Pace gurus speak - Issues with the modern day fast bowlers

[Flem274*]

Not really, if you subscribe to the thought that to be an all time great you must succeed in all places you play a decent sample size of games in.

I have no idea what Anderson's record is in the subcontinent, but him succeeding there would only aid his claim to fame.

It's exactly why some people choose not to view Sehwag as a great, because he has been very average in South Africa, England and New Zealand. He is a fantastic specialist in the subcontinent, especially India, and has had success in Australia, but he is not very good at all in three countries.

 

[Furball]

Not really, if you subscribe to the thought that to be an all time great you must succeed in all places you play a decent sample size of games in.

I have no idea what Anderson's record is in the subcontinent, but him succeeding there would only aid his claim to fame.

It's exactly why some people choose not to view Sehwag as a great, because he has been very average in South Africa, England and New Zealand. He is a fantastic specialist in the subcontinent, especially India, and has had success in Australia, but he is not very good at all in three countries.

Anderson has a good record in India (something that the "needs to do well in the subcontinent" brigade always conveniently forget), has never played Tests in Pakistan or Bangladesh and has a dire record in Sri Lanka (albeit from 2 Tests).

 

[Flem274*]

That's fine then, since the Sri Lankan sample is very small. No one will be playing in Pakistan for a while so I don't see why that should count against anyone.

 

[Furball]

Personally I'd rank success in Australia as the highest pinnacle given how many top shelf bowlers have gone there and routinely been destroyed. No visiting quick since the West Indies tour of 1992/93 had as much success as Anderson did last winter, and for the people who pull out the "yeah, but he had 5 Tests" argument - this both ignores how much more difficult maintaining form over a 5 Test series is, and also ignores Anderson not getting the rewards his bowling deserved at Brisbane, and a Perth Test where he wasn't at his best due to flying back to England to be there for the birth of his daughter and then flying back between Adelaide and Perth.

 

[Furball]

That's fine then, since the Sri Lankan sample is very small. No one will be playing in Pakistan for a while so I don't see why that should count against anyone.

It's nonsense. The "needs to do well in the SC" argument really means India. No-one from this generation will have played much, if any, cricket in Pakistan and no-one takes a cricketer's record in Bangladesh seriously, particularly if they do well. So basically, Anderson needs to bowl better in 2 countries than in the other 5 countries where he'll play cricket in order to be viewed as a great? Sorry, that argument is complete horse****.

 

[akilana]

Yes, if he keeps on doing what he is doing for 3 more years and does well in SC and there isn't a resurgence of many great fast bowlers together around the world in the mean time then he will end up having earned the credibility to be considered close to a rung below ATG level

say "away from home" and you'd be right

 

[Flem274*]

It's nonsense. The "needs to do well in the SC" argument really means India. No-one from this generation will have played much, if any, cricket in Pakistan and no-one takes a cricketer's record in Bangladesh seriously, particularly if they do well. So basically, Anderson needs to bowl better in 2 countries than in the other 5 countries where he'll play cricket in order to be viewed as a great? Sorry, that argument is complete horse****.

Well it depends. Hypothetically, if he played 14 tests in the two main SC nations (7 in India, 7 in Sri Lanka) and came out with an average of 40, that would be a major weakness in his record. Also, lets say he averages 24 everywhere else. Would it make him less of a great? Yes imo.

It's irrelevant though because if his record in India is good, and his sample size in Sri Lanka is tiny, then there's nothing to see here. India is death to seam bowlers, and having a good record there is a bonus for the average good test quick.

 

[Furball]

Well it depends. Hypothetically, if he played 14 tests in the two main SC nations (7 in India, 7 in Sri Lanka) and came out with an average of 40, that would be a major weakness in his record. Also, lets say he averages 24 everywhere else. Would it make him less of a great? Yes imo.

It's irrelevant though because if his record in India is good, and his sample size in Sri Lanka is tiny, then there's nothing to see here. India is death to seam bowlers, and having a good record there is a bonus for the average good test quick.

How is it any different to averaging 40 in the West Indies and South Africa and 24 everywhere else?

 

[Flem274*]

How is it any different to averaging 40 in the West Indies and South Africa and 24 everywhere else?

It isn't, and if a bowler has holes there then they count equally.

 

[smash84]

haha.....fair points by phlegm

 

[Lostman]

Anderson gets three more tests in SL soon anway

 

[silentstriker]

The problem is that bowlers have taken the "fast" out of "fast bowlers".

Have they? I doubt it. Compared to when?

 

[silentstriker]

It's nonsense. The "needs to do well in the SC" argument really means India. No-one from this generation will have played much, if any, cricket in Pakistan and no-one takes a cricketer's record in Bangladesh seriously, particularly if they do well. So basically, Anderson needs to bowl better in 2 countries than in the other 5 countries where he'll play cricket in order to be viewed as a great?

Yea. Because those two countries offer conditions that are, in general, different to the rest and have teams that, in general, are extremely tough to bowl against in those conditions. So being a 'great' bowler instead of being merely a very good one would 'require' him to do well in those conditions.

Again, we're talking about 'great', not 'good', or even 'very good'.

 

[Daemon]

It's nonsense. The "needs to do well in the SC" argument really means India. No-one from this generation will have played much, if any, cricket in Pakistan and no-one takes a cricketer's record in Bangladesh seriously, particularly if they do well. So basically, Anderson needs to bowl better in 2 countries than in the other 5 countries where he'll play cricket in order to be viewed as a great? Sorry, that argument is complete horse****.

What? Ignoring Anderson for a moment, just talking about fast bowlers in general. The most important thing for a bowler is to be good at home. Following that his perdormance in each major test playing nation should be considered and judged relative to the success of other bowlers in that country. If a bowler is doing poorly in 2/7 of the countries he plays in then that puts a black mark on his record. Of course Anderson hasn't done that in India but that doesn't mean if he ends up with an overall poor career in SL and India despite averaging 24 everywhere else that he's exempt from criticism. He'll still be regarded as one of the best but there is going to be that blemish on his records. If he ends up averaging 30 in the 2 countries then no one is going to use that against him. If he averages even less, then it's just going to add to his bowling record.



The same can be said about Sehwag as mentioned before.

 

[smash84]

What? Ignoring Anderson for a moment, just talking about fast bowlers in general. The most important thing for a bowler is to be good at home. Following that his perdormance in each major test playing nation should be considered and judged relative to the success of other bowlers in that country. If a bowler is doing poorly in 2/7 of the countries he plays in then that puts a black mark on his record. Of course Anderson hasn't done that in India but that doesn't mean if he ends up with an overall poor career in SL and India despite averaging 24 everywhere else that he's exempt from criticism. He'll still be regarded as one of the best but there is going to be that blemish on his records. If he ends up averaging 30 in the 2 countries then no one is going to use that against him. If he averages even less, then it's just going to add to his bowling record.



The same can be said about Sehwag as mentioned before.

quality post.

 

[Flem274*]

Should have given it the triple barrel to make him feel inadequate.

 

[smash84]

lol

 

[Furball]

Yea. Because those two countries offer conditions that are, in general, different to the rest and have teams that, in general, are extremely tough to bowl against in those conditions. So being a 'great' bowler instead of being merely a very good one would 'require' him to do well in those conditions.

Again, we're talking about 'great', not 'good', or even 'very good'.

Yeah, the subcontinent is tought to bowl in. So is Australia. So was the West Indies last time England toured. Yet no-one ever says "what's his record in Australia like? What about the West Indies?" This idea that you can only be a great if you've done well in the subcontinent is absolute baloney.

 

[Flem274*]

They used to before he ****ed up Australia last Ashes tbh.

Anyway, to summarize the article for those who say tl;dr: "Grumpy old men rubbish modern technology/science in favour of making it up yourself."

there was some good advice in there tbf

The real question is: How many drove to the interview and caught the bus home?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Personally I'd rank success in Australia as the highest pinnacle given how many top shelf bowlers have gone there and routinely been destroyed. No visiting quick since the West Indies tour of 1992/93 had as much success as Anderson did last winter, and for the people who pull out the "yeah, but he had 5 Tests" argument - this both ignores how much more difficult maintaining form over a 5 Test series is, and also ignores Anderson not getting the rewards his bowling deserved at Brisbane, and a Perth Test where he wasn't at his best due to flying back to England to be there for the birth of his daughter and then flying back between Adelaide and Perth.

Which in turn ignores the fact that it's not 'success in Australia' that has been the main issue in the years preceding last year, but 'success in Australia against a very, very good team'. How many top shelf bowlers got to bowl against an Australian team as poor as ours is currently in the last 15 years? I'd put my money on zero.

Anderson is a good bowler, but I wouldn't hold his performance last year up as evidence of his elevation to ATG status. If we're purely rating players based on where they play then all the English players are ATGs based on the fact they were in Australia last year.

It's a bit disingenuous to rate a place as a great test of a players ability when it's clear the difficulty associated with playing there was more to do with having a great team and less to do with it simple being 'Australia', in my opinion.