*Official* Pakistan in Australia

[Uppercut]

Definitely modern day Australia is about that, because of course, Mcgrath, Gillespie, Reiffel, Fleming and numerous others all succeeded at fast medium pace.

They're all much better bowlers than those you listed before though. I could see Rampaul (for example) being effective in England where the ball swings. In Australia he doesn't really have many weapons.

 

[Manee]

I don't think it's lack of pace that brought Rauf, Tonge, Rampaul and McKay undone - they just didn't bowl very well. Obviously the slower you bowl the more disciplined you have to be, but I reckon it's more a case of them just bowling rubbish than not having the tools. I distinctly remember Rampaul bowling a particularly threatening spell in which he reversed it for example, and let's not forget countless other examples like Watson's form with the ball this summer, Stuart Clark's record up until last season, McGrath's record before that, a few of Asif's spells in this game, Bravo's bowling throughout this summer, Kallis's bowling last summer etc etc.

Yes, perhaps I have been hasty. I don't think it is fair to say that Rauf, Tonge, Rampaul amd McKay have all been as poor as their statistics though, they just haven't threatened at their speed. Watson is 135-140kph, so its not fair to put him in the same bracket. Clark is not a great example due to how quickly he has faded due to his percieved lack of speed. Bravo was good though, but it is safe to say that he capitalised through his lack of pace more than anything, was truly at 120kph and throwing the ball outside off stump to be swished at. Wouldn't class Kallis as a 125-130kph bowler, myself, can really crank it up on his day.

Pace and bounce are obviously a bit more valuable in Australia than elsewhere, but I don't think there's a speed cap at 140 to be successful by any means. Like anywhere else, it's about bowling well and using the conditions - it's still quite possible to do that at 130 and 135. I think people are sucked in by the fact that really fast bowling looks more effective in Australia, but it really isn't. For all the hype about how well Roach bowled this season, how well Sharma bowled when India toured etc, they actually weren't very effective. I agree that both were unlucky but I do think it is a bit of an illusion at times. There's a big difference between batsmen playing awkward-looking shots and batsmen getting out.

There is no cap, I never suggested that. If you are true quality like Mcgrath or Asif, then you will succeed. However, it would seem that, in many conditions, you have to work very hard at under 135kph to be successful. Maybe it is the pitches or just world batting adapting to higher speeds, but there is a noticeable trend, imo. Overrating of Ishant's performance can be allowed, he wasn't all too great to left handers and right handers other than Ponting, but then, he didn't bowl all too quickly, was often under 140kph. Kemar Roach, on the other hand, bowled well and I genuinely think that he was unlucky not to pick up more wickets.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't think it's lack of pace that brought Rauf, Tonge, Rampaul and McKay undone - they just didn't bowl very well. Obviously the slower you bowl the more disciplined you have to be, but I reckon it's more a case of them just bowling rubbish than not having the tools. I distinctly remember Rampaul bowling a particularly threatening spell in which he reversed it for example, and let's not forget countless other examples like Watson's form with the ball this summer, Stuart Clark's record up until last season, McGrath's record before that, a few of Asif's spells in this game, Bravo's bowling throughout this summer, Kallis's bowling last summer etc etc.

Pace and bounce are obviously a bit more valuable in Australia than elsewhere, but I don't think there's a speed cap at 140 to be successful by any means. Like anywhere else, it's about bowling well and using the conditions - it's still quite possible to do that at 130 and 135. I think people are sucked in by the fact that really fast bowling looks more effective in Australia, but it really isn't. For all the hype about how well Roach bowled this season, how well Sharma bowled when India toured etc, they actually weren't very effective. I agree that both were unlucky but I do think it is a bit of an illusion at times. There's a big difference between batsmen playing awkward-looking shots and batsmen getting out.

Good point about Roach and Sharma, but who has been successful in Australia recently? The pitches are flat, but with enough pace and bounce to bring plenty of results. The problem for touring sides is that the Aussies have grown so good at batting on them.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Dale Steyn's pretty much the only one. When no one's taking many wickets, we're forced to look at who looks like taking more wickets to judge what type of bowling is effective.

 

[Manee]

Looking over that, perhaps I was wrong.

 

[Prince EWS]

Good point about Roach and Sharma, but who has been successful in Australia recently? The pitches are flat, but with enough pace and bounce to bring plenty of results. The problem for touring sides is that the Aussies have grown so good at batting on them.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Dale Steyn's pretty much the only one. When no one's taking many wickets, we're forced to look at who looks like taking more wickets to judge what type of bowling is effective.

Bowlers on that list with better averages than their career averages:

Dwayne Bravo
Andre Nel
Irfan Pathan
Iain O'Brien
Tim Southee
Rana Naved

As I said, I think this whole "you have to bowl fast in Australia to succeed" thing is a bit of an illusion. "You have to bowl fast in Australia for people to rate you" is probably more apt, but you still won't take many wickets.

 

[Manee]

Looking over that, perhaps I was wrong.

That being said, talking about world cricket, you certainly see the dominance of 140kph bowlers.

Most wickets by pacers in 2009
1. Mitchell Johnson (140kph+)
2. Pete Siddle (140kph+)
3. Stuart Broad (140kph+)
4. Jimmy Anderson (135kph)
5. Ben Hilfenhaus (135-140kph)
6. Chris Martin (135-140kph)
7. Iain O'Brien (140kph+)
8. Graham Onions (135-140kph)
9. Umar Gul (135-145kph)
10. Zaheer Khan (130kph)

Definite noticeable lack of medium paced bowlers, there.

 

[Uppercut]

Bowlers on that list with better averages than their career averages:

Dwayne Bravo
Andre Nel
Irfan Pathan
Iain O'Brien
Tim Southee
Rana Naved

As I said, I think this whole "you have to bowl fast in Australia to succeed" thing is a bit of an illusion. "You have to bowl fast in Australia for people to rate you" is probably more apt, but you still won't take many wickets.

TBF with most of those players it's a case of having been even less effective elsewhere than they were in Australia.

A lot of those names show you can be successful in Australia if you get the ball swinging. It happened at Perth in '07 and at the Gabba and MCG last year. But it's still a pretty rare occurance. When it doesn't swing you're faced with having to bowl to good batsmen on flat but fast pitches in games like these. Sharma and Roach didn't take too many wickets but by looking so dangerous they've done much better than most.

 

[Goughy]

That being said, talking about world cricket, you certainly see the dominance of 140kph bowlers.

Most wickets by pacers in 2009

Definite noticeable lack of medium paced bowlers, there.

Sure but there is a noticeable lack of medium pacers getting selected. How many decent Test teams field medium pacer? If they are not selected then they cant get wickets.

 

[Prince EWS]

TBF with most of those players it's a case of having been even less effective elsewhere than they were in Australia.

Haha, only really the case with Southee and Rana tbh, the rest of them average under 31 in Australia.

. Sharma and Roach didn't take too many wickets but by looking so dangerous they've done much better than most.

I don't really agree, as I don't see looking dangerous as actually doing anything at all unless it applies some sort of pressure - which it didn't really with Roach and Sharma as the runs flowed anyway. To me it's like saying that no-one succeeded with the bat on the famous Indian tour of New Zealand but Fleming did better than most by looking awesome for his 10 each time. I know you apply vastly different theories for batting and bowling but the idea that looking dangerous = success doesn't sit well with me at all.

Their bowling obviously showed the potential to succeed later on, as a bowler is more likely to succeed if he looks dangerous than if he doesn't, but I don't think it's success within itself; it's just means to an end. If anything, the fact that they looked good but didn't take many wickets suggests that their style of bowling wasn't particularly suited to the conditions, rather than the other way around.

 

[Uppercut]

Haha, only really the case with Southee and Rana tbh, the rest of them average under 31 in Australia.



I don't really agree, as I don't see looking dangerous as actually doing anything at all unless it applies some sort of pressure - which it didn't really with Roach and Sharma as the runs flowed anyway. To me it's like saying that no-one succeeded with the bat on the famous Indian tour of New Zealand but Fleming did better than most by looking awesome for his 10 each time. I know you apply vastly different theories for batting and bowling but the idea that looking dangerous = success doesn't sit well with me at all.

Their bowling obviously showed the potential to succeed as a bowler is more likely to succeed if he looks dangerous than if he doesn't, but I don't think it's success within itself; it's just means to an end. If anything, the fact that they looked good but didn't take many wickets suggests that their style of bowling wasn't particularly suited to the conditions, rather than the other way around.

The sample sizes for batting and for bowling aren't really comparable. You can bowl really well without taking a wicket, you can't bat really well without scoring a run. If they didn't happen to be different skillsets of the same sport such an analogy would be thrown out. Bowling has more in common with poker than it does with batting- you get the ball in the right place as often as you can and in the long run you get paid out.

I'm not meaning to credit Roach or Sharma with wickets they merely looked like taking, I'm just using it to try to gauge the effectiveness of similar bowlers. If Onions and Anderson are opening the bowling for England for ten overs at the end of day one and neither take any wickets but Anderson looks much more effective, I'd say Anderson would be more likely to strike the next morning. I'm really only looking at two or three spells from Roach and Sharma, so this is only a slight extrapolation of that.

 

[Prince EWS]

The sample sizes for batting and for bowling aren't really comparable. You can bowl really well without taking a wicket, you can't bat really well without scoring a run. If they didn't happen to be different skillsets of the same sport such an analogy would be thrown out. Bowling has more in common with poker than it does with batting- you get the ball in the right place as often as you can and in the long run you get paid out.

I'm not meaning to credit Roach or Sharma with wickets they merely looked like taking, I'm just using it to try to gauge the effectiveness of similar bowlers. If Onions and Anderson are opening the bowling for England for ten overs at the end of day one and neither take any wickets but Anderson looks much more effective, I'd say Anderson would be more likely to strike the next morning. I'm really only looking at two or three spells from Roach and Sharma, so this is only a slight extrapolation of that.

I don't really disagree with much of that, but I draw a strong line between the potential for future success and actual success. Looking dangerous isn't doing anything; it's just showing greater potential to do something later. I wouldn't say Sharma or Roach were actually successful in Australia as such, and when looking at what sort of players are actually successful in certain conditions, instances of players looking like they should but not actually doing so are basically irrelevant IMO. As I said, if anything it shows that good, fast bowling isn't actually very effective in Australia - I don't really buy that as such but if you're going to infer anything from their performances relevant to the question it'd have to be that.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Definitely modern day Australia is about that, because of course, Mcgrath, Gillespie, Reiffel, Fleming and numerous others all succeeded at fast medium pace.

Gillespie was sharper than Mcgrath, Fleming and Reiffel.

 

[DaRick]

Gillespie was sharper than Mcgrath, Fleming and Reiffel.

He was arguably express when he first appeared actually, but his pace dropped off through injury and was only getting past 140+ km/h by the 2000's.

 

[Son Of Coco]

He was arguably express when he first appeared actually, but his pace dropped off through injury and was only getting past 140+ km/h by the 2000's.

140km/h + is still faster than McGrath, Fleming and Reiffel though. I remember someone saying they thought Gillespie was the most difficult bowler to face in the domestic comp back around the end of 2001.

 

[stephen]

Actually, not many touring bowlers over the last 10 years of ANY variety have done well in Australia.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Of those who have taken 5 wickets or more, only 5 average under 30 and less than 20 average under 40.

Touring bowlers have found Australia incredibly difficult over the last decade. This is unsurprising as the pitches have been flat and Australia's batting has probably been the strongest assembled outside teams with Bradman.

 

[Manee]

Sure but there is a noticeable lack of medium pacers getting selected. How many decent Test teams field medium pacer? If they are not selected then they cant get wickets.

If not selected, then perhaps they are not good enough. I have a few medium pacers who have debuted and done poorly, albeit all in Australia, but I'm not saying that the trend is limited to Australia.

 

[aussie tragic]

The million dollar question is, can Watto be the first Aussie to bag a ton this summer??

Of anyone, he probably deserves to....I thought it was funny that he kept getting out before his ton but his consistancy as opener is now proven....and maybe his century drought is reminescent of Steve Waugh, who eventually made up for all of his lost opportunities....we can only hope (doesn't make him less of a douche though)

 

[aussie]

He was arguably express when he first appeared actually, but his pace dropped off through injury and was only getting past 140+ km/h by the 2000's.

Dizzy even with that injury (collision with Waugh in SRI 99) was still high 140 km/h capable of touching 145 fairly often between WI 2000 to ZIM 03 TBH. I would say after his injury after ZIM 03, which was just before the TVS Cup ODI series when he returned vs IND 03/04 to NZ 05 (before he hit rock bottom in Ashes 05). Thats when he slowed down alot to just about 135 km/h bowler at his fastest.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Ind33d. City in the morning then Watto, could be an amazing day or a truly terrible one, time will tell.

So far, so so good. I <3 Citeh. C'mon Waddo!

 

[Burgey]

Actually, not many touring bowlers over the last 10 years of ANY variety have done well in Australia.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Of those who have taken 5 wickets or more, only 5 average under 30 and less than 20 average under 40.

Touring bowlers have found Australia incredibly difficult over the last decade. This is unsurprising as the pitches have been flat and Australia's batting has probably been the strongest assembled outside teams with Bradman.

Miight also be that the bowlers haven't been that good too. Combine that with flat pitches and it's a problem for visiting bowlers.