South Africa in England July-Sept 2012

[Owzat]

The other key thing about the 5 bowler argument is Swann. If Swann is bowling really well, then you need less overs from the rest of your attack as he could conceivably bowl 30 overs a day comfortably and 5 bowlers (or even 4.5 bowlers) would be a waste. If Swann isn't cutting the mustard then troubles begin, and if he's getting hammered, then you really DO need 5 bowlers so that your seamers aren't bowling 25 overs a day to make up for Swann's expensive overs.

If one or two of your bowlers are being quite expensive then damage is often already done, and there's no guaranteeing the fifth bowler will perform any better.

You have to take the rough with the smooth, four bowlers isn't exactly a calculated winning formula that works every time - input four and get 20 wickets out the other end for not a lot. No matter which way you cut it, you need runs on the board to bowl at. If the bowling isn't firing on all cylinders you hope for the best you can get bowling wise, then have the back up plan of six batsmen, a decent batsman keeper and a couple of lower order johnnies who can score a run in times of need.

Frankly if Swann or one or two seamers aren't bowling the opposition out, the chances are the pitch is going to be quite placid and throwing five bowlers at it won't make a lot of difference, if any.

Whilst Swann's average in this series was poor (at best), I don't think it is that indicative of how he bowled. SA played him very well and some chances went down off him. I know you've not talked about that, but I think in general we've bowled pretty well this series, fielding and batting cost us massively.

We could have bowled better, taken our chances, but definitely batting was a major major let down. I think too many looked at the 600 odd for two and concluded we needed to do something with the bowling, but we didn't bat well at all.

England were 251/2 at one point in that 1st Test, added only 134 runs for the last eight wickets. If you look at some of the collapses in the series it was quite attrocious

1st Test, 1st Innings - 134/8 (last eight wickets)
1st Test, 2nd Innings - 117/5 (first five wickets)
1st Test, 2nd Innings - 40/5 (last five wickets)

2nd Test, 1st Innings - 29/4 (last four wickets)
2nd Test, 2nd Innings* - 31/3 (last three wickets to fall)

3rd Test, 1st Innings - 54/4 (first four wickets)
3rd Test, 1st Innings - 63/4 (last four wickets, not soooo bad)
3rd Test, 2nd Innings - 45/4 (first four wickets)
3rd Test, 2nd Innings - 12/3 (last three wickets)

*ended 130/4, and was in a vain effort to chase an improbable target

EIGHT times in the series England lost spells of 4+ wickets for under 75 runs, some much worse than 75/4, none are overlapping (the 134/8 splits into two halves, England were 67/4 in the 2nd innings of that 1st Test and the rest are listed)

As for the future with a potential all-rounder. Woakes in First Class has done well of late with the bat. 2 centuries this season, averaging 80 odd with the bat (okay, inflated from 8 innings with 4 not outs) and his bowling has always been consistent.

However, with our depth of bowlers, would he get a game?

Not sure he'll ever be more than a handy #7 at best, with Prior in situ behind the stumps then any all-rounder would have to be a #6. In ODIs, as I've said before, I'd like to see Swann have a go as a #7, he's better than just a slogger and frankly if he is coming in at five down with 150 or less on the board then I'm not sure what anyone batting #7 could be expected to do to recover such a position. If 200+ for five then he's as capable of putting on a 30, 40 or 50+ as most who could come in, in fact I'd suggest he's just the type of batsman you'd want coming in with 10 overs or thereabouts to go.

 

[sifter132]

If one or two of your bowlers are being quite expensive then damage is often already done, and there's no guaranteeing the fifth bowler will perform any better.

You have to take the rough with the smooth, four bowlers isn't exactly a calculated winning formula that works every time - input four and get 20 wickets out the other end for not a lot. No matter which way you cut it, you need runs on the board to bowl at. If the bowling isn't firing on all cylinders you hope for the best you can get bowling wise, then have the back up plan of six batsmen, a decent batsman keeper and a couple of lower order johnnies who can score a run in times of need.

Frankly if Swann or one or two seamers aren't bowling the opposition out, the chances are the pitch is going to be quite placid and throwing five bowlers at it won't make a lot of difference, if any.

I concur, I've always wondered why picking your 4th best fast bowler suddenly makes your attack that much more potent. If your best 3 can't do the job, why is the 4th choice guy going to make the difference?

But in the end, the decision is all about the spinner. If your spinner is crap then you probably should have 4 fast bowlers (and arguably NO spinner) to make sure you've got 4 quality options. If your spinner is good, you won't need 4 fast bowlers because your spinner will bowl 25-30 overs a day.

Not sure he'll ever be more than a handy #7 at best, with Prior in situ behind the stumps then any all-rounder would have to be a #6. In ODIs, as I've said before, I'd like to see Swann have a go as a #7, he's better than just a slogger and frankly if he is coming in at five down with 150 or less on the board then I'm not sure what anyone batting #7 could be expected to do to recover such a position. If 200+ for five then he's as capable of putting on a 30, 40 or 50+ as most who could come in, in fact I'd suggest he's just the type of batsman you'd want coming in with 10 overs or thereabouts to go.

Swann of 5-10 years ago I might have agreed with you, but I think his batting has generally slipped a bit.

I'd rather see him used as a pinch-hitter. Get him to target a particularly powerplay or bowler, send him in during the middle overs somewhere and let him loose. Better than relying on him for consistent runs - which I think would be VERY risky. And it actually uses his batting rather than hiding him at #8 and only using him when the innings is screwed already.

 

[Owzat]

I concur, I've always wondered why picking your 4th best fast bowler suddenly makes your attack that much more potent. If your best 3 can't do the job, why is the 4th choice guy going to make the difference?

I think the argument is that the four bowlers are viewed equal and you have more chance of one finding form and taking wickets, the more you play. But it's like playing three strikers or even four instead of two at football, more strikers doesn't necessarily mean more goals. You can only take 20 wickets anyway, better bowlers will average 4+ a Test but that doesn't mean you can say 4x5 = 20

And if you have five bowlers, 1-2 will always be underused as the captain will hide the ones not bowling well, use the ones that are bowling well more and in the past we've had situations where we've not even turned to Giles/the spinner/the fifth bowler.

But in the end, the decision is all about the spinner. If your spinner is crap then you probably should have 4 fast bowlers (and arguably NO spinner) to make sure you've got 4 quality options. If your spinner is good, you won't need 4 fast bowlers because your spinner will bowl 25-30 overs a day.

Yup, and as I said you can't expect your bowling attack to be awesome every time, there will be maybe a match every 3-4 Tests that they do struggle, but that's where the batting comes in to try and avoid losing.

Swann of 5-10 years ago I might have agreed with you, but I think his batting has generally slipped a bit.

I'd rather see him used as a pinch-hitter. Get him to target a particularly powerplay or bowler, send him in during the middle overs somewhere and let him loose. Better than relying on him for consistent runs - which I think would be VERY risky. And it actually uses his batting rather than hiding him at #8 and only using him when the innings is screwed already.

NO to a pinch-hitter, it is the same flawed logic as playing Prior opening and all keepers before him. Not least you end up with a lot of quick 15s and 20s that really don't help the side in the long run, not at the top of the order anyway.

Swann

Tests : 1078 runs @ 22.94 (SR 79.67, 50 x4, HS 85, NO x8)
ODIs : 468 runs @ 14.63 (SR 89.83, HS 34, NO x12)

1/7 of his Test innings is not out, 3/7 of his ODI innings. He hits a Test fifty every 7.5 innings batting at #9. His average of 27.25 from 13 innings batting at #10 could be much better if he didn't run out of partners one third of the time (5/13)

He's not even batting 1/3 of the time in ODIs, a waste of his ability, in fact he hasn't batted in an ODI since 13th February.

Swann's last 16 ODI inns

16 inns, 169 runs off 145 balls @ 18.78 (SR 116.55, HS 31, 8x double figures, 5x double figures not out)

Nothing more frustrating and a "what if?" raiser than a not out batsman who has shown time and again he can put decent scores on the board at good rates ending up not out.

Even in Tests he's scored well, maybe not huge scores but in better batting situations he might have gone on further - batting nine you don't exactly come in when there is an abundance of batting at the other end or partners to come.

Swann decent Test scores since Jan 2010

vs SAF (4th Test, away) : 27 off 27 balls, 20 off 17 balls
vs BAN (1st Test, away) : 32 off 25 balls
vs BAN (1st Test, home) : 22 off 13 balls
vs BAN (2nd Test, home) : 20 off 17 balls
vs PAK (1st Test, home) : 28 off 35 balls
vs AUS (4th Test, away) : 22 off 28 balls
vs AUS (5th Test, away) : 36no off 26 balls
vs IND (1st Test, home) : 24 off 28 balls
vs IND (2nd Test, home) : 28 off 35 balls
vs PAK (1st Test, away) : 34 off 65 balls, 39 off 52 balls
vs SRI (1st Test, away) : 24 off 26 balls
vs WIN (1st Test, home) : 30 off 25 balls
vs SAF (3rd Test, home) : 37no off 53 balls

How many Test number nines can average 22+ ? Sure his average has dipped from its early dizzy heights of 30+ , but he's settled down and still chips in with decent knocks. 16 knocks of 20+ in 39 innings is one every 2.5 innings, I bet most Test nations would love to have a bowler/spinner at nine who scores 20+ that frequently, quickly and averages 22.94 with bat overall, 29.59 with the ball.

Given a better batting slot I reckon he could do better, at the very least surely he could be given a chance?

 

[sifter132]

NO to a pinch-hitter, it is the same flawed logic as playing Prior opening and all keepers before him. Not least you end up with a lot of quick 15s and 20s that really don't help the side in the long run, not at the top of the order anyway.

I don't think wicket keepers (or others) should pinch hit at the top, I think pinch hitters should be used in the middle overs to hit spinners out of the attack, or in powerplay overs where you want to attack, but don't want to lose anyone important. It's just more efficient usage of resources. Batting sides always talk about wickets in hand, but how much faster does it really make you score at the end? Ie. do teams really score faster knowing they have 4 bowlers in the shed behind them?? Why not burn your less important wickets earlier in an attempt to raise the run rate?

He's not even batting 1/3 of the time in ODIs, a waste of his ability, in fact he hasn't batted in an ODI since 13th February.

...

Nothing more frustrating and a "what if?" raiser than a not out batsman who has shown time and again he can put decent scores on the board at good rates ending up not out.

Yes I agree, his batting is wasted. And yet you don't agree with my idea to bring him in earlier as a pinch hitter? If your argument is that he should be the permanent #7 in ODIs, then I think you have to ask: is a guy who averages 20-22 in Test cricket a good enough bat to be a permanent #7? The average of a #7 in ODI cricket in the last 10 years is 23.35. As you point out, Swann's ODI average is 14.63 and 18.78 in the last few innings, making him 5-10 runs behind the average #7. Whether he's being shafted by running out of partners (which shouldn't affect his average AT ALL - he gets a not out for it), I don't think he's quite there. But I guess it couldn't hurt to give him a try for a few games see if he bats better with more time. Then again it couldn't hurt to try him as a pinch hitting #4/#5 for a few games either

I'm also looking around world cricket at recent guys like Mitch Johnson, Brett Lee, Dan Vettori, Chaminda Vaas, Anil Kumble, Harbhajan Singh, Shane Warne, Paul Reiffel, Stuart Broad... All those guys average around 20 (at least) in Tests like Swann, and yet didn't/don't bat at #7 for their ODI teams.

 

[alexczarn]

I don't think wicket keepers (or others) should pinch hit at the top, I think pinch hitters should be used in the middle overs to hit spinners out of the attack, or in powerplay overs where you want to attack, but don't want to lose anyone important. It's just more efficient usage of resources. Batting sides always talk about wickets in hand, but how much faster does it really make you score at the end? Ie. do teams really score faster knowing they have 4 bowlers in the shed behind them?? Why not burn your less important wickets earlier in an attempt to raise the run rate?



Yes I agree, his batting is wasted. And yet you don't agree with my idea to bring him in earlier as a pinch hitter? If your argument is that he should be the permanent #7 in ODIs, then I think you have to ask: is a guy who averages 20-22 in Test cricket a good enough bat to be a permanent #7? The average of a #7 in ODI cricket in the last 10 years is 23.35. As you point out, Swann's ODI average is 14.63 and 18.78 in the last few innings, making him 5-10 runs behind the average #7. Whether he's being shafted by running out of partners (which shouldn't affect his average AT ALL - he gets a not out for it), I don't think he's quite there. But I guess it couldn't hurt to give him a try for a few games see if he bats better with more time. Then again it couldn't hurt to try him as a pinch hitting #4/#5 for a few games either

I'm also looking around world cricket at recent guys like Mitch Johnson, Brett Lee, Dan Vettori, Chaminda Vaas, Anil Kumble, Harbhajan Singh, Shane Warne, Paul Reiffel, Stuart Broad... All those guys average around 20 (at least) in Tests like Swann, and yet didn't/don't bat at #7 for their ODI teams.

Mitch Johnson and Dan Vettori have batted #7...

 

[Owzat]

Batting sides always talk about wickets in hand, but how much faster does it really make you score at the end? Ie. do teams really score faster knowing they have 4 bowlers in the shed behind them?? Why not burn your less important wickets earlier in an attempt to raise the run rate?

Even in the past sides with wickets in hand would look to score 7 an over for the last 10. If you were to shove say Prior and Swann in earlier it just loses wickets for maybe 10-30 runs and leaves the side two extra wickets down. There's a reason sides bat in the order they do

If your argument is that he should be the permanent #7 in ODIs, then I think you have to ask: is a guy who averages 20-22 in Test cricket a good enough bat to be a permanent #7? The average of a #7 in ODI cricket in the last 10 years is 23.35. As you point out, Swann's ODI average is 14.63 and 18.78 in the last few innings, making him 5-10 runs behind the average #7. Whether he's being shafted by running out of partners (which shouldn't affect his average AT ALL - he gets a not out for it), I don't think he's quite there.

Two reasons it is different. One, his running out of partners will affect the way he bats and he gets himself out trying to get runs before he runs out of partners. Two, he'd be able to play a different innings batting higher some of the time, take a few less risks at times and the fact is in ODIs he's not even batting 1/3 of the time so his run scoring potential is limited - when he does bat, he has to blaze away from the off.

He scores runs, you can't deny that. Any number nine that can score runs like that as often as that has to have potential to bat higher. The reason d'etre for his recent dip might be explained by any number of factors, but in terms of figures he is getting out cheaply and not making 40+ at the moment. He'd have chances to make bigger scores if he batted higher, still returns a good ratio of 20s and 30s.

It's funny how Giles batted #8 a lot, was a fairly mediocre bat and only got close to 20 late in his career. Swann bats lower despite being a much better bat with a much better average.

But I guess it couldn't hurt to give him a try for a few games see if he bats better with more time. Then again it couldn't hurt to try him as a pinch hitting #4/#5 for a few games either

Pinch-hitting is awful, and doesn't get the best out of most players dumped in that slot. We'd end up no better off, except crucially we'd be likely to lose an early wicket which counters the extra 5-10 quick runs we might gain.

I'm also looking around world cricket at recent guys like Mitch Johnson, Brett Lee, Dan Vettori, Chaminda Vaas, Anil Kumble, Harbhajan Singh, Shane Warne, Paul Reiffel, Stuart Broad... All those guys average around 20 (at least) in Tests like Swann, and yet didn't/don't bat at #7 for their ODI teams.

Kumble averaged 17.77 in Tests, a full five runs less than Swann is at the moment, and mostly due to about 1 in 5 not outs and one hundred. He scored five fifties, same as Swann, in about three times as many Tests.

Warne likewise didn't average 20 as you suggest, he averaged 17.33, and neither does H Singh with 18.66. Vettori averages 30, but has batted #6 or #7 TWENTY times in ODIs.

Vaas batted eight in a pretty strong Sri Lankan batting line-up at times, only made one Test hundred despite a lot of early potential to be a genuine all-rounder, and he did bat #7 on 23 occasions in ODIs averaging as poorly as he did elsewhere. Johnson has batted #7 four times, but despite a decent return the aussies have preferred him at #8, no doubt due to the make-up of their side.

Funnily enough we're not Australia, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, India etc. England lack an all-rounder, Swann could do that job. Broad has a weak ODI average for some inexplicable reason, seems happier batting at nine.

Also depends a lot on the make-up of other sides, as mentioned, and who is in their side. A reason other countries don't bat those named at #7 is because they have a #7, specialist all-rounders/players who come in and don't need a #7. It's not as simple as saying every batsman who averages 20+ in Tests should bat #7 in ODIs, you're just being ridiculous. Why haven't aussies like Johnson, Lee, Warne and Reiffel batted #7? Might be in part because they have Watson and often Cameron White or some other all-rounder. Also the players named have mostly maxed out their potential, Swann may not be a spring chicken, but his batting ability is plain for all people with eyes to see.

A number of your examples are quicks, would explain why they don't bat #7 as they're no Klusener. Kumble, Vettori, Singh and Warne aren't but three out of four's averages aren't 20+ . Vettori probably doesn't bat #7 in ODIs simply because they have had players like Oram, Cairns and Styris in the side so he didn't need to.

England tried all-rounders, Rashid, Yardy, Shight, and all others tried haven't worked. Problem with some of them is they aren't really proper bowlers, Swann is.

It would only be "permanent" if it worked, if not then England would still lack a #7 and have to look elsewhere. I cannot see England winning a World Cup either playing pinch-hitters and/or not having a #7 that works.

 

[Owzat]

Can anyone tell me how, once again, the ECB has scheduled ODIs across a period long enough to include at least on match at the weekend yet managed not to have a single one on a Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holiday Monday?!?!?

Do they not care about spectators who would have to take the day off? Even if D/N most people don't finish work before 2pm. So people not only have to pay premium prices, they also have to take a day off work. Maybe it will up the saffer TV audience

 

[barmyarmy]

Some more stuff about KP in the press today. Allegedly at Headingly after his 149 he told the entire team how wonderful he was and then criticised James Taylor's batting.

 

[Epic]

Not believing any of that.

----------

(some massages can be painful )

 

[barmyarmy]

More worrying imo is another leak from the dressing room.

 

[puddleduck]

I think the reality in this entire situation is that Strauss doesn't actually have any control over the team anymore. He is quite clearly not a good leader, and it almost has a whiff of school to it. The group of players, let's call them the "lads," are all clearly behind him because he seems to represent the teacher that lets his favourite pupils get away with what they want.

The insinuation that Broad (and as such the other "lads") are allowed to knowingly be involved with the twitter account, and subsequently laugh about it etc... Yet KP can not send messages of a similar content to individuals, and potentially friends at that.

This whole thing really has taken a nasty turn, and it's the consistent leaking combined with the controlled and managed aspect of the leaks that doesn't sit right anymore.

 

[MUFC1987]

Ha, you seriously think there's some scenario where Strauss lets Broad and Swann do what they want, but poor little KP gets into trouble for doing the same thing? You're crazy if you think that.

It's all to do with team ethos. The England team is a tight unit, or whatever other phrase you want to put in there. KP has just stepped outside of that, with his comments and potentially some other aspects, that's the problem here. It would be exactly the same if Broad or Swann did it, so don't go thinking that they get special privileges or something. England have become good due to thinking and acting like a team. Doing anything and everything for England. That's the one thing that's been common with the Captaincy of Hussain, Vaughan and Strauss and it's taken a long time, but it's got us to being one of the best teams around.

I for one would rather keep that atmosphere and lose the one player who doesn't fit into it.

 

[puddleduck]

Don't get me wrong, KP is hardly innocent, and deserved punishment. However the constant leaking highlights that it's not just KP that has made this into a genuine public issue. There are clearly more egos in the dressing room than just Kevin.

 

[Themer]

He's a right nut. Ha. Ha. Ha.

 

[MUFC1987]

Don't get me wrong, KP is hardly innocent, and deserved punishment. However the constant leaking highlights that it's not just KP that has made this into a genuine public issue. There are clearly more egos in the dressing room than just Kevin.

I agree it's certainly been leaked, but how do we know this is the first time something like this has happened? KP may have done similar things before, which have been covered up, to maintain the team ethos. It's not out of the question that other players have simply got fed up with the way he's acted, so have leaked it to make it a bigger issue.