Vernon Philander - Here to stay, or a Flash in the pan?

[Jarquis]

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Howe_zat]

Though that's comparing Broad's one series to Philander's two and a half. If you move the date back a bit to include Broad's series against India as well, during which time SA were not playing Tests, Broad has 38 wickets at 16.10 from 7 matches.

 

[Manee]

Though that's comparing Broad's one series to Philander's two and a half. If you move the date back a bit to include Broad's series against India as well, during which time SA were not playing Tests, Broad has 38 wickets at 16.10 from 7 matches.

Its all arbitrary. Six/Seven matches prove nothing. No one is proclaiming that Yadav is some sort of king. It is that it is both Philanders first matches (as with Yadav) and he has such a great domestic record (sign of longevity of excellence).

 

[Scaly piscine]

It's really tough to call bowlers at the moment. I think Test batting generally is at a very low point. Australia and India traditionally have good batting - they've been rather horrid of late. Pakistan are low quality and workmanlike. New Zealand and West Indies are worse still. South Africa have a weak middle and lower order. Sri Lanka are average. England were looking the strongest by a distance until the Pakistan tour and have been pissing about with Morgan and Bopara too long.

There are a number of bowlers knocking about with very low averages over the past few series. I still rate England's bowling attack better than South Africa's primarily because Morkel is very over-rated and Imran Tahir hasn't contributed much so far. I think if De Lange came in then that would perhaps change things.

With regards to Philander we just have to wait and see. He's bowled on helpful pitches against largely rubbish batting. He's done what he can against what's been put in front of him. There will be far greater tests ahead.

 

[Jacknife]

If we're talking bowlers to 'watch' then I'd probably rather have Morkel and Finn.

Nah, I was just adding who would be the most effective, saying that I'd much rather watch Broad than Morkel or Finn, love watching him bowl this last year or so.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Don't like watching Morkel, but Broad is awesome to watch. Love the way he beats batsman through seam movement.Very clever bowler.

 

[Flem274*]

It's really tough to call bowlers at the moment. I think Test batting generally is at a very low point. Australia and India traditionally have good batting - they've been rather horrid of late. Pakistan are low quality and workmanlike. New Zealand and West Indies are worse still. South Africa have a weak middle and lower order. Sri Lanka are average. England were looking the strongest by a distance until the Pakistan tour and have been pissing about with Morgan and Bopara too long.

There are a number of bowlers knocking about with very low averages over the past few series. I still rate England's bowling attack better than South Africa's primarily because Morkel is very over-rated and Imran Tahir hasn't contributed much so far. I think if De Lange came in then that would perhaps change things.

With regards to Philander we just have to wait and see. He's bowled on helpful pitches against largely rubbish batting. He's done what he can against what's been put in front of him. There will be far greater tests ahead.

Don't mean to pick on this post, but I wonder if we're moving from the "The batsmen aren't good, the bowlers just suck" period of 2000-2010 to the "bowlers aren't good, the batsmen just suck" period of 2012-???

 

[marc71178]

Its all arbitrary. Six/Seven matches prove nothing.

Seems to be enough for people to start placing Philander above Jimmy...

 

[Pothas]

Don't mean to pick on this post, but I wonder if we're moving from the "The batsmen aren't good, the bowlers just suck" period of 2000-2010 to the "bowlers aren't good, the batsmen just suck" period of 2012-???

Yeah think this is true, is amazing how quickly things change around, there are still an awful lot of good batsmen around.

Having said that there is not a great deal in Scaly's post I would disagree with. England v South Africa is going to be fascinating in seeing how the balance between bat and ball works out.

 

[zaremba]

Saffers looking very strong now with Philander slotting in alongside Steyn and Morkel, and that batting line up. I'd put them a little ahead of England just now.

As to whether VP will remain awesome, only time will tell, but he's done extraordinarily well so far.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Don't mean to pick on this post, but I wonder if we're moving from the "The batsmen aren't good, the bowlers just suck" period of 2000-2010 to the "bowlers aren't good, the batsmen just suck" period of 2012-???

The pitches play a big part in it, seem to be much more result-orientated pitches these days, compared to some complete roads back in the 2000s - particularly in the sub-continent.

The other thing was there were a few genius bowlers and not much else in the early 2000s. The gap between them and the rest probably made the bowling standard generally look worse than it was.

Pretty much all the best sides over the past year have been skittled for 2 digits and/or repeatedly knocked over for 200 or so. And it's generally been through less established bowlers or guys who have been around for a while but haven't been anything special.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

It's really tough to call bowlers at the moment. I think Test batting generally is at a very low point. Australia and India traditionally have good batting - they've been rather horrid of late. Pakistan are low quality and workmanlike. New Zealand and West Indies are worse still. South Africa have a weak middle and lower order. Sri Lanka are average. England were looking the strongest by a distance until the Pakistan tour and have been pissing about with Morgan and Bopara too long.

There are a number of bowlers knocking about with very low averages over the past few series. I still rate England's bowling attack better than South Africa's primarily because Morkel is very over-rated and Imran Tahir hasn't contributed much so far. I think if De Lange came in then that would perhaps change things.

With regards to Philander we just have to wait and see. He's bowled on helpful pitches against largely rubbish batting. He's done what he can against what's been put in front of him. There will be far greater tests ahead.

It's always "better back in the day" isn't it. I just hate this kind of discussion, watch and enjoy the cricket or not ffs. First it's flat pitches and crap bowlers, now it's helpful pitches and crap batsmen? Make up your ****ing mind.

 

[Spark]

The pitches have definitely gotten better in the last year or so. That much I'll give.

 

[Rasimione]

But the questiön is he a flash in the pan or not and surely his FC stats show he is here to stay. This argument about pitches is irrelavent IMO!

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I agree, and I don't think any of the pitches Philander has bowled on have been helpful. He just makes it look that way because he's a ****ing good bowler.

 

[Arachnodouche]

One thing to note is he's definitely a bit slower than young McGrath, and doesn't have quite the steep-ish bounce the latter used to extract. I don't see him becoming a trundler exactly, but he'll probably settle into the Shaun Pollock mould. SA will be pretty happy with that eventuality.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

One thing to note is he's definitely a bit slower than young McGrath, and doesn't have quite the steep-ish bounce the latter used to extract. I don't see him becoming a trundler exactly, but he'll probably settle into the Shaun Pollock mould. SA will be pretty happy with that eventuality.

I sense rose-tinted glasses. Philander bowls mid 130s consistently with the occaisional one clocking at 138. Don't think McGrath was ever any quicker than that in tests.

 

[Arachnodouche]

He very much was. Young McGrath could easily slip it up into the early 140s.

 

[Satguru]

I sense rose-tinted glasses. Philander bowls mid 130s consistently with the occaisional one clocking at 138. Don't think McGrath was ever any quicker than that in tests.

McG in his early years went past 140 regularly... he really was viciously quick early in his career

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Video proof or I ain't buying it. It's not a particularly good point anyway as Philander isn't that young, I doubt his pace will drop at all from where it is now.