Cricket fred

[Banquo]

I think there's a difference in how you go about holding, you might choose to try and protect your wicket but there are runs there when the bowler is fuller and/or more at the stumps. Once the ball's that little bit shorter unless you're willing, and able, to drive or clip a ball on the up there's less chance to even look for a run unless it's a ball off line/length. Maybe I'm remembering too much what I struggled against at (much) lower levels, but it seems different to me, and the thinking isn't all mine anyway, it's a fair chunk of McGraths take on how you control a game as a bowler

And it does more generally look at issue for Pakistan as bowling unit, they're excellent as an attacking unit but they've some areas to work on when it comes to containing. They look good enough to learn, it depends if they want to, and what they do regarding the 2nd leggie, there seems little point in a 2nd leggie who only bowls 10 overs on a spinning wicket

To me, Abbas seems the very definition of a holding bowler- great line and length, bit of movement with the new ball; he pulls his length back in his second and third spells. Goes for less than 3 runs an over, and also has a very good strike rate- almost identical to McGrath in fact, albeit many fewer tests. You still claiming Abbas is not a holding bowler, because without the new ball he seems to be, and ships few runs when taking it? You referenced Hoggard, who was essentially a swing bowler pitching full with the new ball....and it shows in his economy rate.

If he's pulling his length back I'm not paying enough attention.

Hoggy mayn't have been as good a bowler, but he spent many sessions sweeping the floor, the term Vaughan gave him for those repeat spells when Hoggy wasn't to do anything but keep it steady and tidy, and leave the wicket taking to more explosive talents.

In addition to wondering if Abbas really does pull his length back, especially when his pitch maps show so many pitched up on a good length, I wonder what he does with his field. Test cricket isn't flooded with bowlers who almost do better for defensive fields and aggressive bowling, Murali for sure would be one but he'd stand out whatever. In many ways I don't mind Pakistan over attack, it does make them a more exciting side to watch, and I'm not too worried if they don't get their win rates up, I just think it would help them if they could, and there are better ways to go about it than 5 men on the boundary

Its quite simple- you said Pakistan need a holding bowler, and in Abbas they have one, in my opinion. He bowls a slightly fuller length with the new ball, and pulls it back very slightly when without the new ball. Hoggy was terrific, and could attack as well as hold.

[Digby]

To me, Abbas seems the very definition of a holding bowler- great line and length, bit of movement with the new ball; he pulls his length back in his second and third spells. Goes for less than 3 runs an over, and also has a very good strike rate- almost identical to McGrath in fact, albeit many fewer tests. You still claiming Abbas is not a holding bowler, because without the new ball he seems to be, and ships few runs when taking it? You referenced Hoggard, who was essentially a swing bowler pitching full with the new ball....and it shows in his economy rate.

If he's pulling his length back I'm not paying enough attention.

Hoggy mayn't have been as good a bowler, but he spent many sessions sweeping the floor, the term Vaughan gave him for those repeat spells when Hoggy wasn't to do anything but keep it steady and tidy, and leave the wicket taking to more explosive talents.

In addition to wondering if Abbas really does pull his length back, especially when his pitch maps show so many pitched up on a good length, I wonder what he does with his field. Test cricket isn't flooded with bowlers who almost do better for defensive fields and aggressive bowling, Murali for sure would be one but he'd stand out whatever. In many ways I don't mind Pakistan over attack, it does make them a more exciting side to watch, and I'm not too worried if they don't get their win rates up, I just think it would help them if they could, and there are better ways to go about it than 5 men on the boundary

Its quite simple- you said Pakistan need a holding bowler, and in Abbas they have one, in my opinion. He bowls a slightly fuller length with the new ball, and pulls it back very slightly when without the new ball. Hoggy was terrific, and could attack as well as hold.

I think I started by saying they have a group of seamers who look to hunt wickets, and what they'd have given for a Hoggard or a Giles. Abbas is a very good bowler, but he's pitching well up for a bowler who pulls it back on the 2nd and 3rd spell looking at his pitch maps, maybe given his speed his numbers of genuine short balls is so much lower it skews how one should look at his pitch maps. Nonetheless I think I also started by noting how you go about being defensive matters, and more attacking bowling with defensive fields is a harder system to make work than more containing bowling to attacking fields.

Interesting that Glenn was happy to talk about defensive bowling back in the day at Wuss because on our seamer friendly pitch he was averaging 9 runs a wicket so it felt like out and out attack from the stands

[Banquo]

If he's pulling his length back I'm not paying enough attention.

Hoggy mayn't have been as good a bowler, but he spent many sessions sweeping the floor, the term Vaughan gave him for those repeat spells when Hoggy wasn't to do anything but keep it steady and tidy, and leave the wicket taking to more explosive talents.

In addition to wondering if Abbas really does pull his length back, especially when his pitch maps show so many pitched up on a good length, I wonder what he does with his field. Test cricket isn't flooded with bowlers who almost do better for defensive fields and aggressive bowling, Murali for sure would be one but he'd stand out whatever. In many ways I don't mind Pakistan over attack, it does make them a more exciting side to watch, and I'm not too worried if they don't get their win rates up, I just think it would help them if they could, and there are better ways to go about it than 5 men on the boundary

Its quite simple- you said Pakistan need a holding bowler, and in Abbas they have one, in my opinion. He bowls a slightly fuller length with the new ball, and pulls it back very slightly when without the new ball. Hoggy was terrific, and could attack as well as hold.

I think I started by saying they have a group of seamers who look to hunt wickets, and what they'd have given for a Hoggard or a Giles. Abbas is a very good bowler, but he's pitching well up for a bowler who pulls it back on the 2nd and 3rd spell looking at his pitch maps, maybe given his speed his numbers of genuine short balls is so much lower it skews how one should look at his pitch maps. Nonetheless I think I also started by noting how you go about being defensive matters, and more attacking bowling with defensive fields is a harder system to make work than more containing bowling to attacking fields.

Interesting that Glenn was happy to talk about defensive bowling back in the day at Wuss because on our seamer friendly pitch he was averaging 9 runs a wicket so it felt like out and out attack from the stands

So you still say Abbas is not a holding bowler despite his miserly economy rate? And again, by pulling his length back I meant he goes from occasionally potentially driveable length with the new ball, to a classic hit the top stump length without it, a la McGrath but about 5-7 mph slower and a little less tall (possibly). Are you saying a holding bowler should be bowling short of a good length? Because whatever way Abbas does it, he has a remarkably low economy rate.....

[Digby]

Basically yes, holding bowling is a little back of a length for me. Abbas is more up and drivable, not sure if he's more at the wickets in general, we've had a lot at the wickets at OT, but that might just be OT or the recent return to cricket

[Banquo]

Basically yes, holding bowling is a little back of a length for me. Abbas is more up and drivable, not sure if he's more at the wickets in general, we've had a lot at the wickets at OT, but that might just be OT or the recent return to cricket

We shall have to disagree then; Atherton even had a discussion with Akram about how anomalous Abbas was for a Pakistani bowler, in that he frustrated batsmen out with accuracy and a little seam movement. His miserly economy rate seems pretty compelling too.

[Digby]

Basically yes, holding bowling is a little back of a length for me. Abbas is more up and drivable, not sure if he's more at the wickets in general, we've had a lot at the wickets at OT, but that might just be OT or the recent return to cricket

We shall have to disagree then; Atherton even had a discussion with Akram about how anomalous Abbas was for a Pakistani bowler, in that he frustrated batsmen out with accuracy and a little seam movement. His miserly economy rate seems pretty compelling too.

I don't discount an economy rate can go up or down for holding or attacking bowling depending on how good the bowling is, just how the bowler is trying to structure their approach determines the type of bowling it is for me. And that before considering how one sets a field to support the bowler's intent. And also before you think about whether the batter is looking to come forwards or getting pushed back with nothing to really interest them unless they can play on the up

At times we barely scored any runs of Shane Warne because we struggled to read him and were so worried about getting out, but that doesn't mean Warne was bowling as a holding bowler to the likes of Robin Smith and Graeme Hick.

I'm not insisting Pakistan change their approach, again it makes them an exciting team. I just think if they had the option and discipline to at times switch to a more containing style it'd help them, and none of their seamers really does that, and two leggies will struggle even if they tried. Whether they have a different seamer of finger spinner who can do a job coming in for Shadab I don't know, but those googlies weren't enough of a variant to the leg-breaks Yasir was sending down. I'll also concede singles drive me faintly potty (or pottier) because I hate letting batsman get through for cheap runs, and 5 men on the boundary is such a killer to stop cheap runs

[Puja]

Basically yes, holding bowling is a little back of a length for me. Abbas is more up and drivable, not sure if he's more at the wickets in general, we've had a lot at the wickets at OT, but that might just be OT or the recent return to cricket

We shall have to disagree then; Atherton even had a discussion with Akram about how anomalous Abbas was for a Pakistani bowler, in that he frustrated batsmen out with accuracy and a little seam movement. His miserly economy rate seems pretty compelling too.

I don't discount an economy rate can go up or down for holding or attacking bowling depending on how good the bowling is, just how the bowler is trying to structure their approach determines the type of bowling it is for me. And that before considering how one sets a field to support the bowler's intent. And also before you think about whether the batter is looking to come forwards or getting pushed back with nothing to really interest them unless they can play on the up

At times we barely scored any runs of Shane Warne because we struggled to read him and were so worried about getting out, but that doesn't mean Warne was bowling as a holding bowler to the likes of Robin Smith and Graeme Hick.

I'm not insisting Pakistan change their approach, again it makes them an exciting team. I just think if they had the option and discipline to at times switch to a more containing style it'd help them, and none of their seamers really does that, and two leggies will struggle even if they tried. Whether they have a different seamer of finger spinner who can do a job coming in for Shadab I don't know, but those googlies weren't enough of a variant to the leg-breaks Yasir was sending down. I'll also concede singles drive me faintly potty (or pottier) because I hate letting batsman get through for cheap runs, and 5 men on the boundary is such a killer to stop cheap runs

I'm gonna have to agree with Banquo here - holding bowling is surely doing whatever keeps a team from scoring and ties down an end for a good long number of overs. A lot of holding bowlers do go back of a length, but I don't think you can't be defined as a holding bowler if you bowl differently while still keeping a miserly economy and frustrating the batsmen.

Puja

[Banquo]

Basically yes, holding bowling is a little back of a length for me. Abbas is more up and drivable, not sure if he's more at the wickets in general, we've had a lot at the wickets at OT, but that might just be OT or the recent return to cricket

We shall have to disagree then; Atherton even had a discussion with Akram about how anomalous Abbas was for a Pakistani bowler, in that he frustrated batsmen out with accuracy and a little seam movement. His miserly economy rate seems pretty compelling too.

I don't discount an economy rate can go up or down for holding or attacking bowling depending on how good the bowling is, just how the bowler is trying to structure their approach determines the type of bowling it is for me. And that before considering how one sets a field to support the bowler's intent. And also before you think about whether the batter is looking to come forwards or getting pushed back with nothing to really interest them unless they can play on the up

At times we barely scored any runs of Shane Warne because we struggled to read him and were so worried about getting out, but that doesn't mean Warne was bowling as a holding bowler to the likes of Robin Smith and Graeme Hick.

I'm not insisting Pakistan change their approach, again it makes them an exciting team. I just think if they had the option and discipline to at times switch to a more containing style it'd help them, and none of their seamers really does that, and two leggies will struggle even if they tried. Whether they have a different seamer of finger spinner who can do a job coming in for Shadab I don't know, but those googlies weren't enough of a variant to the leg-breaks Yasir was sending down. I'll also concede singles drive me faintly potty (or pottier) because I hate letting batsman get through for cheap runs, and 5 men on the boundary is such a killer to stop cheap runs

I think we are talking about a different bowler if you are trying to draw a comparison with Warne! Warne was clearly an attacking bowler the majority of the time, and I agree that the fear of him was what led to economy, plus he was very accurate and rarely bowled a bad ball.

My point remains simple, when Azhar Ali was trying to get some control over the scoring, albeit a little late, he turned to Abbas; and Abbas performed exactly the sort of role that you seemed to be saying was needed. He bowled a length that is the very length you describe, not quite back foot, not quite front foot. When he takes the new ball, he has a slightly more attacking field and gets a bit more movement, but seam rather than swing and bit of bounce from only a marginally fuller length; you seem to have him pegged as an attacking swing bowler, and he isn't. He bowls like lower paced McGrath for me- attacks the top of off stump, but less effective with an old ball when he slips into holding mode imo.

Anyway, from previous experience, you won't be changing your mind, so we will have to disagree.

Must have been great to see McGrath at Wuss; when I worked there the stars were Glenn Turner with Basil D'oliveira still just about playing . Jim Cumbes, John Inchmore and Paul Pridgeon were the seamers , and Duncan Fearnley and Tom Graveney were regulars in the members bar where I worked- lovely summers there!

[Digby]

It was awesome having McGrath at Wuss, and those memories help assuage time spent watching Ahktar.

Pakistan did mange some restriction to the run flow against England, but didn't do it pushing the batters back, and didn't do it with a field cutting off the singles. Also part of the run saving might have been England moving from having a hit and a hope to thinking the win was on and not wanting to throw away a surprise chance for a win.

[Banquo]

It was awesome having McGrath at Wuss, and those memories help assuage time spent watching Ahktar.

Pakistan did mange some restriction to the run flow against England, but didn't do it pushing the batters back, and didn't do it with a field cutting off the singles. Also part of the run saving might have been England moving from having a hit and a hope to thinking the win was on and not wanting to throw away a surprise chance for a win.

As I implied, your dogmatism has few equals - . England did change their strategy I agree- one reason being that boundaries were harder to get off Abbas. This started with your comment that Pakistan have a group of seamers and leggies who go chasing wickets, and what they'd give for someone who'd tie down an end- and in my view they have (in Abbas) , and he was in my view put on to tie down an end- you disagree, crack on.

[Digby]

It was awesome having McGrath at Wuss, and those memories help assuage time spent watching Ahktar.

Pakistan did mange some restriction to the run flow against England, but didn't do it pushing the batters back, and didn't do it with a field cutting off the singles. Also part of the run saving might have been England moving from having a hit and a hope to thinking the win was on and not wanting to throw away a surprise chance for a win.

As I implied, your dogmatism has few equals - . England did change their strategy I agree- one reason being that boundaries were harder to get off Abbas. This started with your comment that Pakistan have a group of seamers and leggies who go chasing wickets, and what they'd give for someone who'd tie down an end- and in my view they have (in Abbas) , and he was in my view put on to tie down an end- you disagree, crack on.

Yes, because Pakistan defended with plenty of men covering out in the deep, too many imo, thus the idea there's another way to go about trying to squeeze the runs and find a different way to apply pressure . You can do it the way Pakistan did it, merely it seems harder

[Banquo]

It was awesome having McGrath at Wuss, and those memories help assuage time spent watching Ahktar.

Pakistan did mange some restriction to the run flow against England, but didn't do it pushing the batters back, and didn't do it with a field cutting off the singles. Also part of the run saving might have been England moving from having a hit and a hope to thinking the win was on and not wanting to throw away a surprise chance for a win.

As I implied, your dogmatism has few equals - . England did change their strategy I agree- one reason being that boundaries were harder to get off Abbas. This started with your comment that Pakistan have a group of seamers and leggies who go chasing wickets, and what they'd give for someone who'd tie down an end- and in my view they have (in Abbas) , and he was in my view put on to tie down an end- you disagree, crack on.

Yes, because Pakistan defended with plenty of men covering out in the deep, too many imo, thus the idea there's another way to go about trying to squeeze the runs and find a different way to apply pressure . You can do it the way Pakistan did it, merely it seems harder

which is a different debate and question. You still appear to be contending that Abbas is not someone who can tie down an end, but whatever, frankly.

[Digby]

As I implied, your dogmatism has few equals - . England did change their strategy I agree- one reason being that boundaries were harder to get off Abbas. This started with your comment that Pakistan have a group of seamers and leggies who go chasing wickets, and what they'd give for someone who'd tie down an end- and in my view they have (in Abbas) , and he was in my view put on to tie down an end- you disagree, crack on.

Yes, because Pakistan defended with plenty of men covering out in the deep, too many imo, thus the idea there's another way to go about trying to squeeze the runs and find a different way to apply pressure . You can do it the way Pakistan did it, merely it seems harder

which is a different debate and question. You still appear to be contending that Abbas is not someone who can tie down an end, but whatever, frankly.

My comment wasn't so much they didn't tie down an end or ends, but more how they went about trying to do that is a harder model to enact.

[Banquo]

Yes, because Pakistan defended with plenty of men covering out in the deep, too many imo, thus the idea there's another way to go about trying to squeeze the runs and find a different way to apply pressure . You can do it the way Pakistan did it, merely it seems harder

which is a different debate and question. You still appear to be contending that Abbas is not someone who can tie down an end, but whatever, frankly.

My comment wasn't so much they didn't tie down an end or ends, but more how they went about trying to do that is a harder model to enact.

which is a different point, so cool.

[Digby]

which is a different debate and question. You still appear to be contending that Abbas is not someone who can tie down an end, but whatever, frankly.

My comment wasn't so much they didn't tie down an end or ends, but more how they went about trying to do that is a harder model to enact.

which is a different point, so cool.

I thought it was the point I made, well that McGrath said in that there were different ways to go about applying pressure on the run scoring front.

Additionally I noted something along the lines of what the've have given for a Hoggard and/or Giles, I didn't as I recall note if that was in the sense of augmenting what they had or otherwise

[Puja]

Right, so. Moving away from the same two posts being repeated ad infinitum - Ollie Robinson anyone? I haven't seen any county cricket so I know very little of him except that he used to play openside for Bristol.

Puja

[fivepointer]

Only seen Robinson bowl on youtube clips. Looks lively pace.
1st class record is 244 wkts at 21.8
Seems unlikely to get a game today but is obviously someone they are looking at seriously.

[Banquo]

My comment wasn't so much they didn't tie down an end or ends, but more how they went about trying to do that is a harder model to enact.

which is a different point, so cool.

I thought it was the point I made, well that McGrath said in that there were different ways to go about applying pressure on the run scoring front.

Additionally I noted something along the lines of what the've have given for a Hoggard and/or Giles, I didn't as I recall note if that was in the sense of augmenting what they had or otherwise

for fear of aggravating a mod, this was the circular argument we were having....
You-
.......And Pakistan have a group of seamers who go hunting wickets and 2 leggies who don't tie down an end, what they'd have given for a Hoggard or Giles today.......
Me-
Abbas demonstrably ties down an end.

[Digby]

which is a different point, so cool.

I thought it was the point I made, well that McGrath said in that there were different ways to go about applying pressure on the run scoring front.

Additionally I noted something along the lines of what the've have given for a Hoggard and/or Giles, I didn't as I recall note if that was in the sense of augmenting what they had or otherwise

for fear of aggravating a mod, this was the circular argument we were having....
You-
.......And Pakistan have a group of seamers who go hunting wickets and 2 leggies who don't tie down an end, what they'd have given for a Hoggard or Giles today.......
Me-
Abbas demonstrably ties down an end.

Meh, you're picking part of a quote there, after (from memory rather than checking) noting the Mcgrath comment on possible routes to slow scoring, and you're chosing not to consider that might merely have been having a bowler like a Hoggard or Giles to augment a bowler like Abbas.

Seeing as I was pushed on Abbas I did comment and would still he'd sit more in a camp of those who'd chase wickets rather than those who'd bowl to limit the batters supporting their other bowlers and/or a shift in strategy

And again I take the point Abbas can tie down an end, but how you go about it and the fields you set aren't irrelevant in all this, at least not to my way of thinking. Others likely take little but comfort they don't have to share my way of thinking.

[Big D]

Would be good if Jimmy rips through them.

[Banquo]

I thought it was the point I made, well that McGrath said in that there were different ways to go about applying pressure on the run scoring front.

Additionally I noted something along the lines of what the've have given for a Hoggard and/or Giles, I didn't as I recall note if that was in the sense of augmenting what they had or otherwise

for fear of aggravating a mod, this was the circular argument we were having....
You-
.......And Pakistan have a group of seamers who go hunting wickets and 2 leggies who don't tie down an end, what they'd have given for a Hoggard or Giles today.......
Me-
Abbas demonstrably ties down an end.

Meh, you're picking part of a quote there, after (from memory rather than checking) noting the Mcgrath comment on possible routes to slow scoring, and you're chosing not to consider that might merely have been having a bowler like a Hoggard or Giles to augment a bowler like Abbas.

Seeing as I was pushed on Abbas I did comment and would still he'd sit more in a camp of those who'd chase wickets rather than those who'd bowl to limit the batters supporting their other bowlers and/or a shift in strategy

And again I take the point Abbas can tie down an end, but how you go about it and the fields you set aren't irrelevant in all this, at least not to my way of thinking. Others likely take little but comfort they don't have to share my way of thinking.

I just think you are just wrong about having no bowler to tie down an end. I get all the rest, hence picking you up on that part.

[Banquo]

Would be good if Jimmy rips through them.

he's 100% so far

[Banquo]

need to catch better but good position anyway.

[Banquo]

Have to be impressed with Anderson. He did look a bit old and tired at OT, but he's in his 23rd over and bowling very good fast medium pace (84+ mph) swing and seam with some at 88 mph....good stuff.

[Banquo]

Not v impressed with bowling to Rizwan, pants by Curran. Really frustrating- lost concentration before the new ball, now pants from Woakes. Shipping valuable runs too softly.

....and it continues with Woakes bowling garbage, frankly. Bad cricket as Warne says, from england