Respect for disciplined medium pace - PK and Copeland

[uvelocity]

It's always about partnerships. Sure you can bowl a rip snorter and knock someone over. But its deflating standing at fine leg and the other bloke keeps getting flicked through backward square for four. If you're bowling well it takes all the pressure off the batsman trying to get started against you, he can wait for next over and more pies.

Also with a good bowler ripping in, and a accuracy bowler at the other end - it can encourage the batsman to go after the slower man, bringing wickets at that end. Or in reverse, he can be so accurate and hard to get away, they try against the demon and are out at that end.

Sure you can have two fast, dangerous bowlers. Das is gut. But I'd rather the two best regardless of speed.

 

[Goughy]

But I'd rather the two best regardless of speed.

I cant argue with that. My argument is what 'best' is regarding opening bowlers and, IMO, that is making something happen with the new ball. Kumar for his willingness and economy hasnt yet shown that, especially on the England tour. Of course the best can do both like McGrath but I dont think even the most optimistic on here are making that comparison,

 

[NasserFan207]

I felt Kumar did about as well as he could have really. Like Howe-zat pointed out he's the type of bowler with a ceiling, and he relies on stamina, hardwork, mental strength and creating pressure.

Unfortunately for him pressure is impossible to create by yourself, you need backing. Praveen needs to bowl in a partnership to be most effective, he's not a Flintoff type character who can change a game by himself. He's a teamplayer, the problem was he didn't have a team.

Its also important to remember that England's batting has been making bowling attacks look rubbish for several years now. An interesting question would be who would you take in your bowling lineup, Praveen Kumar or Mitchell Johnson?

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

That is a fast bowlers job and no amount of mid-late order wickets can make up for that.

You'd never hear me disagreeing with that. A new ball bowler's first responsibility is to pick up top order wickets with the red cherry and everything else is of secondary importance.

That's the reason why I was careful to mention in my OP that PK hasn't "embarrassed himself on this tour". It's a far from perfect tour for a fast/swing bowler when you are not running through batting line-ups with the new ball.

The only perspective I'd put forth is that he was up against a batting line-up possibly the best equipped in the world to deal with his style of bowling in these conditions. That and the fact that he comfortably outperformed his Indian bowling colleagues (not very difficult, one may argue ) make him less culpable, in my eyes.


The basic point of this thread is NOT to divert rightful flak away from these medium-pacers. It is an attempt to put forward an appeal that their lack of pace ought not to be held against them. It's perfectly fine if PK is judged on his bowling merit and I expect that the same consideration is applied to young Copeland when the Aussie selectors sit down together.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Like Howe-zat pointed out he's the type of bowler with a ceiling, and he relies on stamina, hardwork, mental strength and creating pressure.

Unfortunately for him pressure is impossible to create by yourself, you need backing. Praveen needs to bowl in a partnership to be most effective ...

If I have any understanding of a new ball bowler's psyche (having been one myself for over a decade), I'd venture to say that PK isn't particularly pleased with himself.

Getting wickets with the new ball is a bit of a pride thing - underlining the fact that your movement and canniness can pick up high quality batsmen cheaply. All new ball bowlers thrive on that boost, IMHO.

However, what you say above is an apt assessment. A bowler like PK would do well as a useful component in a team. That makes a fit spearhead like Zaheer Khan all the more important. As a component in the bowling machinery, I'd any day trust PK with the ball ahead of a Sreesanth or a Munaf Patel. R. P. Singh is not a test bowler, IMHO!

 

[Uppercut]

I still do not get the Kumar love. Relative to the other Indian bowlers he did well but he didnt do much.

In perfect conditions for swing seam bowling on the morning of the 1st Test England were at 270-3. The game was gone already there and the Indian front line seamers failed and failed badly. Kumar took a fifer but the damage was done and it was nothing more than polishing the proverbial. Taking wickets after the damage is done looks good but helps noone. Kumar is as culpable as anyone for the failure on the first day.

In the 2nd innings of the 2nd Test he took another 4 wickets, all after England were 340odd for 4. Again, very much a case of figures looking good without doing damage at the important end of the innings.

In the 3rd Test England scored 710-7. Enough said, even though he was the pick of the bowlers.

Early wickets give you a chance of bowling a team out for a low score. Picking up wickets that make your stats look good may help your career but doesnt really help the team.

He was the pick of the Indian bowlers who bowled in more than 1 innings but he didnt do a great job. He has his pros. He runs in all day, swings it a long way and can be economical but, and it may just be me, I get the feeling that there should be more. He didnt take wickets early while India were still in the game. That is a fast bowlers job and no amount of mid-late order wickets can make up for that.

I'd say it was pretty incidental that his wickets tended to come late in the innings rather than early. His bowling was remarkably consistent and didn't seem especially more troublesome later in the innings than he did early on- on a couple of occasions that just happened to be when he found the edges.

It's useful to point out what he didn't do when the rest of us are focusing on what he did. He bowled consistently and dangerously for long spells and was frequently carrying the attack single-handedly, but he didn't put in a performance that could win his side the match- although you've omitted his most effective spell of the series, the first innings at Trent Bridge. But he was still much, much better than any of India's other options, and his performances to date are more than enough to suggest that India erred badly in the past by continually picking faster bowlers with vastly inferior FC records in his stead. I suspect that may be where a lot of the Praveen love comes from, especially for non-Indians.

The other thing I'd say in his defence is that England generally played him much, much better than he can expect to be played in his test career.

 

[Furball]

Yeah, you get the feeling that most other batting lineups would have knicked to the cordon more off Praveen because they lack the patience and discipline of the English batsmen.

I don't tend to subscribe too much to the bowling in partnership theory but I think it would have been interesting to see Praveen bowl with Zaheer offering nothing at the other end rather than Praveen bowling accurately and testingly at one end with Sreesanth offering the batsmen free runs at the other.

 

[Cabinet96]

As a medium pace swing bowler myself I have a lot of respect for them. However I'd still rather watch Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel tearing in at Johannesburg any day of the weak.

 

[Top_Cat]

The other thing I'd say in his defence is that England generally played him much, much better than he can expect to be played in his test career.

He'll also (likely) never bowl in friendlier conditions to his style of bowling.

 

[Furball]

He'll also (likely) never bowl in friendlier conditions to his style of bowling.

He'll get much friendlier bowling conditions in 3 months time when he gets to bowl at Australia's middle order.

 

[tooextracool]

I still do not get the Kumar love. Relative to the other Indian bowlers he did well but he didnt do much.

In perfect conditions for swing seam bowling on the morning of the 1st Test England were at 270-3. The game was gone already there and the Indian front line seamers failed and failed badly. Kumar took a fifer but the damage was done and it was nothing more than polishing the proverbial. Taking wickets after the damage is done looks good but helps noone. Kumar is as culpable as anyone for the failure on the first day.

In the 2nd innings of the 2nd Test he took another 4 wickets, all after England were 340odd for 4. Again, very much a case of figures looking good without doing damage at the important end of the innings.

In the 3rd Test England scored 710-7. Enough said, even though he was the pick of the bowlers.

Early wickets give you a chance of bowling a team out for a low score. Picking up wickets that make your stats look good may help your career but doesnt really help the team.

He was the pick of the Indian bowlers who bowled in more than 1 innings but he didnt do a great job. He has his pros. He runs in all day, swings it a long way and can be economical but, and it may just be me, I get the feeling that there should be more. He didnt take wickets early while India were still in the game. That is a fast bowlers job and no amount of mid-late order wickets can make up for that.

Don't think this is a fair assessment of him considering the Indian fielders were dropping catches off him left and right and he was bowling while his partners were leaking runs. It seems strange to hear this assessment and yet us (Englishmen) justified the selection of Matthew Hoggard for years and years when he essentially did nothing different. Arguably the ceiling, that has been referred to in this thread, for PK is higher than that for Hoggard if only because he can swing the ball both ways without a discernible change in bowling action while Hoggard couldnt.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Hoggard hit the bat much harder, and had a greater degree of subtlety in his bowling when bowling well.

Reckon Kumar will prefer it when he is bowling at opening batsman who go hard on the front foot at the ball, Strauss and Cook are two of the more likely to play the ball right under their eyes than push super hard at it.

I think he bowled very well throughout the series, and I'd definitely be picking him for India because he can help build pressure as well as providing a threat; I think his control is good enough for him to play a role even if the ball isn't swinging. You won't see me making any predictions either way though about him in Australia, or even against quality batting line-ups in the subcontinent, I'm really just not sure. Jury out, etc.

 

[Top_Cat]

He'll get much friendlier bowling conditions in 3 months time when he gets to bowl at Australia's middle order.

Be a nice bonding experience for you and your kid to watch the Test in the middle of the night so they can see what a **** you are.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Don't think this is a fair assessment of him considering the Indian fielders were dropping catches off him left and right and he was bowling while his partners were leaking runs. It seems strange to hear this assessment and yet us (Englishmen) justified the selection of Matthew Hoggard for years and years when he essentially did nothing different. Arguably the ceiling, that has been referred to in this thread, for PK is higher than that for Hoggard if only because he can swing the ball both ways without a discernible change in bowling action while Hoggard couldnt.

Hoggy was appreciably quicker and, even now in his cricketing dotage, remains so.

 

[Xuhaib]

Rate Praveen think he will do reasonably in sub cont don't forget he averages low 20's in FC cricket so he should have an idea to bowl in those conditions.One bowler that has dissapointed me from India is Sree still feel he is very talented but lacks the bowling discipline.

 

[Migara]

Well, there was a gentleman called Chaminda Vaas, who was possibly touch quicker than two of these bowlers, yet took 350 test wickets at 29 and 400 ODI wickets at 26

 

[Furball]

Be a nice bonding experience for you and your kid to watch the Test in the middle of the night so they can see what a **** you are.

 

[Uppercut]

He'll also (likely) never bowl in friendlier conditions to his style of bowling.

Yeah but everyone had already pointed that out .

Also the ability to find swing in all conditions is one of his touted strengths. He claims he could swing an orange. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Flem274*]

Well he can swing a bat.

 

[iamdavid]

Well, there was a gentleman called Chaminda Vaas, who was possibly touch quicker than two of these bowlers, yet took 350 test wickets at 29 and 400 ODI wickets at 26

Vaas was alot quicker than PK or Copeland for most of his career. He started off quite brisk (135kph+), and he operated at about 128-130kph from 2000ish onwards. T'was only at the very end that he slowed right down.