26 having never really played on a turner.

 

[oitoitoi]

Swann's done very well so far, though the Windies aren't exactly the best players of spin, certainly the best England have produced for a while. Still, get the feeling a pasting by a subcontinent side isn't far away. Has a good arm ball but not too much else in the cupboard, still haven't seen anyone really try and take him on.

 

[Richard]

I didn't mean he prefers not going for runs over going for runs. Some bowlers, like Paul Harris, like batsmen coming after them and excel under such circumstances. Others don't, and prefer batsmen to scratch around nervously. Swann is very much in the latter category.

Goes without saying, though, that going after bowlers will generally mean a higher economy-rate than not going after them.

He's also miles better than Giles. Spins the ball much further and therefore extracts turn from more pitches, drifts the ball better, has better variations.

Swann may be better than Giles but he's certainly not miles better. People seem to forget now Giles' career has been over for a little while that he actually had good drift and variation. Swann does probably spin the ball a bit more, but not that much more.

And Swann certainly has played on a few turning pitches - his debut; Queen's Park Oval; Lord's. None of them were the sort of wickets where spin will utterly dominate seam, but they certainly turned and I'd have backed a good fingerspinner - including Giles - to have done well-ish on them.

 

[Uppercut]

And Swann certainly has played on a few turning pitches - his debut; Queen's Park Oval; Lord's. None of them were the sort of wickets where spin will utterly dominate seam, but they certainly turned and I'd have backed a good fingerspinner - including Giles - to have done well-ish on them.

You can compare his performances to other spinners on show. On his debut, Harbhajan took 4/187, Mishra took 4/165 and Panesar 3/170. It clearly wasn't particularly helpful really.

Queen's Park was the only match I've seen him play where there was much turn was offered, and even then only as the match wore on. His first innings figures of 3/130 were the best of any spinner on show- Panesar took 2/114, Gayle 0/80 and Hinds 1/126.

Lord's barely turned at all. The only other wickets that fell to spinners were Bresnan (to a shocker) and Broad in the first innings off Benn. Swann took wickets largely due to being played poorly as opposed to by turning the ball big.

I think you're blurring helpful conditions and good bowling again, Dicko, as you have a tendency to do with spinners.

 

[Richard]

I, on the other hand, think you're blurring "the spinners took good figures" with "the pitch turned". Maybe the figures for spin weren't that great on any of the surfaces, but all spinners turned the ball on those three pitches. I know, 'cos I watched the lot of 'em.

The reason for the lack of excellent figures all-round were the fact that batsmen played well, spinners weren't always in luck, and (on the first two occasions if not the third) the deck was very slow with that turn.

 

[Uppercut]

I, on the other hand, think you're blurring "the spinners took good figures" with "the pitch turned". Maybe the figures for spin weren't that great on any of the surfaces, but all spinners turned the ball on those three pitches. I know, 'cos I watched the lot of 'em.

The reason for the lack of excellent figures all-round were the fact that batsmen played well, spinners weren't always in luck, and (on the first two occasions if not the third) the deck was very slow with that turn.

Lord's was quite slow too.

Anyway, slow turn is as unhelpful as no turn. When i said "he hasn't played on a real turner yet" i should have said "he hasn't played on a really helpful pitch yet".

 

[Richard]

Anyway, slow turn is as unhelpful as no turn.

Nah, not a chance IMO. No turn = impossible to do anything if the batting's good. Slow turn = difficult but possible if you're really clever and your luck isn't out.

 

[zaremba]

"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.

Disagree fundamentally. A typical Shahid Afridi innings will be an exercise in uncontrolled aggression, regardless of whether it comes off. Whereas a typical innings by, say, Graham Gooch would be an exercise in controlled aggression, again regardless of outcome.

 

[Athlai]

By Richard's definition when Murali closes his eyes and takes a swing, if he hits it is 'controlled aggression'.

 

[zaremba]

I reckon Swann can be a useful player for England this summer.

I think that it will be the fast bowlers (and how the opposition play them) rather than the spinners who will have a significant effect on the outcome. I'd be very surprised if any of the Test pitches are particularly spin-friendly.

Swann isn't a world-beater but he is a good spinner. He does get a fair amount of turn, he can flight it, and he has an excellent arm ball. He won't take stacks of wickets but he will take a few, and he can fulfil the spinner's role when required perfectly competently.

What he will bring, in addition, is an ability in the field and with the bat that should not be underestimated. The comparison with Monty is stark: Monty actively undermined the team with his pathetic fielding and pathetic batting, and he conveyed a sense of haplessness that would be plainly visible to both his team-mates and the opposition alike in a contest in which those kinds of thing really will matter. By contrast, Swann is actually pretty handy with the bat. Not just a Hoggard-style blocker who will avoid Monty-style humiliation but someone who might contribute the odd 50 here and there - a dangerous number 8 or 9. And he seems to be a good fielder too.

 

[Uppercut]

One thing that'll help his cause is the proportion of lefties in the Australia side. You have Katich, Hughes, Hussey, North, and Johnson. The concept of a left-arm-orthodox bowler being more useful because he takes it away from the batsman is completely turned on its head against Australia.

Just looked it up, and Swann's record is excellent against left-handers. 21 of his 34 wickets are those of lefties:

Devon Bunny Smith 5 times in 5 matches
Gautam Gambhir 3 times in 2 matches
Brendon Nash 3 times in 5 matches
Suliemann Benn 3 times in 4 matches
Shiv Chanderpaul 3 times in 5 matches
Chris Gayle twice in 5 matches and Ryan Hinds twice in 3 matches.

10 of his 20 ODI wickets came against the southpaws too, notably Daniel Flynn 3 times. There's something else working very much in his favour come the Ashes.

 

[Richard]

By Richard's definition when Murali closes his eyes and takes a swing, if he hits it is 'controlled aggression'.

Most people can indeed tell when a tailender is just throwing the bat and hoping for the best, but even Afridi has of times been accused of playing with controlled aggression. Never during the innings, of course, just a few months later.

 

[Richard]

Disagree fundamentally. A typical Shahid Afridi innings will be an exercise in uncontrolled aggression, regardless of whether it comes off. Whereas a typical innings by, say, Graham Gooch would be an exercise in controlled aggression, again regardless of outcome.

I know that - the point is, many people don't. If Gooch goes and scores 30 off 25 balls then gets out people will say he was being reckless; if Afridi scores 60 off 70 balls people will say he's used controlled aggression regardless of the actuality.

This, of course, is a general point.

I know full well that Afridi is virtually incapable of batting with any sense.

 

[zaremba]

I know that - the point is, many people don't.

I didn't get that from your previous post, but fair enough.

 

[Furball]

Looks like I'm going to lose my bet with Goughy