Test Players Having To Be Good At Two Disaplines

[Bob Bamber]

Sorry I couldn't think of a shorter thread title.

But to the point. Duncan Fletcher is going on about why Panesar may not be in the team. One of the best Spinning talents in the world could be wasted because he hasn't be given the oppertunity to bat and his fielding isn't that special. But The fact remains Panesar will win England matches.

Contrast that with two England Spinners. Jamie Dalrymple and Ashley Giles. Two players at contrasting ends of their careers. Flecther has made it quite clear that he preferes Dalrymple to Panesar because he believes that his ability to bat and field is more important than his off spin.

Would you rather hit 500 and the opposition hit 500 leading to more draws. Or Hit 400 and Bowl the Opposition out for less.

Whats your opinion on this guys. I used the Panesar example because its the most obvious but there is a similar arguement with the Jones/Read/Foster debate.

I think its the batsmens Job to Bat. The bowlers job to bowl. And the all rounders to 'all round'.

 

[Mister Wright]

I couldn't agree more and I hope England do just that.

 

[PY]

I think you're being a bit kind on Gilo saying that he'd add 100 to our score if he was included over Monty.

I mostly agree with you though. England have an interesting and I would say unique situation in that that they have a truly world-class all-rounder who can mostly relied on to perform in Flintoff.

However, if Freddie is to be used as a #6 batsman as he was last year and we play 4 other bowlers other than him then I would say our batting line-up looks weak without a keeper who can average 30+ with 5 specialist batsmen, Freddie, and the keeper. Even with a keeper, this could look weak so Fletcher looks towards the #8 having a bit of batting to go with him which rules out Panesar because if Panesar plays then Hoggard is the new #8 which isn't enough. Therefore, Giles makes it in as the spinner and part of a 5-man bowling attack and bats at 8.

Now, think of Flintoff as the #8 in a batting lineup as part of a 4 man bowling attack.. We have Flintoff, Hoggard, Harmison and a spinner as 8-11 in the order which will include 6 specialist batsmen and a keeper then Flintoff. I would argue then that neither the keeper or the spinner (who would be Panesar with a 4 prong attack because it's him who's started the talk of 4 bowlers) is required to be experts with the willow due to the fact Freddie (who could be in the top 20 for batting in Tests consistently) is batting at 8.

In short (), whether the keeper needs to be a batsman and whether Monty needs to bat IMO depends on where exactly Freddie bats in the order. If Freddie bats 6, then you need 7 & 8 to have a combined average of 50-55 but if he's at 8 then he'll take the need for that away.

And a lot of what I've said is discussed elsewhere I believe.

 

[Goughy]

Fletcher has a point when it comes to decent cricketers but obviously the issue disappears when the player is top quality in a certain discipline.

I mean Harmi can hardly be classed as skilled with the bat or in the field and McGrath would never had played if he needed to be a '2 skill' cricketer.

I think what Fletcher implies is that, if there are 2 players, he is willing to choose the player with a little less in one area eg bowling if that player can make a far bigger contribution in another eg batting.

It can only happen if the 2 players are of relatively comparable standards.

I tend to agree with him. All test players should be skilled (to some moderate degree) in 2 if not 3 areas and only those with special talent or the ability in one area to over the come the other deficiencies should be exempt.

Obviously with all the euphoria in England, there are many that would say that Monty fits into that exempt category but that is for another thread.

 

[silentstriker]

Its a myth that lower enders bat more now, than they used to. If you look at the % of runs scored by the tail, it hasn't changed all that much.

 

[benchmark00]

All about balance.

Too long a tail leads to batting weaknesses, too short a tail invariably leads to short comings in bowling talents.

 

[silentstriker]

All about balance.

Too long a tail leads to batting weaknesses, too short a tail invariably leads to short comings in bowling talents.

Bowling is more precious. There are far more world class batsman around than bowlers. Unless you're England, its much harder finding a quality bowler than a quality batter.

Unless you're England, in which case you can't buy someone with an average of 50+ (Though Cook and Pieterson may change that).

 

[GIMH]

Cook averages 59.6

And all the top 6 last week have averages over 40, with Strauss, Pietersen and Bell all over 45

I'd take six 40s over a couple of 50+ and a couple of 30s

Anyhow...

It is my belief that Monty should be in the side because he is our best spin bowler. I have also pretty much stated my case elsewhere, but I would have Fred at 7 and Geraint at 8...Hoggy at 9 and Harmy at 10 aren't problems, and noone really knows for sure what Monty's batting is like anyway, but I don't think it's as bad as is made out, from the glimpses I have seen

 

[Sanz]

If Freddie plays, England will probably field Tresco, Strauss, Cook, Bell, KP, Colly, Freddie, Read, Hoggard, Harmison, Panesar. That's batting until 7-8.

They are already 1 bowler short, how many more batsman they want ?

 

[silentstriker]

Flintoff disturbs everything, because with him, you need another batter. Maybe they should drop Flintoff to balance the side .

 

[GIMH]

(assuming you're joking, that is)

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Fletcher is an idiot. Bowlers should be picked to bowl.

 

[UncleTheOne]

England could always give Panesar a bat at 8, from what we've seen he's no worse than Hoggard, Harmison, Simon Jones or of course the next big thing at number 8 Liam Plunkett who has looked awful with the bat.

Panesar can certainly give it a good thump, just ask Murali. His batting is no lost cause that's for sure.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think the issue is slightly complicated by the batting ability (or lack thereof) of our best seamers (Fred obv excepted).

Harmy, Hoggy & Jonah are all tailenders (as are all of our second string, with the possible exception of Plunkett & that's only possible). As an aside I personally think Harmy is potentially the best batter in terms of natural ability, but he doesn't seem to have the patience for it. Hoggy is the least gifted, but clearly the one who works hardest at his batting. If GBH had Hoggard's application he could average at least 15-18 IMHO.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that Messers Jones, Harmison & Hoggard are all selected because they're perceived as being our most likely sources of wickets, regardless of batting ability. Giles earned his spot (initially at least) partly because of his batting ability. When he first emerged Tuffers was almost certainly the better bowler & Croft was arguably much of a muchness. Gilo was favoured because (aside from on the subcontinent) we tend to view a spinner as a necessary evil rather than as a genuine match-winner. Something we have just in case... Gilo developed into our best spinner, but it wasn't that which got him the nod in the first place.

Monty may (and note the may) change that. In time he might be the first name on our teamsheet & we could be leaving out (say) Harmison for (say) Stuart Broad's superior batting at 8.

 

[Langeveldt]

I hope the worlds best SLA bowler has got a comfy armchair to watch the Ashes in this winter.. Sad isn't it?

 

[wpdavid]

This has always struck me as a uniquely English way of looking at the issue. Elsewhere, bowlers & keepers seem to understand that they're going to bat whether they like it or not, so they might as well try & be good at it. In countries like Aus, SA & NZ this seems to be pretty much understood, and not some sort of unreasonable burden.

 

[greg]

To be a successful team you need a minimum of six batsmen, a keeper, and four bowlers.

You need a batting order which can adapt to all conditions, with a balance of aggressive stroke players to capitalise when a team is on top or counterattack when a team is in trouble, mixed with dogged "grafters" who will glue the batting order together, provide stability and wear the bowlers down.

You need a balanced bowling attack which can capitalise with the new ball in various conditions be it with the use of swing, seam or bounce, keep the pressure on when the ball gets older with reverse swing or quality spin bowling, never give the batsmen a sustained rest, yet have the ability to keep the game quiet when the batting side is on top, and then take advantage as pitch conditions deteriorate in the second innings.

Good luck putting together the first with only six capable batsmen or the second with only four capable bowlers. What the above recognises is that you can be an "allrounder" in your specialist discipline - you can be a threat with the new AND old ball (eg. Simon Jones), you can attack when conditions are in your favour AND offer a "keep it quiet" option when things are not (Monty). Ashley Giles on the other hand is a one-dimensional bowler - he only really offers the keep it tight option.

Australia in the late nineties/early 2000s were great because (in addition to their obviously multi talented batting line up) they had two bowlers who could do everything in McGrath and Warne. And every team must go about finding their balance as best they can with the personnel they have to choose from.

So Ashley Giles last summer was a key cog because the only thing missing from England's bowling attack was the "keep it quiet" option. And he added a crucial stability and balance to England's batting "weakened" by the preponderance of stroke players from 5-7. But with Simon Jones injured and the batting of the keeper weak the balance must change. The emergence of Monty potentially fills those gaps, by providing options with the old ball, keeping it quiet, and allowing (in a four man attack) England to play the extra batsman.

 

[Goughy]

This has always struck me as a uniquely English way of looking at the issue. Elsewhere, bowlers & keepers seem to understand that they're going to bat whether they like it or not, so they might as well try & be good at it. In countries like Aus, SA & NZ this seems to be pretty much understood, and not some sort of unreasonable burden.

I agree completely, its also undertood around the world that your batsmen must work on their bowling and be capable of chipping in. The fact that some have made themselves pretty decent is a testamant to the fact they have worked on it.

Just off the top of my head (current players), G. Smith, Jayasuriya, Gayle, Astle, McMillan, Clarke, Lehmann, Katich, Ganguly etc and even a player of such a high profile as Tendulkar have all taken wickets for their country and worked on their bowling to improve the team.

England is the only country that has no bowling expectations of their unit of specialist batsmen.

Bell, Cook, Collingwood, KP, Tresco, Strauss have only 3 wickets between them in a combined 155 Tests. The only recent England batsman to make any contribution with the ball was Vaughan (6 wkts in 64 tests) and given his knee he is not likely to ever bowl again.

Every other country has a specialist batsman that can help with the bowling. England doen't, therefore we are forced to pick 5 bowlers and have a long tail.

Its time the batsmen stood up and allowed a team with better balance to be picked.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I agree completely, its also undertood around the world that your batsmen must work on their bowling and be capable of chipping in. The fact that some have made themselves pretty decent is a testamant to the fact they have worked on it.

Just off the top of my head (current players), G. Smith, Jayasuriya, Gayle, Astle, McMillan, Clarke, Lehmann, Katich, Ganguly etc and even Tendulkar

England is the only country that has no bowling expectations of their unit of specialist batsmen.

Bell, Cook, Collingwood, KP, Tresco, Strauss 3 wickets between them in a combined 155 Tests. The only recent England batsman to make any contribution with the ball was Vaughan (6 wkts in 64 tests) and given his knee he is not likely to ever bowl again.

Every other country has a specialist batsman that can help with the bowling. England doen't therefore we are forced to pick 5 bowlers and have a long tail.

Its time the batsmen stood up and allowed a team with better balance to be picked.

Depends what you mean by recent. Butch occasionally chipped in with his medium-pace wides. They might've been a load of tripe at test level, but he was a bit of a golden arm at times.

I'd say KP has definite potential with the ball too, looks to have been under-used based on what I've seen in the last couple of tests.

 

[Goughy]

Depends what you mean by recent. Butch occasionally chipped in with his medium-pace wides. They might've been a load of tripe at test level, but he was a bit of a golden arm at times.

I'd say KP has definite potential with the ball too, looks to have been under-used based on what I've seen in the last couple of tests.

Butcher was underused in the past. He had the genuine ability to swing the ball. He was not much worse, if at all worse, than Cronje and Cronje took 3 times as many wickets in less Tests. KP and Collingwood need to be used more now.

Its not that we do not have the players, its that the mentality seems to be that batsmen bat and bowlers bowl and these players are never developed as they should.

Its a shame really. If KP and Collingwood become capable of doing a job through working hard and, more importantly, given responsibilities then it can only help the team.