I think it might be down to how people think that he isn't test standard and all hype. Granted, he's not that great, but he's still a good bowler.It's kind of funny how Mitch's exploits in SA, which whilst awesome, are constantly brought up. A batsman who did extremely well in a series on batting friendly tracks will be dismissed, and won't be brought u constantly when their ability is questioned. But the minute Mitch is detracted a bit, a series that occurred ages ago at the best place to bowl as a fast bowler is immediately referred to.
Such inconsistency.
I'm not 'punishing him'. The whole point of bringing up his recent performances against Pak and Bangladesh was to show how his average at the moment flatters him. He has only played 24 test matches, and the performances against Pak and Bangladesh, as I showed, made his average drop a considerable amount. As of now Swann's average against Australia, SA, and India are 40.50, 31.38 and 39.50. These are good, but not outstanding figures. If you actually compare them to someone like Harbhajan, they are a good deal worse. Harbhajan's average against Australia and SA is 29.35 and 28.00. The point about Johnson, I'm not going to go into - I never even brought up Johnson so I will leave it at that.Yay! Lets all punish a bloke for performing ridiculously well against substandard side!
If he'd averaged 30 against them then you'd be lamenting him for averaging 30 against them. FMD.
30 wickets @ less than 19 apiece is incredible near-regardless of the opposition.
If Pakistan are so crap how come Johnson averaged 73 against them in his own backyard, I mean obviously Johnson's far better than Swann
I don't even know what your talking about here. I was just saying IF Hauritz had an identical record to Swann, I would be saying he is 'good' and not 'amazingly good' or whatever like some people are - i.e. I wouldn't be exaggerating how good Hauritz is just because he is Australian.So basically... if Hauritz had a good record, you'd call him good?
But because Swann has a good record, and we're calling him good.... he's somehow not good?
In the last 2 years only Mitchell Johnson has taken more wickets than Swann and of bowlers to take more than 50 wickets, only Steyn and Asif have taken them at a better average.
He is just that good ffs.
Since when was England Johnson's 'own backyard'? He averaged 25 against Pakistan down under.Yay! Lets all punish a bloke for performing ridiculously well against substandard side!
If he'd averaged 30 against them then you'd be lamenting him for averaging 30 against them. FMD.
30 wickets @ less than 19 apiece is incredible near-regardless of the opposition.
If Pakistan are so crap how come Johnson averaged 73 against them in his own backyard, I mean obviously Johnson's far better than Swann
England and Australia are hardly similar conditions. Let's not forget that Johnson's not that good away from home.Fair, must have misread the page. If anything it makesnitnworse, against the same opposition in the same.conditions (optimum for quick bowlers) Johnson was comprehensively by a finger spinner who's apparently "just not that good"
Don't know why you are using Johnson as a comparison. Johnson is another bowler who I would consider 'good' but definately not 'great'. And even though you can't really compare a fast bowler to a spinner, I would actually say Swann is of better value to his team than Johnson is to Australia.Fair, must have misread the page. If anything it makesnitnworse, against the same opposition in the same.conditions (optimum for quick bowlers) Johnson was comprehensively by a finger spinner who's apparently "just not that good"
Yeah, a good slice of his wickets in his last stellar 12 months were against some pretty ordinary opposition. A good bowler though.I think it might be down to how people think that he isn't test standard and all hype. Granted, he's not that great, but he's still a good bowler.
I only just chucked on the live stream an over or two ago, was it Trott or Anderson's bat that Duffield was mainly beating?Hope its not too serious, looked like he was getting back to the form that saw him picked to tour SA.
Duffield looks to be a good talent, beat the bat quite a few times just then.
Dont really think thats fair. Harbhajan gets to bowl on some juicy wickets back home which is not the same case as Swann. Harbhajan's record in Australia and South Africa is pretty dismal. I dont think I'd have any hesitation in saying that Swann is a better bowler than Harbhajan to be honest.These are good, but not outstanding figures. If you actually compare them to someone like Harbhajan, they are a good deal worse. Harbhajan's average against Australia and SA is 29.35 and 28.00.
Ended up being Anderson so might have jumped the gun From the naked eye he looked to have a bit of pace on him, didn't get to see much of him to Trott which is a shame.I only just chucked on the live stream an over or two ago, was it Trott or Anderson's bat that Duffield was mainly beating?
As a batsman I enjoy watching Trott in between deliveries so much, it really looks like he takes it one ball at a time and must be a frustrating guy to bowl to.
The point I was making was about facing quality batting line ups, not where they bowled. Your point though further illustrates why it is premature at this stage to classify Swann beyond anything than 'good' or 'promising' - he hasn't even the opportunity to play in places like Australia yet.Dont really think thats fair. Harbhajan gets to bowl on some juicy wickets back home which is not the same case as Swann. Harbhajan's record in Australia and South Africa is pretty dismal. I dont think I'd have any hesitation in saying that Swann is a better bowler than Harbhajan to be honest.