Who would you have picked instead of Darren Pattinson ?

[zaremba]

Fraser and McGrath were pretty similar - and for mine if Fraser hadn't suffered so many injuries he could've been fairly close to McGrath and had a decent claim on being England's best seam-bowler ever.

Now there's a big call!

I suppose the competition would be Bedser, Statham and Tate.

(I think of FST as being more of a swing bowler, and the golden oldies (Barnes, Lohmann et al) as having used mainly spin and swerve. Not that I'm quite old enough to have seen any of them play!)

On the injury front, the real killer for his career was his hip injury in 1990/91 (IIRC). He had a bad hip already and the selectors played him in a meaningless ODI and he duly broke down seriously injured. He came back and was still a good bowler (though poorly treated by the selectors), and was still very dangerous whenever there was any uneven bounce, but had lost some nip.

 

[zaremba]

I'm amazed you can consider West Indies' batting, inclusive of the likes of Campbell, Richardson, Hinds, Lara, Chanderpaul, Adams, Jacobs and Sarwan "relatively weak".

Poor expression on my part - I meant it wasn't a strong WI batting line-up by the standards of a few years before. Certainly it was stronger than today's! But not, in 2000, a batting line-up to strike all that much fear, and prone to self-destruction. Campbell, Hinds and Jacobs are not the stuff of which West Indian legends are made, and none of Richardson, Adams or Sarwan was then at his peak. And of course Lara, Chanders and Sarwan were all in the team which Harmison bulldozed in the 2004 series which you're deleting from your "purified" analysis of GBH's career.

Anyhow as I'm sure you understand the particular strength of that team isn't my point.

The simple point which Cork's case illustrates, of course, is that you can delete a select few of a player's best performances and and thereby distort his statistics by a surprising amount - contrary to your assertion that the difference would be "negligible" for other good players. In Cork's case the disparity is greater than in GBH's.

 

[Richard]

As I said - while Cork was a better Test bowler than Harmison for mine, it's not as if he was a shining beacon of Test brilliance.

Allan Donald, Wasim Akram or Curtley Ambrose would be better bets.

 

[zaremba]

Well I think we can safely agree that Steve Harmison is no Donald, Wasim or Curtly.

 

[Richard]

Now there's a big call!

I suppose the competition would be Bedser, Statham and Tate.

(I think of FST as being more of a swing bowler, and the golden oldies (Barnes, Lohmann et al) as having used mainly spin and swerve. Not that I'm quite old enough to have seen any of them play!)

FST would be far more a swing bowler than the likes of Statham and Tate (Bedser was certainly a swinger too). I was broadly categorising both seam and swing as "seamers", y'know?

For me, it's always been a case of no obvious best English seamer ever. Lohmann I don't think we'll ever truly know what he was, merely that in his day, pitches were not what we now know them as. He might well have been one of the best even in the 20th-century, but all we can say for certain is that of 19th-century bowlers, he was the king. Likewise, Barnes has always been a spinner if he must be classifed at all for me.

Then there's...
Tate, Bedser, Statham and Trueman - all had relatively poor away records.
Snow - hardly toured, even though his two tours both produced excellent results.
Willis - collared repeatedly by the best team of his day despite many excellent performances against all the rest.
Botham - started sensationally then faded.
Fraser - as discussed.

Any number of other "could be"s who didn't even achieve as much as the above (Caddick, Cork and Gough of those from recent times) who could also have been damn good if things had gone their way too of course. Being an England cricket fan can often be a damn frustrating game.

On the injury front, the real killer for his career was his hip injury in 1990/91 (IIRC). He had a bad hip already and the selectors played him in a meaningless ODI and he duly broke down seriously injured. He came back and was still a good bowler (though poorly treated by the selectors), and was still very dangerous whenever there was any uneven bounce, but had lost some nip.

Yup. I just wish I'd actually seen him bowl live, rather than on edited highlights, in the time before said injury.

Atherton, one of his closest friends and observers of his bowling, said he was never quite the same after that and has often wondered how good he would've been but for it. As well as noting how vehemently Fraser disagrees, of course.

 

[Richard]

Well I think we can safely agree that Steve Harmison is no Donald, Wasim or Curtly.

Yeah, exactly. The point is, of better bowlers, removal of the very best makes far less difference. Because the best was far, far more common.

You don't even have to use someone who was among the best ever, as those three all were. You could use a more middling, merely-excellent bowler like Peter Heine, Garth McKenzie, Jason Gillespie or Courtney Walsh. And the point would still stand.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Agree with Richard about Harmison.

Barring one purple patch, he's been poor throughout his career with only very sporadic good performances, and with these performances being so sporadic I would not want to trust him at Test level again.

His figures in the CC this season speak volumes about the poor quality of it. He had similarly good figures in the CC last year, everyone said he'd be a handful against the WI, and he was rubbish.

As for who I'd have picked instead of Pattinson, Collingwood, the batting depth, or lack thereof, was an utter shambles and really idiotic stuff from the selectors.

This seems as good a place as any, so my ideal side would read like this:

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
Ambrose
Flintoff
Sidebottom
Jones
Panesar

Assuming all are fully match fit. Broad really does need to be dropped, batting or not, and I still don't rate Anderson in spite of perceived improvement. If Jones is seen to be not ready yet, or Sidebottom doesn't make it for the next Test, I'd next go to Hoggard.

 

[tooextracool]

Given his next FC century will be his 100th Ramps's current rough trot doesn't speak wonders of his ability to handle pressure. His form over the past two years has been imperious, now faced with this major milestone his form has gone to pot (comparitively speaking).

Might just be coincidence, of course, but I doubt it personally.

It certainly does look like it doesnt it? It could, however, also be a loss in form, which coming after the number of consecutive seasons in which hes thoroughly dominated attacks was always on the cards at some point. He couldnt go on forever of course. Whether recovers from is it though will be crucial.

 

[tooextracool]

Atherton, one of his closest friends and observers of his bowling, said he was never quite the same after that and has often wondered how good he would've been but for it. As well as noting how vehemently Fraser disagrees, of course.

Atherton also discusses that Fraser almost always relied on something in the pitch in order to take his wickets post 1990. Now, Fraser was a good workman-like bowler, but its true that his performances required a bit of seam movement from the pitch in order to take his wickets. Personally, I find it hard to rate him too much higher than Matthew Hoggard let alone as the best fast bowler England has ever produced.

 

[tooextracool]

Agree with Richard about Harmison.

Barring one purple patch, he's been poor throughout his career with only very sporadic good performances, and with these performances being so sporadic I would not want to trust him at Test level again.

His figures in the CC this season speak volumes about the poor quality of it. He had similarly good figures in the CC last year, everyone said he'd be a handful against the WI, and he was rubbish.

I agree with most of your post, but not entirely with the above. I think most would agree with you regarding Harmison's purple patch at the international level, but the point is that if someone who is taking wickets consistently against poor quality cc players then what does that say about the likes of tremlett, onions, broad etc who are nearest in line for a test spot and cant even take wickets against these same average players? At least in Harmison's case, he actually did have some success at the international level and we know that if he clicks he can be succcessful (and very successful ) but the rest simply havent even managed. You can only pick based on the best options available in the country and right now only Hoggard, Sidebottom, Anderson, Flintoff and Jones have a better case for selection than Harmison.

 

[Richard]

Atherton also discusses that Fraser almost always relied on something in the pitch in order to take his wickets post 1990. Now, Fraser was a good workman-like bowler, but its true that his performances required a bit of seam movement from the pitch in order to take his wickets. Personally, I find it hard to rate him too much higher than Matthew Hoggard let alone as the best fast bowler England has ever produced.

Yes, I know - but all this was post-injury. As I said - before the injury, it was said that he could get movement off the pitch, and plenty, even if it did not offer to go off the seam.

I didn't see this myself, the first time I watched Fraser was his comeback at The Oval in 1993. But he was still a fine bowler and coming to know as I later did of all his injuries I found it remarkable that he could even be as good as he was with such a catalogue of injuries, as well as inept selection on two occasions.

 

[The Masterplan]

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
Ambrose
Flintoff
Sidebottom
Jones
Panesar

Assuming all are fully match fit. Broad really does need to be dropped, batting or not, and I still don't rate Anderson in spite of perceived improvement.

You are crazy.. what does Jimmy Anderson have to do to get your approval? He's Englands best bowler at the moment by a mile..

 

[Goughy]

My thoughts on Fraser. I was a huge fan and believer in his talents.

His great lengths and got bounce from nowhere. The number of catches at slips or keeper from the shoulder of the bat as the ball climbed was special.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I agree with most of your post, but not entirely with the above. I think most would agree with you regarding Harmison's purple patch at the international level, but the point is that if someone who is taking wickets consistently against poor quality cc players then what does that say about the likes of tremlett, onions, broad etc who are nearest in line for a test spot and cant even take wickets against these same average players? At least in Harmison's case, he actually did have some success at the international level and we know that if he clicks he can be succcessful (and very successful ) but the rest simply havent even managed. You can only pick based on the best options available in the country and right now only Hoggard, Sidebottom, Anderson, Flintoff and Jones have a better case for selection than Harmison.

I agree with your last sentence actually, but that makes Harmison sixth in line for a job that, if I were in charge, anyway, would have three slots (playing four bowlers, with Flintoff at 8, and including Panesar).

As to what it says about the likes of Tremlett, it says they're fairly poor IMO, depressingly.

 

[Tom Halsey]

You are crazy.. what does Jimmy Anderson have to do to get your approval? He's Englands best bowler at the moment by a mile..

No, he's not, Flintoff is.

As to what he has to do to convince me personally, he has to bowl well consistently. Admittedly he's improved slightly (bowling well occasionally is better than never bowling well at all) but he's still likely to bowl well one day and serve up utter dross the next.

 

[FBU]

I don't disagree at all. I just reckon Pattinson is at least in with a shot. Would you rather Broad played? If the selectors continue wrapping Jones in cotton-wool, Pattinson has to be in with a chance of retaining his spot ahead of Broad when Sidebottom comes back.

What is the point of 3 swing bowlers. We tried that once with Sidebottom, Hoggard and Anderson and it was a disaster. A captain should have a variety of bowlers to choose from as the weather and wicket change during the match. Five. Swing, seam, pace, bounce, spin. In the case of Sidebottom we can afford two swing bowlers because of the different angles but if Sidebottom wasn't playing you would only want one proper swing bowler.

Pattinson has played 6 matches in England early season. It would be interesting to see how he does when the wickets become flatter and drier. I would want a player to be picked for a Lions tour before being selected to play for England like our other bowlers.

Broad at 22 has been overbowled and looks worn out but he has also been unlucky from drops off his bowling.

Jayawardene, Taylor, Bell, Redmond, How, Oram, Prince, Steyn.

 

[Richard]

What is the point of 3 swing bowlers. We tried that once with Sidebottom, Hoggard and Anderson and it was a disaster. A captain should have a variety of bowlers to choose from as the weather and wicket change during the match. Five. Swing, seam, pace, bounce, spin.

Apart from spin, bowlers can be a combination of all of that. Richard Hadlee and Andrew Caddick being two of the best examples, of variable quality.

You can be quick, get bounce, swing the ball, and if you can swing it it goes without saying that you'll be able to move it off the seam too. The best bowlers mostly do.

Sidebottom has three of the four (sans pace); Steyn too has three (sans bounce); Morne Morkel has three as well (sans swing).

The likes of Ntini (bounce and seam) and Hoggard (seam and swing) have just two. Such bowlers are more common.

While getting bowlers who can offer three from four is a bonus (and all four virtually unheard of) you should not stereotype bowlers as one thing and nothing else.

You should also never, ever go into a game thinking "what if it doesn't swing", because such occasions are always in a minority. The only thing that can cause that is poor-quality cricket-balls. Swing is also something that anyone can learn to do to a good standard; pace and bounce are completely dependant on natural attributes (ie, a fast arm and tall height and long levers - much as these things can be maximised by good training).

You can only pick tall, quick bowlers if they're around, and this doesn't happen terribly often. Swing, being a much easier thing to learn by your own efforts, comes more regularly.

Vitally, bounce and pace of even the highest level are of little use without one of swing or seam. The inverse is not true to anywhere near the same extent.

You should not sacrifice quality swing-bowlers in favour of poor-quality bowlers who get bounce because you think you need more "variety".

Oh yeah - and spin. Most wickets don't call for spin, unless the spinner is of the quality of a Muttiah Muralitharan or Shane Warne. Which hardly any spinners are.

 

[Furball]

No, he's not, Flintoff is.

As to what he has to do to convince me personally, he has to bowl well consistently. Admittedly he's improved slightly (bowling well occasionally is better than never bowling well at all) but he's still likely to bowl well one day and serve up utter dross the next.

Anderson has been England's best bowler this summer by a country mile.

 

[Richard]

Not really by that far IMO. Certainly, he has been. But as per usual, Sidebottom hasn't been that far behind him.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

No, he's not, Flintoff is.

As to what he has to do to convince me personally, he has to bowl well consistently. Admittedly he's improved slightly (bowling well occasionally is better than never bowling well at all) but he's still likely to bowl well one day and serve up utter dross the next.

Haha, you watched any test cricket this season?