Cricket Question - Graham Swann

[swissy_fit]

He's a matchwinner now that DRS exists, but IMO if he'd bowled in the era before DRS (even in the non-DRS series umpires are giving spin bowlers a lot more LBW decisions these days IMO) then he'd have been goodish but not a regular matchwinner.

I'm trying not to imagine how many wickets Murali and Warne would have taken if they'd been starting now.

[fluffy666]

He's a matchwinner now that DRS exists, but IMO if he'd bowled in the era before DRS (even in the non-DRS series umpires are giving spin bowlers a lot more LBW decisions these days IMO) then he'd have been goodish but not a regular matchwinner.

I'm trying not to imagine how many wickets Murali and Warne would have taken if they'd been starting now.

Definitely given him a few more wickets, but from what I can tell he's good anyway, certainly the best since Underwood. For most spinners, it's pretty simple really - put a lot of revs on the ball and be accurate. (Note: Simple != easy) That's what Swann does, he dosen't have much in the way of variation.

[blobloblob]

Certainly an excellent bowler and up there with the best spinners around at the moment. I think the tag 'great' should be reserved for after a player retires really - only then can you compare their career against others'. He's not bad with the bat either.

[shindigger]

Few more top order left handers around now too.

Which converts Swann in to a cut price Shane Warne.

[deflation]

He's a matchwinner now that DRS exists, but IMO if he'd bowled in the era before DRS (even in the non-DRS series umpires are giving spin bowlers a lot more LBW decisions these days IMO) then he'd have been goodish but not a regular matchwinner.

I'm trying not to imagine how many wickets Murali and Warne would have taken if they'd been starting now.

I've been watching cricket for over 35 years, and I'd say he's definitely the best slow bowler England have had since Derek Underwood, and he got to play on uncovered pitches (lucky sod some would say!)

There's a lot of tripe about how many more wickets players would have taken under DRS (Ray Illingworth reckons hundreds). DRS would have been available for ALL the bowlers and the chances are the slow bowlers would have had less wickets left to try and get.

After all, there's still only 20 available per match.

Granted they would have got more lbw decisions, and a better average (i.e. less runs per wkt), but overall, not that many more in total. Players would not have padded up so much, in fact modern players are batting in a different way since DRS came in.

[swissy_fit]

I've been watching cricket for over 35 years, and I'd say he's definitely the best slow bowler England have had since Derek Underwood, and he got to play on uncovered pitches (lucky sod some would say!)

There's a lot of tripe about how many more wickets players would have taken under DRS (Ray Illingworth reckons hundreds). DRS would have been available for ALL the bowlers and the chances are the slow bowlers would have had less wickets left to try and get.

After all, there's still only 20 available per match.

Granted they would have got more lbw decisions, and a better average (i.e. less runs per wkt), but overall, not that many more in total. Players would not have padded up so much, in fact modern players are batting in a different way since DRS came in.

It's true that players would have adapted if it had been necessary instead of padding up all the time, but I still think it's a huge advantage to modern slow bowlers.

Not before time, even in club cricket everyone was convinced you couldn't be given out lbw playing forward, it was rubbish before.

[Goat]

..... I still think it's a huge advantage to modern slow bowlers.

I suppose that the obvious answer is to compare the number of top 10 or top 20 spin bowlers today with the number before the introduction of DRS.

By my reckoning there are 5 in the top 10 today and there were the same number on this day in 2002.

No obvious evidence that DRS helps slow bowlers any more than fast bowlers in those figures.

Perhaps another approach would be to look at total numbers of test wickets taken by type of bowler.

Edit: source - Reliance ICC Test Championship Bowlers

[ccc]

What is DRS ?

[gilf]

What is DRS ?

Decision Review System, basically referral to a TV umpire.

I'm not a huge cricket fan, would there be a case that umpires are now more likely to ur on the side of caution and therefore give less "out" in real terms. Equally, how many wickets have been taken in the past that were not out and not under review?

[swissy_fit]

Decision Review System, basically referral to a TV umpire.

I'm not a huge cricket fan, would there be a case that umpires are now more likely to ur on the side of caution and therefore give less "out" in real terms. Equally, how many wickets have been taken in the past that were not out and not under review?

I remember Darren Gough bowling the Saffers out with a succession of LBWs that wouldn't have hit a second set of stumps on the leg side. And we used to complain about Indian/Pakistani umpiring....

[cashinmattress]

Cricket? What's that?

[stormymonday_2011]

I remember Darren Gough bowling the Saffers out with a succession of LBWs that wouldn't have hit a second set of stumps on the leg side. And we used to complain about Indian/Pakistani umpiring....

I remember attending a Headingly Test Match in the 1980s against Pakistan where the away supporters unfurled a banner proclaiming

'Umpire Constant. England's Match Winner'

[ubuntu]

I remember attending a Headingly Test Match in the 1980s against Pakistan where the away supporters unfurled a banner proclaiming

'Umpire Constant. England's Match Winner'

He certainly was as well as that Merv Kitchen.

[ccc]

Decision Review System, basically referral to a TV umpire.

I'm not a huge cricket fan, would there be a case that umpires are now more likely to ur on the side of caution and therefore give less "out" in real terms. Equally, how many wickets have been taken in the past that were not out and not under review?

Cheers.

[crashmonitor]

I remember Darren Gough bowling the Saffers out with a succession of LBWs that wouldn't have hit a second set of stumps on the leg side. And we used to complain about Indian/Pakistani umpiring....

There was a fashion for very late in swing in the 1990s, and you can understand the umpire being confused. Darren Gough was a master, Waquar Younis the grand master. It did sometimes require a bit of ball tampering and unpicking the seam to help things along. You'd go from 100-1 to 150 all out once things started happening with the older ball.

As for the spinning question either the television pictures are a lot clearer or Swann is ripping it a lot further off the pitch. We seemed to go for years with off spinners that just put the ball in and relied on variation rather than turn. Swann, of course, lacks variation..but do you need it with that amount of rip.

[SHERWICK]

Having also watched England since the 70s, though I only have a very vague memory of Underwood, Swann is very, very good.

Before Swann we had Ashley Giles, King of Spain, who of course was a famous non-spinner of the ball (except when he ripped a couple in the 2005 Ashes to dismiss a few of the bemused Aussie top batsmen ).

Oh how I laughed!

[swissy_fit]

Having watched the highlights of the Test matches against NZ, it occurred to me that :-

1. England should be looking for a decent big tall heavy left arm quick with a straightish follow-through to make footmarks for Swann all the time. Failing that get a batsman who can bowl a few tightish overs of left-arm medium pace.

2. The Aussies have left arm quicks which, although they're quite good, may not help their cause over the course of 5 days play.

[swissy_fit]

Unfortunately for us, they've left Mitchell 'Aerosol' Johnson at home.

He's been good in the IPL when I've seen him, nigh on unplayable at times, left-arm late inswing at 145k+.

But the new lads Starc and Faulkner are better, mentally stronger IMO, more generally accurate, and will still make lovely footmarks just as well as him.

[SHERWICK]

He's been good in the IPL when I've seen him, nigh on unplayable at times, left-arm late inswing at 145k+.

But the new lads Starc and Faulkner are better, mentally stronger IMO, more generally accurate, and will still make lovely footmarks just as well as him.

I'm a bit worried about our fragile batting to be honest..

[Snafu]

I'm from a non-Cricket country and I think I finally get it. But reading this thread makes me realise I know very little of the nuances of ..throwing the ball and hitting it with a bat!

[swissy_fit]

As am I. I can't see Compton getting a game. If Cook gets out, it's piss poor. Bell, Bairstow, Root and Prior are all hardly the personification of reliability. Particularly Bell and Bairstow.

If KP doesn't play, I actually think our batting is considerably below par. Broad and Swann are good options at 8 and 9 (although I still think Broad is an absolute shithead)

I'm more optimistic, think Root and Prior in particular of those you mention are very good players, IMO Root is not just hype, he looks the real thing to me, though you can't really tell until after the first major dip in form.

Cook, Root, Trott, KP, Bell, Bairstow, Prior, Swann, Broad, Anderson, Finn, not too bad.

I'd think about playing Bresnan instead of Bell with Prior at 6 if he shows good bowling form.

Like you I would have liked Johnson to play, just on the off-chance a wild swinging delivery at 150kph would hit Broad in the nuts.

[SHERWICK]

As am I. I can't see Compton getting a game. If Cook gets out, it's piss poor. Bell, Bairstow, Root and Prior are all hardly the personification of reliability. Particularly Bell and Bairstow.

If KP doesn't play, I actually think our batting is considerably below par. Broad and Swann are good options at 8 and 9 (although I still think Broad is an absolute shithead)

Give Bell a few more years and I'm sure he'll come through and his class will shine and he will be our very own Michael Clarke.

...

Oh, what is that you say? He's actually the most experienced batsman in the side?

Really?

[SHERWICK]

= Ian Bell facing McGrath and Warne throughout 2005.

[swissy_fit]

= Ian Bell facing McGrath and Warne throughout 2005.

He averaged 17 according to cricinfo (checked because I knew it was a low average), and that was without McGrath for most of the series as I recall.

He'll be alright as long as we're winning or need to bat long to save a game, but turning a losing position into a winning one when it's a bit tough? - I doubt it.