Not Enough Pace for this Level

[Himannv]

Well to be fair to Suranga Lakmal, he looks like he's improving every game at the moment. As for Kulasekara, I think he tends to lack effectiveness if the pitch is not suited to him which is probably why the selectors dont really give him enough chances. He's great with a new ball but once he doesn't have any help from the conditions, he cant do much more. If you watched him bowl in todays ODI, you could probably see this in action. Fantastic in the early overs but towards the end he struggles to not get hit around. I think he's worth a try in tests but I doubt he would do that much better than Lakmal at the moment.

 

[Jacknife]

Thoughts on Copeland then? Has been destroying FC but some say he is too low for tests

A bit like Woakes over here, averages 24 but most people think he's a little too slow for international cricket and would be fodder, out of England.

 

[Furball]

Uppercut, would I be right in saying that you're a big fan of Moneyball?

 

[Uppercut]

I've not read very much of it. But yeah, needless to say that's a pretty solid assessment .

 

[Furball]

I've not read very much of it. But yeah, needless to say that's a pretty solid assessment .

But you've read the chapter on Chad whatsisface at least?

 

[Uppercut]

Nope, first I've heard of him. It's even more relevant to the thread than I thought.

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't disagree, I just don't think that's any more true at test level than it is at FC level. A medium-fast bowler who doesn't find any seam movement or bounce really isn't likely to be a big success in FC games either.

Yeah, this is the point.

A lot of people have made great but IMO fairly obvious points in here with regards to how bowling quicker will make you a better bowler. There's no doubt about that - the faster you bowl, the better you take advantage of your other attributes.

However, I'd intuitively think raw pace would be even more of a threat domestically than it is internationally. We often see tailenders and batsmen from minnow nations get cleaned up by the genuine quicks bowling full and straight or short stuff at the body, because lesser batsmen can be beaten by pace alone. So if a slower bowler is consistently outperfoming a quicker bowler domestically by a fair margin, what makes him too slow for Tests? Why is there a perception that pace translates better to international cricket than accuracy, seam, swing, variation and planning? If anything, I'd intuitively think that the quicker bowler with the modest First Class record is feasting on prank-batsmen who get beaten by the extra pace domestically - batsmen who will be fewer and farer between internationally - and that the slower bowler with the awesome record is probably taking genuine wickets in much the same way as an international bowler would.

There's no doubt that pace and bounce are good attributes to have - that's not what's being challenged. What's being challenged is the notion that it doesn't count for as much domestically as it does internationally.

 

[Top_Cat]

Swing excepted. It gets progressively harder to get useful swing above 140+ so most of the time, if you're looking for more swing, it's better to back off the pace to give the ball some time in the air to do its work.

 

[Flem274*]

Tempted to email this thread around New Zealand.

 

[smash84]

Swing excepted. It gets progressively harder to get useful swing above 140+ so most of the time, if you're looking for more swing, it's better to back off the pace to give the swing time in the air to do its work.

This

 

[Cevno]

The bowlers I think will struggle at test level are sub-80mph wicket-to-wicket bowlers. Praveen Kumar has had (statistically at least) decent start to his test career, but because of his lack of anything but swing I still think when he faces a real test-quality batting line up he'll be fodder. Kulasekera doubly so because he doesn't get Kumar's swing.

Depends on the conditions really. If the ball is swinging Praveen will be a threat because he can swing it both ways more than probably any bowler out there at the moment at 75 to 80 miles per hour.

But in flatter conditions he could struggle ,though he can still play a containing role. Irfan Pathan was a similar case ,but stil when it swung he was so lethal that despite looking ordinary many times and losing his way in the last few matches his career bowling average is still better than Ishant,Broad,Sreesanth and he has 7 five wicket hauls in 29 matches.
While Mitchell Johnson has the same number in more matches.

These swing bowlers in helpful conditions can do better than the rest and in not helpful conditions do worse than the rest .Therefore as i have said before there needs to be a horses for courses type policy for dealing with such players.

 

[smash84]

interesting point you raise regarding IK Pathan there...........for a time (especially after the time when he was freshly given a few tips by Wasim Akram) Irfan Pathan was just plain awesome. Too bad that he just withered away after that

 

[Uppercut]

But in flatter conditions he could struggle ,though he can still play a containing role. Irfan Pathan was a similar case ,but stil when it swung he was so lethal that despite looking ordinary many times and losing his way in the last few matches his career bowling average is still better than Ishant,Broad,Sreesanth and he has 7 five wicket hauls in 29 matches.
While Mitchell Johnson has the same number in more matches.

That's not what happened, Irfan just destroyed Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and was largely hopeless against everyone else.

 

[Cevno]

That's not what happened, Irfan just destroyed Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and was largely hopeless against everyone else.

Did decently well in Pakistan, against South Africa and Srilanka at home(against Srilanka dominated that series with the bat too) and then when he was recalled in 2007/08 was the MOTM in the match at Perth which ended the record streak for the Aussies.


Yes he had some bad and really poor series too and ofcourse slaughtered Bangladesh and Zimbabwe ,which comes back to my point that he was better in helpful conditions(when it swung) than most normal bowlers but worse in flatter conditions.

 

[smash84]

IK Pathan was VERY good against Pakistan IIRC. Gave us some nightmares for a while

 

[Uppercut]

There are a few good spells that stick out in the memory but Pakistan just owned him most of the time. He averages about 50 against them.

He actually averages 11 against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and 45 against everyone else.

 

[Cevno]

That 45 against everyone else happened when he was ruined due to ODI's/T20's,striving for pace and trying to fit him as a all rounder too soon and batting.
And averaging 11 in those series was no mean feet either. In fact wasn't that Zimbabwe series India's first series win outside of SC for a while?

In any case my point was something different.

 

[Uppercut]

Really? Because I remember it happening when he constantly bowled total gash and got tonked.

 

[Furball]

Really? Because I remember it happening when he constantly bowled total gash and got tonked.

He'd have had amazing stats if all the balls that got smashed had been edged to the slips though.

 

[Cevno]

Really? Because I remember it happening when he constantly bowled total gash and got tonked.

So are you saying he was Gash and got tonked in all matches and series and still manages to average comfortably less than Lady Broad and Sreesanth?

I think you are mixing up performances with the white ball maybe.