Middlesex

I managed to get to days one and three of the Glamorgan game and to
today's FP game, from which I can make a few observations.

I remain underwhelmed by Billy Godleman, who was being touted a year
back as Middx's Next Big Thing. I can't remember seeing a top order
batsman who was so heavily bottom-handed.

The new Next Big Thing is Finn, who is 6'6" or so and can hide behind
telegraph poles, though he looks athletic rather than gangly in the
field. He has a high, clean action, and he gets a fair bit of bounce.
I always find it difficult to judge the pace of tall, bouncy bowlers
with clean actions; when they eventually show up on TV with a speed
gun trained on them, they always turn out to be faster than I thought
when watching them live. With that caveat, I think Finn is more
Caddick's pace than Brett Lee's. (Caddick in his Test days, that is: I
imagine he's rather slower now, though I haven't seen Somerset live
for a couple of years.)

Strauss has definitely changed his batting strategy. Both Glamorgan
and Kent set the standard Strauss field with two gullies and as many
slips as seemed reasonable and bowled accordingly, but those fielders
stood mostly idle; the few shots he did play in that quadrant were
quite deliberately played down and steered through the gap between the
slips and the gullies. His business shots have been the drive through
extra cover and the clip forward of square leg, though today one of
his first scoring efforts was a thundering straight on-drive which
almost decapitated Godleman.

I cannot tell whether Murtagh's unnatural success from the Nursery End
is because he's improved a lot or because he's just bowling very well
this week. It's certainly welcome with both Silverwood and Richardson
crocked. It could just be the mostly damp conditions that have
prevailed at Lord's this week, as Glamorgan's most awkward bowler was
Ryan Watkins, who is also a very brisk medium pacer.

Berg, the new Kolpakker, looks a decent enough first change pace man.

It's quite nostalgic seeing a tall bald guy bowling spin from the
Nursery End, though you quickly notice that Udal bowls right arm and
therefore isn't PH Edmonds.

I hope Joyce's 86 on Saturday was an indication that the slump my be
ending, because he hasn't looked to be in any sort of form when I've
seen him. Shah hasn't stayed around long enough to work out whether
he's in form at all.

As to the other sides, Glamorgan look to have a pretty useful bowling
attack while their batting seems lacking, while Kent, by selecting
Key, Walker and Azhar Mahmood, are clearly hoping to win through
superior weight.

Cheers,

Mike
--

Mike Holmans wrote:
> The new Next Big Thing is Finn, who is 6'6" or so and can hide behind
> telegraph poles, though he looks athletic rather than gangly in the
> field. He has a high, clean action, and he gets a fair bit of bounce.
> I always find it difficult to judge the pace of tall, bouncy bowlers
> with clean actions; when they eventually show up on TV with a speed
> gun trained on them, they always turn out to be faster than I thought
> when watching them live. With that caveat, I think Finn is more
> Caddick's pace than Brett Lee's. (Caddick in his Test days, that is: I
> imagine he's rather slower now, though I haven't seen Somerset live
> for a couple of years.)

Yep, I seem to recall him being upto mid 80s when I saw him on TV last
summer. Was very impressed in terms of ability.

--
Jan

In message <ve7a14d91gu92kfj725if1uqp6uvq6t9dj@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
<mike@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes
>Berg, the new Kolpakker, looks a decent enough first change pace man.

Taking the place of Danny Evans. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: [url]http://www.geocities.com/[/url] blairscandal/
Personal website: [url]http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk[/url]

"Robert Henderson" <philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VetlSgchTiFIFww4@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> In message <ve7a14d91gu92kfj725if1uqp6uvq6t9dj@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> <mike@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Berg, the new Kolpakker, looks a decent enough first change pace man.
>
> Taking the place of Danny Evans. RH

Never mind Middlesex. Worry instead about Leicestershire, who have just
kicked off a Championship match against Warwickshire with an XI containing
what must surely be a record six South Africans, plus an Australian to boot.

Andrew

In message <67octpF2q1bucU1@mid.individual.net>, Andrew Dunford
<adunford@artifax.net> writes
>
>"Robert Henderson" <philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:VetlSgchTiFIFww4@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <ve7a14d91gu92kfj725if1uqp6uvq6t9dj@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
>> <mike@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>Berg, the new Kolpakker, looks a decent enough first change pace man.
>>
>> Taking the place of Danny Evans. RH
>
>Never mind Middlesex. Worry instead about Leicestershire, who have just
>kicked off a Championship match against Warwickshire with an XI containing
>what must surely be a record six South Africans, plus an Australian to boot.
>

Their mentality is essentially treasonous. RH
>Andrew
>
>

--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: [url]http://www.geocities.com/[/url] blairscandal/
Personal website: [url]http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk[/url]

"Mike Holmans" <mike@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ve7a14d91gu92kfj725if1uqp6uvq6t9dj@4ax.com...
>I managed to get to days one and three of the Glamorgan game and to
> today's FP game, from which I can make a few observations.
>
> I remain underwhelmed by Billy Godleman, who was being touted a year
> back as Middx's Next Big Thing. I can't remember seeing a top order
> batsman who was so heavily bottom-handed.
>
> The new Next Big Thing is Finn, who is 6'6" or so and can hide behind
> telegraph poles, though he looks athletic rather than gangly in the
> field. He has a high, clean action, and he gets a fair bit of bounce.
> I always find it difficult to judge the pace of tall, bouncy bowlers
> with clean actions; when they eventually show up on TV with a speed
> gun trained on them, they always turn out to be faster than I thought
> when watching them live. With that caveat, I think Finn is more
> Caddick's pace than Brett Lee's. (Caddick in his Test days, that is: I
> imagine he's rather slower now, though I haven't seen Somerset live
> for a couple of years.)
>
> Strauss has definitely changed his batting strategy. Both Glamorgan
> and Kent set the standard Strauss field with two gullies and as many
> slips as seemed reasonable and bowled accordingly, but those fielders
> stood mostly idle; the few shots he did play in that quadrant were
> quite deliberately played down and steered through the gap between the
> slips and the gullies. His business shots have been the drive through
> extra cover and the clip forward of square leg, though today one of
> his first scoring efforts was a thundering straight on-drive which
> almost decapitated Godleman.
>
> I cannot tell whether Murtagh's unnatural success from the Nursery End
> is because he's improved a lot or because he's just bowling very well
> this week. It's certainly welcome with both Silverwood and Richardson
> crocked. It could just be the mostly damp conditions that have
> prevailed at Lord's this week, as Glamorgan's most awkward bowler was
> Ryan Watkins, who is also a very brisk medium pacer.
>
> Berg, the new Kolpakker, looks a decent enough first change pace man.
>
> It's quite nostalgic seeing a tall bald guy bowling spin from the
> Nursery End, though you quickly notice that Udal bowls right arm and
> therefore isn't PH Edmonds.
>
> I hope Joyce's 86 on Saturday was an indication that the slump my be
> ending, because he hasn't looked to be in any sort of form when I've
> seen him. Shah hasn't stayed around long enough to work out whether
> he's in form at all.
>
> As to the other sides, Glamorgan look to have a pretty useful bowling
> attack while their batting seems lacking, while Kent, by selecting
> Key, Walker and Azhar Mahmood, are clearly hoping to win through
> superior weight.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
> --

I've seen both Godleman and Finn and I think I agree with you. For some
reason, we (England) seem to oscillate between two extremes. Back in the
1990s we had "honest" trundlers like Mullally, Cork, Fraser and so on who
could probably let one or two go with decent pace but on the whole operated
78-82mph. Under Fletcher, bowlers knew it was 85+mph or bust.

Finn is definitely in the metronome category because everyone seems to be
trying to produce another McGrath. One of McGrath's great attributes
wasn't so much his "style" - it was his brain and certainly his stamina.
I've seen McGrath bowl really really quickly (Barabados 1999) and bowl some
reverse swinging yorkers (Brisbane 1996) and I always felt McGrath wasn't
quite the metronome people made him out to be. Whether or not Finn has any
variation (which was certainly Fraser's undoing) time will tell but I think
on its own - metronomic accuracy won't get you many wickets. Pollock, for
example, has been insipid for several years before his recent retirement -
though I do concede I'd like 400+ test scalps.

Godleman I think has some sort of technical flaw. Not in stance but in
strokes, he reminds me a lot of Neil Fairbrother who I always felt used a
bat that was too heavy for him.

Good luck to both of 'em though - it's very early days.

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:57:40 +0100, "lk" <gofyself@wrong.address.com>
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:


>> The new Next Big Thing is Finn, who is 6'6" or so and can hide behind
>> telegraph poles, though he looks athletic rather than gangly in the
>> field. He has a high, clean action, and he gets a fair bit of bounce.

>Finn is definitely in the metronome category because everyone seems to be
>trying to produce another McGrath. One of McGrath's great attributes
>wasn't so much his "style" - it was his brain and certainly his stamina.
>I've seen McGrath bowl really really quickly (Barabados 1999) and bowl some
>reverse swinging yorkers (Brisbane 1996) and I always felt McGrath wasn't
>quite the metronome people made him out to be. Whether or not Finn has any
>variation (which was certainly Fraser's undoing) time will tell but I think
>on its own - metronomic accuracy won't get you many wickets. Pollock, for
>example, has been insipid for several years before his recent retirement -
>though I do concede I'd like 400+ test scalps.

I do rather agree about Bollocks's insipidity. But he was half a yard
slower than Mcgrath and typically bowled six inches further outside
off stump: he was both easier to play (though not necessarily easier
to score off) and easier to leave. He didn't ask such difficult
questions of the batsman.

McGrath didn't go in for much variation in recent years either. He
could no longer bowl fast and instead maintained near-perfect control.

The main reason that Matthew Hoggard is a disaster in one-day cricket
- he doesn't even play it for Yorks now - is that he has very little
in the way of variation. But his method has served England very well
in Test cricket for several years.

Most of the best bowlers have accuracy as their greatest virtue: that
was just as true of Waqar Younis and Michael Holding as of Ambrose and
McGrath.

One of the great advantages allegedly possessed by Anderson is that he
has a number of variations. Saj Mahmood was also keen on variations
when he was in the England side, as was Plunkett when he didn't get it
right early on. Not only can they vary their length and pace, but they
also vary their line a lot. How deliberate all these variations
actually are, though, would make an interesting debate. Some would say
they are merely different ways to get carted.

If, like Wasim Akram, you can harness accuracy, pace and variation,
then you are indeed a highly dangerous bowler, but they come in that
order of importance.

You will gather that I don't care if Finn shows no variations before
2011 if he can perfect his control of line and length.

Cheers,

Mike



--

"Mike Holmans" <mike@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9q3f14t4cje30fdut19av0mnhiu957rbqt@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:57:40 +0100, "lk" <gofyself@wrong.address.com>
> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>
>>> The new Next Big Thing is Finn, who is 6'6" or so and can hide behind
>>> telegraph poles, though he looks athletic rather than gangly in the
>>> field. He has a high, clean action, and he gets a fair bit of bounce.
>
>>Finn is definitely in the metronome category because everyone seems to be
>>trying to produce another McGrath. One of McGrath's great attributes
>>wasn't so much his "style" - it was his brain and certainly his stamina.
>>I've seen McGrath bowl really really quickly (Barabados 1999) and bowl
>>some
>>reverse swinging yorkers (Brisbane 1996) and I always felt McGrath wasn't
>>quite the metronome people made him out to be. Whether or not Finn has
>>any
>>variation (which was certainly Fraser's undoing) time will tell but I
>>think
>>on its own - metronomic accuracy won't get you many wickets. Pollock,
>>for
>>example, has been insipid for several years before his recent retirement -
>>though I do concede I'd like 400+ test scalps.
>
> I do rather agree about Bollocks's insipidity. But he was half a yard
> slower than Mcgrath and typically bowled six inches further outside
> off stump: he was both easier to play (though not necessarily easier
> to score off) and easier to leave. He didn't ask such difficult
> questions of the batsman.
>
> McGrath didn't go in for much variation in recent years either. He
> could no longer bowl fast and instead maintained near-perfect control.
>
> The main reason that Matthew Hoggard is a disaster in one-day cricket
> - he doesn't even play it for Yorks now - is that he has very little
> in the way of variation. But his method has served England very well
> in Test cricket for several years.
>
> Most of the best bowlers have accuracy as their greatest virtue: that
> was just as true of Waqar Younis and Michael Holding as of Ambrose and
> McGrath.
>
> One of the great advantages allegedly possessed by Anderson is that he
> has a number of variations. Saj Mahmood was also keen on variations
> when he was in the England side, as was Plunkett when he didn't get it
> right early on. Not only can they vary their length and pace, but they
> also vary their line a lot. How deliberate all these variations
> actually are, though, would make an interesting debate. Some would say
> they are merely different ways to get carted.
>
> If, like Wasim Akram, you can harness accuracy, pace and variation,
> then you are indeed a highly dangerous bowler, but they come in that
> order of importance.
>
> You will gather that I don't care if Finn shows no variations before
> 2011 if he can perfect his control of line and length.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
To me, variation is, in itself, not that potent a weapon. So very few
bowlers nowadays seem to realise that bowling is as much about brains as
arms. Sure if you can send them down at 90+ then fine, you may be able to
blast players out - but just as lethal for a 90+ bowler is an well disguised
and _more importantly sparingly bowled_ accurate slower ball. Shoaib
Akhtar is well past his best but he got it right against us in that 2005-06
series. One I can remember accounted for Vaughan (who I rate highly)
because Vaughan wasn't expecting it, it was 65mph and it was on target.
If you have a slower ball and use it wisely (which often means sparingly)
you will get players out. If we look at the "quick" bowlers who had
umpteen variations (Reeve, Ian Harvey, Bravo) - if we look hard - they're
ODI specialists, not test bowlers.

As far as I'm concerned, the reason for the drop in England's performance
since 2005 is not so much the departure of Troy Cooley - it was (he's gone
now than God) the arrival of Kevin Shine. Shine adjusted the actions of
Plunkett, Anderson and Harmison and the result is that (again in my personal
opinion) none of that lot have a clue where the next ball's going. It's
particularly tragic to see one so young as Plunkett (who seems totally
moronic to me) almost brainwashed in this way. Anderson has at least now
gone back to his old action and regained his place - but he's another one
without too many grey cells. When he's getting clattered (e.g. by Ryder)
all he could try was bowling faster and shorter - which is the one thing you
do not do to someone who is IMHO a complete slogger.

As for Finn - he is too thin (no poetry intended). McGrath was an
athlete - Finn is a rake.

Overall, I think the England coaching staff have forgotten one crucial thing
about quick bowling - it hurts and it hurts a lot. Remodelling actions to
prevent injury is a complete waste of time. If a young lad can send it
down at let's say 85mph and land it where he wants to more often than not,
then I'd suggest it's those attributes that have got him there. You
remodel the action to remove injury worries and all of a sudden pace drops
(a la Anderson) or accuracy disappears a la Plunkett or Harmison. Result -
you have someone who's more insipid and less often injured. I don't know
whether it's health & safety, litigation culture fostered by the PCA or
what - but if you want to be a fast bowler and think you're going to be pain
free - think again. Get on with it and if you can't put up with niggles -
get a new job. I don't want to sound too much like Fred Trueman but Bob
Willis and Ian Botham were every bit as quick as Anderson and co (perhaps
not Harmison) but they were prepared to go through the pain barrier and
never changed their actions. That, to me, is an object lesson to some of
our young quicks.

Finn - probably one for the future - but he is going to get badly injured
unless he beefs up a bit

"Robert Henderson" <philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vNCbmrRd7yFIFw3C@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> In message <67octpF2q1bucU1@mid.individual.net>, Andrew Dunford
> <adunford@artifax.net> writes
>>
>>"Robert Henderson" <philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:VetlSgchTiFIFww4@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <ve7a14d91gu92kfj725if1uqp6uvq6t9dj@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
>>> <mike@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>Berg, the new Kolpakker, looks a decent enough first change pace man.
>>>
>>> Taking the place of Danny Evans. RH
>>
>>Never mind Middlesex. Worry instead about Leicestershire, who have just
>>kicked off a Championship match against Warwickshire with an XI containing
>>what must surely be a record six South Africans, plus an Australian to
>>boot.
>>
>
> Their mentality is essentially treasonous. RH

I didn't know the ECB was capable of imposing that sort of pentaly!

Who's in charge at Leics nowadays? I'm inclined to agree with RH on this
one - the domestic game should be about bringing the England players on,
though this is now tempered by the short term gain that winning a trophy can
bring. But I do think that these imports have to be good quality and none
of these Leics players (I assume we're talking Ackerman, Kruger, Henderson
etc) are that good. How bad must Leics home grown players be if they're
not good to oust these imports at a lower cost?

I have no problem with any player from anywhere playing in England with the
proviso that they must be good enough - which some of these blokes are not.
The fact that they're probably better than the home grown talent says to me
that the guilty clubs need to close because they're not doing anyone any
favours - not that we need fewer overseas players.

"lk" <gofyself@wrong.address.com> wrote in message
news:481afedd$0$2488$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "Robert Henderson" <philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:vNCbmrRd7yFIFw3C@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <67octpF2q1bucU1@mid.individual.net>, Andrew Dunford
>> <adunford@artifax.net> writes
>>>
>>>"Robert Henderson" <philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:VetlSgchTiFIFww4@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message <ve7a14d91gu92kfj725if1uqp6uvq6t9dj@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
>>>> <mike@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>>Berg, the new Kolpakker, looks a decent enough first change pace man.
>>>>
>>>> Taking the place of Danny Evans. RH
>>>
>>>Never mind Middlesex. Worry instead about Leicestershire, who have just
>>>kicked off a Championship match against Warwickshire with an XI
>>>containing
>>>what must surely be a record six South Africans, plus an Australian to
>>>boot.
>>>
>>
>> Their mentality is essentially treasonous. RH
>
> I didn't know the ECB was capable of imposing that sort of pentaly!
>
> Who's in charge at Leics nowadays? I'm inclined to agree with RH on this
> one - the domestic game should be about bringing the England players on,
> though this is now tempered by the short term gain that winning a trophy
> can bring. But I do think that these imports have to be good quality and
> none of these Leics players (I assume we're talking Ackerman, Kruger,
> Henderson etc) are that good. How bad must Leics home grown players be
> if they're not good to oust these imports at a lower cost?

If they had anyone better than Ackerman (FC avg 43.15, higher than anyone
else in the side, including Dippenaar, who has played 38 Tests for SA), it
is unlikely that they would be fielding Tom New (avg 34).

Likewise, it seems unlikely that they have a spinner who is better than
Henderson (avg 31.37 - not far behind Panesar and lower than Nicky Boje, who
has played 43 Tests for SA) or a pace bowler better than Kruger (avg 29.6,
which is far better than either Cummins or Malik, who are both in the side).

--
David North