Who do you think the best bowlers are at present??

[Lambu]

The skill that Zaheer possesses is way beyond what Sidebottom ever come near to possessing.There is no better exponent of reverse swing today.

Social,

Flintoff must be a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery average bowler too then..averaging 32 after 70 tests,esp considering the fact that he doesn't nearly play as much as Zak in sub-continental conditions.

Richard,

Can i know your reasons for stating Zaheer<Sidebottom in that series? Look at what Zak did..he swung it both ways from over the wikt and did the same from around the wicket.Didn't Sidebottom tell that was an "eye-opener" to him?To this day Sid has tried(without much success,i might add) to make the leave the right hander from around the wckt.I'll admit that he has a better inswinger of the two bowlers though.However,Zaheer owns him when it comes to reverse swing.Infact i doubt he has it in his armory. Jones and Flintoff are the ones i have seen reverse winging the ball from England team.

 

[Richard]

I don't know whether Sidebottom has reverse swing in his armoury. Zaheer can reverse it around corners.

That's very true, but in that series, of lush outfields, mostly green or greenish pitches, dank conditions and good-quality cricket-balls, conventional-swing was sufficient and lasted sufficiently long to make reverse-swing unneccessary.

And on conventional swinging skills, there's nothing between the two bowlers. Zaheer's skills with the reverse variety, clearly, are far superior.

 

[Richard]

Richard,

Can i know your reasons for stating Zaheer<Sidebottom in that series? Look at what Zak did..he swung it both ways from over the wikt and did the same from around the wicket.Didn't Sidebottom tell that was an "eye-opener" to him?To this day Sid has tried(without much success,i might add) to make the leave the right hander from around the wckt.I'll admit that he has a better inswinger of the two bowlers though.However,Zaheer owns him when it comes to reverse swing.Infact i doubt he has it in his armory. Jones and Flintoff are the ones i have seen reverse winging the ball from England team.

Sidebottom can make the ball go the other way, conventionally, and did start bowling around-the-wicket to much greater effect than he had previously in that very series. Sidebottom also has the ability to swing the inswinger considerably more than Zaheer Khan does, which means a straight-on ball for him (which he bowls well, easily, and to order) can be as effective as an outswinger for Zaheer.

Sidebottom bowled very well indeed in the First Test, superbly in the Second with absolutely no luck at all, and pretty well again in the Third and had about 3 or 4 catches put down, which not only deprived him of wickets but meant batsmen scored runs (off him and other bowlers) they should not have.

Zaheer Khan on the other hand was merely decent in the First and Third Tests, it was only in the Second that he struck as serious "...wow..." material. Both before and after the silly jelly-bean incident.

Outside that series there's no disputing that Zaheer Khan has been the more impressive bowler in the last 2 years, but in that series, I don't think he was.

 

[Precambrian]

Sidebottom can make the ball go the other way, conventionally, and did start bowling around-the-wicket to much greater effect than he had previously in that very series. Sidebottom also has the ability to swing the inswinger considerably more than Zaheer Khan does, which means a straight-on ball for him (which he bowls well, easily, and to order) can be as effective as an outswinger for Zaheer.

Sidebottom bowled very well indeed in the First Test, superbly in the Second with absolutely no luck at all, and pretty well again in the Third and had about 3 or 4 catches put down, which not only deprived him of wickets but meant batsmen scored runs (off him and other bowlers) they should not have.

Zaheer Khan on the other hand was merely decent in the First and Third Tests, it was only in the Second that he struck as serious "...wow..." material. Both before and after the silly jelly-bean incident.

Outside that series there's no disputing that Zaheer Khan has been the more impressive bowler in the last 2 years, but in that series, I don't think he was.

Guess Zaheer is in the wrong team and probably playing the most wrongest conditions for a swing bowler almost whole of his career. However to his credit, he has started a new chapter in the history of fast bowling in India by successfully mastering reverse swing. I am sure he will have a fantastic year in terms of records, which should probably bring down his career average to around 30-31. In this age, and in these conditions, that is very good.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Why? Worried Clark's elbow problems are going to be career-ending?

I fear the worst. It's not what ****s me the worst, though - the fact we have a relative embarrassment of fast-bowling riches for the first time since January 07, and we pick, of all people, a hack who'd done nothing to demonstarte his hunger or readiness for the job at hand and was exposed as nothing more than a shot in the dark. Siddle, of all people. ****'s sake. Far as I can tell, he was picked on a whim in India (looking good in the few preceding net sessions by all accounts, which apparently accounts for temperament, consistency and evidence of hard work as well as form) and is in the team now solely to make the selectors look consistent in not picking two or three debutantes every series - which has been the case in every series this year. I wouldn't be surprised if Noffke and Bollinger lost whatever motivation and impetus they had to keep striving away for a spot if this is their understanding of the system. You might as well have picked Magoffin, Harwood, Dorey, or Mark ****ing Cameron if you wanted to make a statement on how capricious and arbitrary the process is.

The fact there are two bowlers who could not have physically or statistically done more to state their claim get passed over for reasons I can only put down to budget constraints on green felt disgusts me no end. For all the flak we heaped on Hohns, you knew that whoever was in the side had earnt their place in blood. Might as well have David Graveney now.

 

[krkode]

Zaheer is a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery average bowler

The guy has played 60 tests and averages mid-30s - that sums him up for mine

He only looks decent when he takes an early wicket but too often completely drops his bundle when things dont go his way

Although you're right, that's pretty much what Indian fast bowlers' role is in test cricket. Take a quick wicket or two at the start if you can, and make way for the spinners. And he's done a fairly decent job of that in the last couple of years since his return to test cricket.

I'm afraid as good/decent as Ishant Sharma and Zaheer Khan are, they will never have averages like McGrath, Wasim, Pollock. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that India will never have a fast bowler who averages below 25. We haven't had one yet and I don't think we ever will. I am hoping to be proven wrong, though.

 

[Richard]

I fear the worst. It's not what ****s me the worst, though - the fact we have a relative embarrassment of fast-bowling riches for the first time since January 07, and we pick, of all people, a hack who'd done nothing to demonstarte his hunger or readiness for the job at hand and was exposed as nothing more than a shot in the dark. Siddle, of all people. ****'s sake. Far as I can tell, he was picked on a whim in India (looking good in the few preceding net sessions by all accounts, which apparently accounts for temperament, consistency and evidence of hard work as well as form) and is in the team now solely to make the selectors look consistent in not picking two or three debutantes every series - which has been the case in every series this year. I wouldn't be surprised if Noffke and Bollinger lost whatever motivation and impetus they had to keep striving away for a spot if this is their understanding of the system. You might as well have picked Magoffin, Harwood, Dorey, or Mark ****ing Cameron if you wanted to make a statement on how capricious and arbitrary the process is.

The fact there are two bowlers who could not have physically or statistically done more to state their claim get passed over for reasons I can only put down to budget constraints on green felt disgusts me no end. For all the flak we heaped on Hohns, you knew that whoever was in the side had earnt their place in blood. Might as well have David Graveney now.

Haha, can't recall ever seeing Whelan so disgusted.

FTR, of course, I agree completely that the preference for Siddle over Bracken, Noffke and to an extent Bollinger is shockingly poor selection - whatever happens in the upcoming Tests (however many they be) Siddle plays.

However, I don't think Hohns (and Buchanan) was neccessarily any better. They were at least in part responsible for the likes of Hauritz, Symonds, McIntyre, Watson-circa-2004/05, etc. playing for Australia.

 

[GGG]

Dan Vettori over the last 12 months is averaging 25 in tests and 25 in ODI's, admittedly quite a few of both are vs Bangladesh but has done well against all teams he has played against. Proberbly one of the current best allrounders but not far from the top in bowling alone. But I would have Steyn at 1.

 

[Top_Cat]

I fear the worst. It's not what ****s me the worst, though - the fact we have a relative embarrassment of fast-bowling riches for the first time since January 07, and we pick, of all people, a hack who'd done nothing to demonstarte his hunger or readiness for the job at hand and was exposed as nothing more than a shot in the dark. Siddle, of all people. ****'s sake. Far as I can tell, he was picked on a whim in India (looking good in the few preceding net sessions by all accounts, which apparently accounts for temperament, consistency and evidence of hard work as well as form) and is in the team now solely to make the selectors look consistent in not picking two or three debutantes every series - which has been the case in every series this year. I wouldn't be surprised if Noffke and Bollinger lost whatever motivation and impetus they had to keep striving away for a spot if this is their understanding of the system. You might as well have picked Magoffin, Harwood, Dorey, or Mark ****ing Cameron if you wanted to make a statement on how capricious and arbitrary the process is.

Not entirely the case. Siddle's numbers obviously aren't up with the other guys but I'd hazard that his bowling in last year's Pura Cup final had a lot to do with his selection too. Plus, when not injured, was always threatening for Vic, took a few sides apart. Take it from someone who has actually faced him and is in the Vic set-up, Jack Mac, who said in another thread only a psycho like Dirk Nannes is less fun to face.

Point is, even if the numbers are great, the opinion of the guys facing them in the nets does matter and many teams have spots which have been selected in line with that. If selection was just about picking the guy with the best numbers, it'd be easy.

The fact there are two bowlers who could not have physically or statistically done more to state their claim get passed over for reasons I can only put down to budget constraints on green felt disgusts me no end. For all the flak we heaped on Hohns, you knew that whoever was in the side had earnt their place in blood. Might as well have David Graveney now.

I submit to you Scott Muller, Simon Cook, Brett Lee, Wayne Phillips (the Victorian one), Shaun Young, Peter McIntyre, Brad Hogg, Watson, Hauritz, continued selection of Mark Waugh when he should have been dropped, non-selection of Darren Lehmann until '98, the treatment of Andy Bichel and Michael Kasprowicz, etc. Don't kid yourself, Hohns had his favourites. Distinctly remember Jason Gillespie getting a go at the first hint of fitness after yet another injury but whole seasons of sustained great numbers weren't enough for Bichel/Kasper. Can almost guarantee the words of the blokes facing him in the nets got him a go more often than not. The words of Steve Waugh after a particularly nasty spell of bowling in Perth got Brett Lee into the side too.

 

[Richard]

Not entirely the case. Siddle's numbers obviously aren't up with the other guys but I'd hazard that his bowling in last year's Pura Cup final had a lot to do with his selection too. Plus, when not injured, was always threatening for Vic, took a few sides apart. Take it from someone who has actually faced him and is in the Vic set-up, Jack Mac, who said in another thread only a psycho like Dirk Nannes is less fun to face.

Point is, even if the numbers are great, the opinion of the guys facing them in the nets does matter and many teams have spots which have been selected in line with that. If selection was just about picking the guy with the best numbers, it'd be easy.

That's just the point though - it is easy. Not, obviously, that it always works, because not all good domestic players become good international players. But a good domestic player is always more likely to become one than a less good domestic player is. Selectors routinely over-complicate matters by looking at more flimsy evidence (such as net form) over harder, more reliable stuff (ie, what's actually being done in organised games). Occasionally this will work and will look (to the unwary) inspired; much more often it'll backfire and, for those taking notice, will show the inadequacies of those who thought they knew better than the game.

I don't doubt that Siddle is quite a prospect, nor am I for a second ruling-out the possibility of him being a good Test bowler, and maybe fairly soon, though I can't say he was very impressive on the 1 occasion I've seen him so far.

A good selector, however, as Martin Crowe put it is not about being big on ego and trying to be the one who found the next wonderkid without having to let him play domestic cricket, claiming "ah, but I saw the talent without domestic cricket cos I am wonderjudgeofplayer", but about picking the players who've proven themselves best.

Siddle should be made to earn his stripes. However good those who've faced him at lower levels and in the nets know he is there, he should have to prove it at the highest level in Australian cricket: interstate. And he should not play Test cricket until he has.

 

[Uppercut]

I'm afraid as good/decent as Ishant Sharma and Zaheer Khan are, they will never have averages like McGrath, Wasim, Pollock. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that India will never have a fast bowler who averages below 25. We haven't had one yet and I don't think we ever will. I am hoping to be proven wrong, though.

Also, unless they have a lot of good fast bowlers for a long period of the time, some will be brought into international cricket before they're at their peak (even if at times they're still good enough to justify selection). That's the case with Zaheer- even if he takes wickets at a crazy average for a good few years now, he'll still never be able to get his average that low because of his early career.

 

[Top_Cat]

That's just the point though - it is easy. Not, obviously, that it always works, because not all good domestic players become good international players. But a good domestic player is always more likely to become one than a less good domestic player is. Selectors routinely over-complicate matters by looking at more flimsy evidence (such as net form) over harder, more reliable stuff (ie, what's actually being done in organised games). Occasionally this will work and will look (to the unwary) inspired; much more often it'll backfire and, for those taking notice, will show the inadequacies of those who thought they knew better than the game.

I don't doubt that Siddle is quite a prospect, nor am I for a second ruling-out the possibility of him being a good Test bowler, and maybe fairly soon, though I can't say he was very impressive on the 1 occasion I've seen him so far.

A good selector, however, as Martin Crowe put it is not about being big on ego and trying to be the one who found the next wonderkid without having to let him play domestic cricket, claiming "ah, but I saw the talent without domestic cricket cos I am wonderjudgeofplayer", but about picking the players who've proven themselves best.

Siddle should be made to earn his stripes. However good those who've faced him at lower levels and in the nets know he is there, he should have to prove it at the highest level in Australian cricket: interstate. And he should not play Test cricket until he has.

I would argue one can never be so absolutist about the process, even when playing the %'s. And I would never claim it's 'easy' either. It's a hard balance to strike and with some players, you prefer to see them prove themselves at lower levels. With others, however, you throw them in at the deep end and see whether they swim. Depends on the individual as well as the needs of the team, form and, finally, statistics. And the priority order of those changes all the time and can often change depending on who else is in the team. Definitely nothign hard and fast about selection and why so many times it doesn't come off.

 

[krkode]

Also, unless they have a lot of good fast bowlers for a long period of the time, some will be brought into international cricket before they're at their peak (even if at times they're still good enough to justify selection). That's the case with Zaheer- even if he takes wickets at a crazy average for a good few years now, he'll still never be able to get his average that low because of his early career.

Yeah, and I remember at the time Zaheer came in, India was really hurting for some good fast bowlers. Besides Srinath, we didn't really have anyone who was decent and/or capable of staying fit. I remember we'd play some test matches with Srinath and Ganguly opening the bowling with 3 spinners because of a lack of a good second fast bowling option. At least now we have 2 decent ones.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Siddle outbowled Noffke (who'd already burnt his opportunities by being a knob and blowing up with the coach over money issues) and Bollinger in India on the preceeding A tour (which finished only three days before the Test series in the same country) by all accounts. Siddle has performed well pretty much every time he's been selected for Victoria, and the only time he has ever missed a game over the past two seasons is because of injury, and has been the first picked quick in the best FC pace attack in the country for that time.

 

[Son Of Coco]

That's just the point though - it is easy. Not, obviously, that it always works, because not all good domestic players become good international players. But a good domestic player is always more likely to become one than a less good domestic player is. Selectors routinely over-complicate matters by looking at more flimsy evidence (such as net form) over harder, more reliable stuff (ie, what's actually being done in organised games). Occasionally this will work and will look (to the unwary) inspired; much more often it'll backfire and, for those taking notice, will show the inadequacies of those who thought they knew better than the game.

I don't doubt that Siddle is quite a prospect, nor am I for a second ruling-out the possibility of him being a good Test bowler, and maybe fairly soon, though I can't say he was very impressive on the 1 occasion I've seen him so far.

A good selector, however, as Martin Crowe put it is not about being big on ego and trying to be the one who found the next wonderkid without having to let him play domestic cricket, claiming "ah, but I saw the talent without domestic cricket cos I am wonderjudgeofplayer", but about picking the players who've proven themselves best.

Siddle should be made to earn his stripes. However good those who've faced him at lower levels and in the nets know he is there, he should have to prove it at the highest level in Australian cricket: interstate. And he should not play Test cricket until he has.

To be fair to him though Richard you saw him in India...not exactly a fast bowler's paradise. I didn't think he bowled that badly.

 

[Cricket_God]

Zaheer is a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery average bowler

The guy has played 60 tests and averages mid-30s - that sums him up for mine

He only looks decent when he takes an early wicket but too often completely drops his bundle when things dont go his way

If you bowl on unhelpful wickets what will you average fool?ask lee,clarke,johnson if you still
do not get it

he is at his peak ,bowling between 80-90miles swinging and reverseswinging the ball with a great bouncer and slowerball,complete bowler if you ask anybody who knows cricket.
the way he is going he will average in 27-29 when he will finish and he is the best leftarm
fast bowler in the world

 

[Cricket_God]

Although you're right, that's pretty much what Indian fast bowlers' role is in test cricket. Take a quick wicket or two at the start if you can, and make way for the spinners. And he's done a fairly decent job of that in the last couple of years since his return to test cricket.

I'm afraid as good/decent as Ishant Sharma and Zaheer Khan are, they will never have averages like McGrath, Wasim, Pollock. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that India will never have a fast bowler who averages below 25. We haven't had one yet and I don't think we ever will. I am hoping to be proven wrong, though.

i think if you look at all the victories india has had in the last few years its the fast bowlers
who have won us the matches be it in india or abroad,spinners have justy picked up tailenders .in india now its the opposite of what you say the new ball is used to contain
then the fastbowlers come with the old ball and take wickets.

i think ishant ,sreesanth will average below 25 as there is less reliance on spinners now
and tailenders wickets will also be there as there is no kumble.

and to correct you they are not decent or good but worldclass bowlers and considering
their performance on unhelpful wickets,if they get helpful wickets they will be handful.
the opp are playing them safely and attacking spinners and that says it all.

 

[social]

If you bowl on unhelpful wickets what will you average fool?ask lee,clarke,johnson if you still
do not get it

he is at his peak ,bowling between 80-90miles swinging and reverseswinging the ball with a great bouncer and slowerball,complete bowler if you ask anybody who knows cricket.
the way he is going he will average in 27-29 when he will finish and he is the best leftarm
fast bowler in the world

Just how is he going to lower his average dramatically when he rarely finishes a series with decent figures?

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...s=1;template=results;type=bowling;view=series

Face it, he's just not that good

 

[Cricket_God]

Just how is he going to lower his average dramatically when he rarely finishes a series with decent figures?

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...s=1;template=results;type=bowling;view=series

Face it, he's just not that good

Span Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100 Wkts BBI Bowl Av 5 Ct St
unfiltered 2000-2008 61 766 75 12.55 0 194 5/29 34.12 6 17 0 Profile
filtered 2006-2008 18 213 57* 11.21 0 68 5/34 31.04 3 6 0


last 2 years he averages 31 and now he is bowling as well as ever before i can bet
that he will get his average to 29-30 and look at your poor bowlers they get a average of 66,40.and one does not play

 

[Richard]

I would argue one can never be so absolutist about the process, even when playing the %'s. And I would never claim it's 'easy' either. It's a hard balance to strike and with some players, you prefer to see them prove themselves at lower levels. With others, however, you throw them in at the deep end and see whether they swim. Depends on the individual as well as the needs of the team, form and, finally, statistics. And the priority order of those changes all the time and can often change depending on who else is in the team. Definitely nothign hard and fast about selection and why so many times it doesn't come off.

Perhaps you can't say every case is so simple, because there are exceptions to every rule. However, throwing someone in at the deep end just for the sake of it - when the option is there not to - is simply a terrible idea in my book. The potential gain is the same for not doing so and the potential loss considerably smaller.