The decline of the part-time medium pacer

[social]

There’s very few international batsmen who can’t bowl at all but captains like Cummins don’t want to use them e.g. Travis Head

 

[Coronis]

There’s very few international batsmen who can’t bowl at all but captains like Cummins don’t want to use them e.g. Travis Head

Notable non-keepers who never bowled in tests

Fleming 111 matches
Strauss 100 matches
Rahane 85 matches
Latham 82 matches
Misbah 75 matches
May 66 matches
Sutcliffe 54 matches
Amiss 50 matches
Pope 50 matches
Hill 49 matches
Crawley 48 matches
Woodfull 35 matches
Ponsford 29 matches
Duckett 27 matches
Brown 22 matches
Paynter 20 matches

All of them have bowled sparingly in FC.

Would be curious to see the longest FC careers without bowling.

 

[social]

Notable non-keepers who never bowled in tests

Fleming 111 matches
Strauss 100 matches
Rahane 85 matches
Latham 82 matches
Misbah 75 matches
May 66 matches
Sutcliffe 54 matches
Amiss 50 matches
Pope 50 matches
Hill 49 matches
Crawley 48 matches
Woodfull 35 matches
Ponsford 29 matches
Duckett 27 matches
Brown 22 matches
Paynter 20 matches

All of them have bowled sparingly in FC.

Would be curious to see the longest FC careers without bowling.

It’s pretty rare

Even Tim Paine bowled in fc

 

[shortpitched713]

In seam friendly conditions, average innings length has probably reduced and there's accordingly less need to turn to second tier bowling options.

Out of all given reasons in the thread, I think this one is best and most explanatory of the phenomenon.

I would personally add an increase in the overall quality of Test batting and bowling, including a further specialization of the disciplines as well. Teams trying hard to "moneyball" with overs optimization ( even at the expense of WTC over rate, it seems the result is more paramount over the points which I can respect), and really make hay on weaker bowling, even "taking risky shots to good balls" if they feel they can get away with against weaker bowling. Just more extreme optimization trends.

 

[social]

Out of all given reasons in the thread, I think this one is best and most explanatory of the phenomenon.

I would personally add an increase in the overall quality of Test batting and bowling, including a further specialization of the disciplines as well. Teams trying hard to "moneyball" with overs optimization ( even at the expense of WTC over rate, it seems the result is more paramount over the points which I can respect), and really make hay on weaker bowling, even "taking risky shots to good balls" if they feel they can get away with against weaker bowling. Just more extreme optimization trends.

Batting & bowling generally hasn’t improved imo

Look at some of the attacks in the 70/80s

 

[Furball]

It’s pretty rare

Even Tim Paine bowled in fc

How many will have bowled an over or 2 when you're just waiting on a declaration as opposed to anything actually serious?

 

[Starfighter]

I also think T20s are a part of this. Quicks with lots of variations, good leggies, and mystery bowlers with back up from batters who bowl part-time finger spin are the way to go, so they have replaced dobbly medium pacers.

I don't really agree with this. In T20s yes, but part time spinners have declined in ODIs since two new balls was brought in, and it would have even less bearing on tests.

 

[GIMH]

How many will have bowled an over or 2 when you're just waiting on a declaration as opposed to anything actually serious?

Did a double take then seeing you post in CC

 

[Smudge]

Notable non-keepers who never bowled in tests

Fleming 111 matches
Strauss 100 matches
Rahane 85 matches
Latham 82 matches
Misbah 75 matches
May 66 matches
Sutcliffe 54 matches
Amiss 50 matches
Pope 50 matches
Hill 49 matches
Crawley 48 matches
Woodfull 35 matches
Ponsford 29 matches
Duckett 27 matches
Brown 22 matches
Paynter 20 matches

All of them have bowled sparingly in FC.

Would be curious to see the longest FC careers without bowling.

Fleming - not what one would describe as fluid or natural through the crease.

 

[Starfighter]

Fleming - not what one would describe as fluid or natural through the crease.

Looks more natural than Chris Harris tbh.

 

[greg]

I wonder if one factor that caused the decline of part time seamers was, ironically, a period when they actually started to be elevated above a level that they were and into the “all rounder” category. There was a period with England (in particular) in the nineties when it seemed almost every county player who could hold a bat and turn their arm over was being touted as potentially “the next Botham” and the dearth of all rounders of test quality was seen as an existential crisis for the England team.

This caused promising players to be encouraged to work excessively at both aspects of their game at the likely expense of their (batting) speciality, but at some point the backlash came and these players were left adrift, pigeonholed permanently as “bits and pieces” players. The following generation paid attention to that and probably a large number actively resolved to avoid being sucked into the trap and became reluctant bowlers to the extreme. The “part-time spinners” hung on as a concept but for some reason they were never quite categorised on the same way. I guess because they continued to be seen as useful extras rather than a key part of fielding a balanced team (and the most obvious example - Moeen- actually mostly held his place as THE spinner in the team).

Nowadays if there are genuine part time bowlers around they are ironically perhaps as likely to be players who actually started as bowlers but, recognising their limitations and ceiling, made a conscious decision from quite early to focus near exclusively on batting.

 

[Chin Music]

I wonder if one factor that caused the decline of part time seamers was, ironically, a period when they actually started to be elevated above a level that they were and into the “all rounder” category. There was a period with England (in particular) in the nineties when it seemed almost every county player who could hold a bat and turn their arm over was being touted as potentially “the next Botham” and the dearth of all rounders of test quality was seen as an existential crisis for the England team.

This caused promising players to be encouraged to work excessively at both aspects of their game at the likely expense of their (batting) speciality, but at some point the backlash came and these players were left adrift, pigeonholed permanently as “bits and pieces” players. The following generation paid attention to that and probably a large number actively resolved to avoid being sucked into the trap and became reluctant bowlers to the extreme. The “part-time spinners” hung on as a concept but for some reason they were never quite categorised on the same way. I guess because they continued to be seen as useful extras rather than a key part of fielding a balanced team (and the most obvious example - Moeen- actually mostly held his place as THE spinner in the team).

Nowadays if there are genuine part time bowlers around they are ironically perhaps as likely to be players who actually started as bowlers but, recognising their limitations and ceiling, made a conscious decision from quite early to focus near exclusively on batting.

My recollection is that we largely had a load of 'no rounders', a bunch of blokes who didn't really meet international class with either facet of their game. From memory we had Pringle, David Capel, Phil Newport, up to a point Phil DeFreitas who were either only moderately good in one department and mediocre in the other, or mediocre in both. I feel it a little harsh of DeFreitas but he had a largely disappointing England career with the ball even if he promised a little bit more.

 

[greg]

My recollection is that we largely had a load of 'no rounders', a bunch of blokes who didn't really meet international class with either facet of their game. From memory we had Pringle, David Capel, Phil Newport, up to a point Phil DeFreitas who were either only moderately good in one department and mediocre in the other, or mediocre in both. I feel it a little harsh of DeFreitas but he had a largely disappointing England career with the ball even if he promised a little bit more.

I think you are crossing over a bit into the realms of “bowlers who can bat a bit” combined with a period when we really didn’t have any decent test quality pace bowlers at all anyway (so many were still being picked on (bowling) merit regardless of batting ability) - but it’s still my general point. Players encouraged to be semi competent/motivated at both disciplines rather than specialist at one (batting in particular).

 

[Chin Music]

I think you are crossing over a bit into the realms of “bowlers who can bat a bit” combined with a period when we really didn’t have any decent test quality pace bowlers at all anyway (so many were still being picked on (bowling) merit regardless of batting ability) - but it’s still my general point. Players encouraged to be semi competent/motivated at both disciplines rather than specialist at one (batting in particular).

Those tended to be the blokes we picked at the time. I may have (conveniently) forgotten a few. The period where the ODI team certainly picked similar was in the latter 90s when we had Matthew Fleming and Mark Alleyne in the England team and they got successful in a tournament in the middle east. They were blokes who were semi competent in both disciplines but didn't play in the test team. Dermot Reeve, I think played one test in the early 90s in NZ. He definitely was one of those who bowled medium paced nibblers and could bat a bit. Then you had Mark Ealham, again in the early to mid 90s who was a medium pacer who could bat a bit.

 

[Starfighter]

Those tended to be the blokes we picked at the time. I may have (conveniently) forgotten a few. The period where the ODI team certainly picked similar was in the latter 90s when we had Matthew Fleming and Mark Alleyne in the England team and they got successful in a tournament in the middle east. They were blokes who were semi competent in both disciplines but didn't play in the test team. Dermot Reeve, I think played one test in the early 90s in NZ. He definitely was one of those who bowled medium paced nibblers and could bat a bit. Then you had Mark Ealham, again in the early to mid 90s who was a medium pacer who could bat a bit.

Reeve definitely would have been considered an allrounder - he took 456 wickets in 241 FC matches and averaged 35 with the bat.

In any case that's really not the kind of player I'm talking about. It's guys who are in the side for their batting first and foremost.

 

[greg]

Reeve definitely would have been considered an allrounder - he took 456 wickets in 241 FC matches and averaged 35 with the bat.

In any case that's really not the kind of player I'm talking about. It's guys who are in the side for their batting first and foremost.

Yeah - I just think a factor may have been the players themselves refusing to do it. Worried that if they did too good a job it might become seen as part of a factor in their future selection. And in extremes the one they might actually be judged on. How many times did we hear (for example) after a rare outing “Mark Butcher should work more on his bowling/bowl more - he could do a useful job”.

 

[Starfighter]

Yeah - I just think a factor may have been the players themselves refusing to do it. Worried that if they did too good a job it might become seen as part of a factor in their future selection. And in extremes the one they might actually be judged on. How many times did we hear (for example) after a rare outing “Mark Butcher should work more on his bowling/bowl more - he could do a useful job”.

It's not like that can't be a factor with spin though. Heck, that's how Steve Smith got into the test team. OTOH, no-one would look at Greg Chappell's 110 km/h wobblers and think 'we should pick him because of those'.

 

[Furball]

Did a double take then seeing you post in CC

Yeah I got lost somehow.