The struggles of modern batsmen vs the moving ball

War

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Online Cricket Games Owned
Looking back at proceedings in international cricket over the last 4 years or so - especially in 2011, it obvious more of the top 8 nations are producing more decent pace attacks. Added to this we have seen more bowler-friendly/even wickets - that has seen batsmen tested more often after a decade in of flat tracks and joke attacks.

As many are aware at the start of the 2000s era with the retirements/decline of the 90s stalwarts in Ambrose/Walsh, Wasim/Waqar, Donald/Pollock, Gough/Caddick - the standard of world crickets attacks declined considerably between 2000-2009.

Pitches became roads and only Australia consistently had a quality attack throughout this period, led by the legends McGrath/Warne and were backed up brilliantly by Gillespie, Kasprowicz, Clark, Lee, MacGill etc etc.

Outside of facing AUS teams were only tested on a tour to India or Sri Lanka facing Kumble/Harbhajan and Murali/Vaas. But significantly this wasn't a test of technique vs high quality pace - rather more so vs spin and trials of hot conditions. This is significant and i will come back to it.

Other nations were patchy. England circa 2000/2001 with Gough/Caddick and the famous Ashes 2005 winning attack had their moments. Akhtar and Bond were injured too much during the decade to be consistent treats for their teams, south africa were crap from 2001-2006, as Pollock declined and Donald retired. The short peak of Ntini and the emergence of Steyn in the last 5 years had boosted them.

India pacers were crap, until Zaheer came back in 2006 after his stint in England and became world class, while the windies struggles to find replacements of Ambi and Cuddy.

Due to this phenomenon in world attacks, we saw the rise of the FTB with a plethora of batsmen averaging 50 compared to the 90s, 80s, 70s.

Although one-day cricket can certainly be credited with the increase in scoring rates in tests. The modus operandi of these batsmen aggressive free-scoring could not be replicated the few times they faced quality bowling:

- i think of those tons of runs Mohammed Yousuf made in the middle of the decade only to be brought down back to earth when he toured AUS or S Africa.

- Matt Hayden from 2001-2005 when developed this "bully batsman" aura and was exposed in the 2005 ashes. But thankfully for him, with his career saving oval 2005 hundred, he adjusted him game to be more circumspect vs the quality new-ball bowlers and got rewards at the back end of his career.

- Sehwag - probably the biggest beneficiary of weak attacks this decade. But throughout his career always struggled against quality pace-bowling - year 2011 exposed this the most.

- Gambhir who came into test cricket like a min-hayden somewhat, with his tendency to charge bowlers. But since Morne Morkel exposed his outside off-stump flaws in 2010, his rate of scoring has decrease alarmingly as india have faced tougher bowling attacks in the last 2 years.

- Cook had these issues alot between ashes 2006/07 to pakistan 2010, before his recent revival in ashes 2010/11.

Due to Sehwag style we also saw Dilshan and McCullum - two extremely technically flawed batsmen, being tried by their teams as openers in tests. As most know they have struggled in recent years because the standard of pace bowling has exposed all their flaws.


So looking back at 2011, it fair to say only England has a batting line-up that can survive test bowling competently and consistently.

- AUS woes are well documented, although i reckon it can be sorted out soon.

- India ageing batting is well exposed atm.

- South africa although they also are vulnerable, to me should be batting better than they have in recent times. Their two collapses in durban 2011 to Ind and sri lanka - were moments of their own mental denigration.

- sri soon will go down india's path, given they are depending on their owl stalwarts for run still.

- NZ top 6 is still a work in progress and always looks like it could be ripped through be a lethal attack.

- Pak had a great 2011, after a turmoil filled last few years, but their new found batting strength has been tested by a truly strong pace attack yet. We will learn alot about them after the England series is complete.

- windies could have a strong batting line-up if they were able to pick their best xi.


In conclusion its clear the second decade of the 2000s era is showing good signs of revival of quality quicks and bowler friendly/even wickets, which is good for the game since the FTBs of the last decade will be exposed and only the real batsmen will stand up.

- England have a quality batter of quicks.

- AUS are showing great signs of revival

- s africa is well balanced. Philander and De Lange are good additions.

- India still have Zaheer, but when he goes they could be alot of problems.

- NZ new crop of pace bowlers dont impress me like how young Shane Bond, Geoff Allot and Shane O'Connor did 10+ years ago - but its certainly an improvement one what they have had of late.

- Although SRI won a test in S Africa, i dont think their pace stocks is that great tbh. One cant really say that Lakmal, prasad, Walegedera are truly good replacements in tests for Vaas/Malinga.

- Windies are being help back from having one of the best attacks in the world and since they lost due Ambrose/Walsh to their infighting. The likes of Edwards, Rampaul, Taylor after playing too early, have developed into mature bowlers in recent years - while they have exciting young talents in Roach, Russell and Gabriel - plus spinner Bishoo and Narine.

- Pak could have been unbelievably lethal if Aamir and Asif were still around. But the emergence of Junaid Khan means they are still in good stead.
 
Last edited:
England and South Africa have by far the best quick bowlers of all nations.
Its too early to judge Pattinson/Cummins/Starc for Aus yet, but the group of Siddle, Hilfenhaus et al are average at best.
You have mentioned the best young bower in world cricket IMO as well, in Junaid Khan, I saw quite a bit of him for Lancashire last year and he is devastating when he gets into his stride.
 
A phrase used here all too often is that of 50 over cricket allowing batsmen to 'build an innings.'

It's something which is symptomatic of the recent lack of quality bowling quick bowlers, as well as more and more flat pitches. The idea of seeing off entire sessions with nothing more than letting the pitch ease up and the ball soften is something too few players seem capable of doing these days.

Where there was certainly a few world class spinners, it is no surprise that teams created flat pitches that would assist their premier bowler in the latter stages of the match. However, it is depressingly true that the moment a pitch has even a modicum of movement, too many batsmen seem completely unprepared to deal with it.
 
England and South Africa have by far the best quick bowlers of all nations.
Its too early to judge Pattinson/Cummins/Starc for Aus yet, but the group of Siddle, Hilfenhaus et al are average at best.


England have the best crop of "proven" quick bowlers in the world - but not necessarily the best.

The likes of Anderson, Broad, Tremlett, Bresnan, Finn have the performances at international level over the past year. But i wont say their is large talent gap talent wise between them and the quick bowling stocks AUS, SA, WI have currently.

Fair enough if one wishes to take an wait and see approach towards Pattinson/Cummins atm - but i would certainly dispute sentiment that Siddle and Hilfenhaus especially are average.

No doubt Hilfenahus had a bad 2010/11 ashes which will be stuck in the mind of most english fans. But that was the only bad series of his career since his debut in S Africa 2009 - Hilfenhaus outbowled everyone in the 2009 ashes lets not forget and his performances in current india series has displayed the kind of lethal outswing/new-ball bowling - that Anderson has been doing for
England recently.
 
Oh forgot to say, good post. Inciteful, interesting, and backed up with actual facts and a bit of research...

Are you sure you meant to post it here? ;)
 
Hilfenahaus was also pretty poor in India from what I can remember, and was the best of a bad bunch in the '09 ashes.
Hes a very good county bowler, but he simply wouldnt get near a good test bowling line up.
Hes Australia's Sidebottom, but probably not as good
 
He had some sort of injury during the Ashes and it might have been during the India tour.

It's hard to know where he is but I wouldn't judge him on the past, yes there is still a wait and see with him but what he's shown so far looks promising. The work by McDermott and 100% fit could be what he needed. Likewise Siddle.
 
Yep England and South Africa have the most dangerous bowling lineups. They have the bowlers to take twenty wickets in a test.

South Africa have Steyn and Morkel who are very intimidating, and with Philander in great form and de Lange coming up, their attack looks scary. Moreover, Kallis can chip in with the ball and Tahir has filled their lon awaited spot for a spinner.

England too have great bowlers. Anderson and Swann are golden in Test cricket and Broad's great too. And Bresnan, Finn, Tremlett also support the main three.

Can't say a lot about the others, but Australia look good with the likes of Cummins, Pattinson, Siddle and Starc but it's too early to draw conclusions.
 
As far as batting is concerned, England topple every side. Each and every batsman contribute in the XI. One fails, the others click. South Africa are top heavy and depend highly on AB, Kal, Amla and Duminy. But their top four are mighty consistent and rarely fail. India and Aus are inconsistent ie. f their top guns fire then they command, if not then they're gone, and so are the other sides. New Zealand have also slumped with the bat, but Vettori rescues them.

IMO, accoring to me the top test sides go like this:

1. England
2. South Africa
3. Australia
4. India (they're kind of hit and miss, but well I'll just keep them here)
5. New Zealand

And then come all the other sides
 
batting wise I wouldn't rate south africa second, they do have 4 really good players in their batting line up but how often is this proving insufficient to post good scores?

sri lanka got through them with practically their A team bowling attack (they lost their 2 first choice quicks on this tour) and their main bowling attack is already pretty poor.

with batting, quantity is becoming more important than quality. you're far better with a line up that bats well down to 9 than you are with a top 4 made of the worlds best and then a load of poor batsmen.
 
Last edited:
Yousaf was pretty good in England too when Pakistan toured them in 2006. Its just PCB failure that they don't used him as good as he was.
He scored most runs in that tour at an average of 90+ with 1 double century and once in 190s.

As a whole I feel that its now a natural thing most of the batsmen from subcontinent will always suffer against green top pitches and moving balls but so what? Batsmen from non subcontinent will always suffer against spin and some time against reverse swing too.
 
Hilfenahaus was also pretty poor in India from what I can remember, and was the best of a bad bunch in the '09 ashes.
Hes a very good county bowler, but he simply wouldnt get near a good test bowling line up.
Hes Australia's Sidebottom, but probably not as good

By no means was Hilfenhaus poor in India 2009, thats very much far from the truth. His average was high, but quite clearly he bowled much better than that and was the reasons why AUS kept Sehwag quiet in those two tests on those flat pitches -with a well orchestrated bouncer line of attack to him.

This article at the time articulates what i'm saying here: India v Australia: Virender Sehwag undone by well-laid plan | Cricket Features | India v Australia | ESPN Cricinfo

Not sure what you mean he was the best of a bad bunch in the 2009 ashes. Are you speaking about both team bowling times during that series?


Hilfenahus at his best is not far of Anderson if not on par with him. He is certainly by no means just a county bowler and his certainly a better than Sidebottom at his best, since Sidebottom never took wickets on flat surfaces against any top batting line-up in his career.
 
war, I do see what you're saying, but your efforts to discredit sehwag at practically every opportunity is becoming obsessional.

for someone that doesn't even support india you spend half your time talking about him.
 
By no means was Hilfenhaus poor in India 2009, thats very much far from the truth. His average was high, but quite clearly he bowled much better than that and was the reasons why AUS kept Sehwag quiet in those two tests on those flat pitches -with a well orchestrated bouncer line of attack to him.

This article at the time articulates what i'm saying here: India v Australia: Virender Sehwag undone by well-laid plan | Cricket Features | India v Australia | ESPN Cricinfo

Not sure what you mean he was the best of a bad bunch in the 2009 ashes. Are you speaking about both team bowling times during that series?


Hilfenahus at his best is not far of Anderson if not on par with him. He is certainly by no means just a county bowler and his certainly a better than Sidebottom at his best, since Sidebottom never took wickets on flat surfaces against any top batting line-up in his career.

I can't take anything in that post seriously I'm afraid, not after seeing the bit I've put in bold.
James Anderson is the best swing bowler in the world, with the new ball, the old ball, flat wickets, green wickets. Basically in all conditions.
Hilfenhaus is nowhere near his level
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top