Do England Miss The Pace Of Welsh Wizard Simon Jones ?

[Richard]

Given continued fitness for the rest of the season, it'd be plain madness for him not to be.

 

[steds]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/7554875.stm

Pringle says: "Simon has to prove he can bowl the amount of overs needed in a Test match. I am not sure he's done that at Worcestershire this season"

Interesting.

 

[UncleTheOne]

whilst his performances have been superb for worcestershire this season (going by his stats) they've barely picked him for a run of games so far.

 

[Scaly piscine]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/7554875.stm



Interesting.

Meanwhile they pick Panesar for home Tests when he barely bowls in the first innings and fails to force a positive result in the second innings. He's as much a 'liability' as Simon Jones - except of course Simon Jones is actually good, can slog a bit and can field a bit.

 

[BoyBrumby]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/7554875.stm



Interesting.

He's pulled out of the England "Lions" () games versus the yarps with a ham-string strain too.

If he's played as part of a 5-man attack his ability to bowl long spells is slightly immaterial tho, I don't think anyone would seriously ever expect him to be a stock bowler again; he should be used in short, sharp bursts. His reverse swing in India could be vital.

 

[Top_Cat]

He's pulled out of the England "Lions" () games versus the yarps with a ham-string strain too.

If he's played as part of a 5-man attack his ability to bowl long spells is slightly immaterial tho, I don't think anyone would seriously ever expect him to be a stock bowler again; he should be used in short, sharp bursts. His reverse swing in India could be vital.

Here's the problem; Flintoff. Particularly since he's been bowled into the ground against SA (again), the selectors have no idea whether he'll fall over nor when (actually, it's not really an if any more is it?). When he does, if Jones is in the side, he'll have to take on more overs. And if he's picked in a 4-man attack, he'll have to bowl even more. Truth is, even if he wouldn't be required to bowl long spells in a 5-man attack, he'll need to be capable of it. Short bursts if the selectors insist on picking Flintoff doesn't cut it I reckon. Why his county aren't playing him as much as they can and bowling him more is beyond me.

This is, of course, assuming England should be batting Flintoff at 6 as part of a 5-man attack which I don't think they should.

 

[Richard]

For me, it's as simple as this: you pick four bowlers, Flintoff among them if you think he's fit enough, and Jones among them if you think he's fit enough.

If you don't think either are, you don't pick either. However, if you don't try you don't find-out.

 

[Top_Cat]

For me, it's as simple as this: you pick four bowlers, Flintoff among them if you think he's fit enough, and Jones among them if you think he's fit enough.

If you don't think either are, you don't pick either. However, if you don't try you don't find-out.

You also don't pick a Test bowling attack based on 'trying stuff out'. A 4-man specialist attack is a relatively recent phenomena (last 30-odd years) and it has risks, not least of which is an injury to one of them. Basically, from now on Flintoff and Jones should never make up 2 prongs of a 4-man attack. Flintoff isn't good enough to bat at 6 to make a 5-man attack so it's one or the other, for mine. With Colly to cover in case the one picked dislocates their spine or something.

 

[Goughy]

You also don't pick a Test bowling attack based on 'trying stuff out'. A 4-man specialist attack is a relatively recent phenomena (last 30-odd years) and it has risks, not least of which is an injury to one of them. Basically, from now on Flintoff and Jones should never make up 2 prongs of a 4-man attack. Flintoff isn't good enough to bat at 6 to make a 5-man attack so it's one or the other, for mine. With Colly to cover in case the one picked dislocates their spine or something.

It has undoubtabley become more common in recent years but it isnt a recent phenomena.

A quick look at the top 2 biggest wins in Test history shows a game from the 30s and the 50s where the victorious team picked only 3 specialist bowlers.

The idea that in 'old' cricket, 5 specialist bowlers were played is not accurate.

 

[Top_Cat]

It has undoubtabley become more common in recent years but it isnt a recent phenomena.

I didn't mean it had never been done before. Just that, as you said, it's been much more common.

 

[Goughy]

I didn't mean it had never been done before. Just that, as you said, it's been much more common.

Actually just looking more and more, there seems that for a long time 2 seamers and 1 spinner was a common selection with a few batsmen who could turn their arm over.

The idea of 5 specialist bowlers is seldom seen.

 

[Top_Cat]

Actually just looking more and more, there seems that for a long time 2 seamers and 1 spinner was a common selection with a few batsmen who could turn their arm over.

The idea of 5 specialist bowlers is seldom seen.

At a guess, I'd say increased professionalism of the game as well as more cricket (FC, Test plus OD games since the 70's) meant that was was unsustainable; batsmen would have had a hard time doing both at Test level because they were expected to bat for long periods but also score quickly, play more, etc. as well as covered pitches. Doing both to Test standard seems to have become more rare as a handy bowler on a sticky would be fodder on a road. Test players playing year-round would make being the 3rd, 4th or 5th bowler in the line-up in addition to your batting duties a bit too difficult.

 

[Richard]

You also don't pick a Test bowling attack based on 'trying stuff out'. A 4-man specialist attack is a relatively recent phenomena (last 30-odd years) and it has risks, not least of which is an injury to one of them. Basically, from now on Flintoff and Jones should never make up 2 prongs of a 4-man attack. Flintoff isn't good enough to bat at 6 to make a 5-man attack so it's one or the other, for mine. With Colly to cover in case the one picked dislocates their spine or something.

I don't think you can pick any attack based on "they might break down". If you think someone is likely to break down, don't pick him. If you think someone is unlikely to break down, you pick him if you think he's good enough.

Simon Jones simply has to be given another try. Any time you pick a player who you don't have a fair idea what's going to happen when he steps on the park (which is extremely common - it's rare to go into a match without at least a couple of these, even for the very best teams in history) you're trying stuff out.

In any case, the "five-man attack means you have to bowl less overs" stuff is often theory-only, and doesn't work in practice. If you've got Stuart Broad as one of your five bowlers, you're inevitably going to give more overs to a Flintoff or Simon Jones in the very likely event that they look more likely to take wickets than he does. Even in 2005, the five-bowler attack everyone raves so wrong-headedly about, England sometimes had as many as three bowlers (certainly always a minimum of one) who had to be hidden. Harmison was utter rubbish in all four Tests that England dominated in, Hoggard was very poor in the first three, and Giles was of little use in the First, Fourth and Fifth.

A five-man attack is far from a means of assuring a light load.

 

[tooextracool]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/7554875.stm



Interesting.

Ironically, hes bowled just as many overs as any other Worcestshire bowler in the games that he has played. His being rested from the ODs is rather irrelevant because I doubt that he will ever be playing ODI cricket for England consistently either. So yes, he should go to India because hes likely to be our best bowler.

 

[tooextracool]

Here's the problem; Flintoff. Particularly since he's been bowled into the ground against SA (again), the selectors have no idea whether he'll fall over nor when (actually, it's not really an if any more is it?). When he does, if Jones is in the side, he'll have to take on more overs. And if he's picked in a 4-man attack, he'll have to bowl even more. Truth is, even if he wouldn't be required to bowl long spells in a 5-man attack, he'll need to be capable of it. Short bursts if the selectors insist on picking Flintoff doesn't cut it I reckon. Why his county aren't playing him as much as they can and bowling him more is beyond me.

England have spent the better part of the last year, carrying Panesar in the side in the first innings because 'the pitches havent suited him'. If England are to play Jones, one hopes that outside of the subcontinent that would be in place of Panesar and hes likely to bowl at least as many overs as Panesar has bowled recently. So his not being able to bowl long spells is rather a moot point. Of course in India, if he does play, he will have to play as part of a 5 man attack with Flintoff, Anderson, Harmison/Sidebottom and Panesar.

 

[tooextracool]

Even in 2005, the five-bowler attack everyone raves so wrong-headedly about, England sometimes had as many as three bowlers (certainly always a minimum of one) who had to be hidden. Harmison was utter rubbish in all four Tests that England dominated in, Hoggard was very poor in the first three, and Giles was of little use in the First, Fourth and Fifth.

That is the very point of a 5 man attack. The fact that often 2 and sometimes 3 bowlers could be hidden while the attack could still function effectively is the very essence of such an attack. Even in a 4 man attack, you very rarely find games where every bowler in the side fires, usually at least 1 or 2 have off days and its usually up to th other 2 to make up for that.

What worked for the 5 man attack in 2005 was that all 5 bowlers complemented each other rather brilliantly. No one bowler, could be said to be bowling remotely similar to another. Harmison was pace and bounce, Hoggard was accuracy and swing, Jones was skiddier with conventional and reverse swing, and Flintoff was bounce and reverse swing. Its not particularly surprising that Hoggard struggled in the same test in which Harmison bowled well or that Harmison struggled in the tests where Hoggard bowled well or even that Giles bowled well in the tests that neither of the other 2 bowled well in. Basically at every point in the series, England had about 3 bowlers who were functioning at their best and that is why they were such a handful. Of course, players like Jones and Flintoff were likely to be dangerous bowling in any conditions given the way they were bowling in that series.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah. You make a good case for variation for variation's sake actually.

 

[Richard]

That is the very point of a 5 man attack. The fact that often 2 and sometimes 3 bowlers could be hidden while the attack could still function effectively is the very essence of such an attack. Even in a 4 man attack, you very rarely find games where every bowler in the side fires, usually at least 1 or 2 have off days and its usually up to th other 2 to make up for that.

What worked for the 5 man attack in 2005 was that all 5 bowlers complemented each other rather brilliantly. No one bowler, could be said to be bowling remotely similar to another. Harmison was pace and bounce, Hoggard was accuracy and swing, Jones was skiddier with conventional and reverse swing, and Flintoff was bounce and reverse swing. Its not particularly surprising that Hoggard struggled in the same test in which Harmison bowled well or that Harmison struggled in the tests where Hoggard bowled well or even that Giles bowled well in the tests that neither of the other 2 bowled well in. Basically at every point in the series, England had about 3 bowlers who were functioning at their best and that is why they were such a handful. Of course, players like Jones and Flintoff were likely to be dangerous bowling in any conditions given the way they were bowling in that series.

I don't disagree with any of that. The point I was making was that a five-man attack is often thought to be a way of lightening a bowler's workload, ensuring he never needs be over-bowled. But it doesn't work that way. A five-man attack does indeed often mean you've got more bases covered than you otherwise might. But it doesn't mean all bowlers always share the overs with decent equity. The best bowlers will still be "over"bowled.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't disagree with any of that. The point I was making was that a five-man attack is often thought to be a way of lightening a bowler's workload, ensuring he never needs be over-bowled. But it doesn't work that way. A five-man attack does indeed often mean you've got more bases covered than you otherwise might. But it doesn't mean all bowlers always share the overs with decent equity. The best bowlers will still be "over"bowled.

I'm not against picking five bowlers per se, but this England side doesn't have the batting strength in depth to do it. Prior will surely help though, considering he's replacing Ambrose.

 

[Richard]

Only if a) he scores runs and b) his wicketkeeping isn't sufficiently poor to make his selection untenable.