Something that has been festering in the back of my mind for a while, and that has been exacerbated by our flimsiness in the Ashes, is the question of just how much better our top six are now than they were a decade ago? Call it rose-tinted specs, but I can't help thinking that a top-six including Atherton, Hussain, Thorpe, Stewart plus any two from: Butcher, Hick, Ramprakash, Crawley etc, would be a match for the current side. Granted- Hick, Ramps and Crawley never really did it for England, but all, at one stage or another, looked like they could have gone on to be the real deal. Under Fletcher that may have been different, but that is digressing.
The point I am making, is that our current top-order are flattered horribly by their averages. In this i am not narrowing the argument to games against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, as at the present moment all the bowling attacks around the world are significantly weaker than they were in the 90s. Mike Atherton for example was made to work particularly hard for his runs, opening the batting against attacks such as Pollock and Donald of South Africa, Ambrose and Walsh from the Windies, Waqar and Wasim from Pak, McGrath and Gillespie from Oz, Vaas from SL and Srinath and Prasad from India, not to mention Cairns and Nash from NZ. To these add Kumble, Warne and Murali.
Looking around the World now, where are the quality pace bowlers? McGrath is all but gone, Lee is inconsistent, Shoaib and Bond never fit, Harmison gutless, Malinga, Jerome Taylor, Edwards and Steyn quick but raw. Sreesanth looks promising, while Pollock, Vaas, Stuart Clark and Hoggard perform with consistent success at a lesser pace. Ntini's excellence only serves to emphasise just how few fast bowlers there are in their prime today. As a result, runs must surely be considered cheaper now, even if there is more quality spin to contend with. How that top-order of a decade ago would fare now we'll never know, but it is worth considering that Strauss and co may not be quite the force we thought, and questioning whether we would have felt comfortable with Flintoff batting at six against any of the above attacks? This argument could run and run, the statistics have not even been touched here,but for the good of the game let us hope that the missing pacemen reappear soon.
2 comments:
Further to your musings above, it is interesting to speculate as to why worldwide attacks are so weak at the moment. My opinion is that the extra emphasis on ODI's, which encourages accurate bowlers who make it tough to score, coupled with the fact that bowlers at about eighty mph are harder to 'fluke' boundaries off, does not encourage their development. Instead you arrive at the 'Mark Ealham Model' for the perfect international bowler. There is little room for out and out pace. Ancient artforms are dying - fast bowlers seem to break down if they have to bowl more that ten overs, swing bowlers are plundered behind point and down to third man (even if they are getting edges) and the art of seaming is being destroyed by the fact that the whole world bar England seem to love the Kookabura ball. Is it just me, or is this ball as detestable as Bob Willis? These are not original comments, but they are from the heart!
To be honest, why does anyone watch ODI cricket, its as pants as Sky coverage, if not even more boring.
Post a Comment