Our Test Bowling Attack

[eugene]

My position is that I am still a tad uncomfortable with both Jarvis and Vitori in the same team, but I have no problem with either one being in the lineup. I would go with Jarvis at the moment as I think he is bowling better than Vitori.

[betterdays]

In Test number 7 is for a batter (ok wicket keeper batsman, but for us he bats higher so 7 becomes a batter's spot). If he can bowl all the better, but this is not a necessity as you have 4 unrestricted bowlers to do that job, ... most teams will still have their quartet (Cummings, Siddle, Johnson, Lyon), (Steyn, Morkel, Philander, Tahir),(Jones, Hoggard, Harmison, Jiles).

The three quartets you mention have two things in common: 1). one who can at the very least hold a bat (Johnson, Philander and Giles respectively) and 2). a very strong batting line-up.

in my attack I left a space for a fiery newcomer to come along and display his talents (Jarvis for now). We'd know pretty soon how that will pan out and, if well, then bring in a second by all means but only Price truly contains, even though Mpofu is certainly, atm, doing it more than Vitori and Jarvis so if you have Cremer, Mpofu, Vitori and Jarvis and the other teams starts getting going, you are in a world of pain. It may seem harsh to leave Vitori out as he's done nothing spectacularly wrong - though he performed in one of 4 innings (25% is risky) - but he'll have plenty of time to prove we were wrong to do so, which is what we want ultimately.

... personally I think he should cut out the variety and concentrate on line and length and do a solid containing job.

that is, i suppose, how i feel about your attack ... Mpofu alone is not going to provide ennough control ... but i have left room for 'some' attack and believe the pressure created by the control will be our most potent weapon. Hhm explained away the success of the bowling vs NZ by the fact that we got wickets when they upped the tempo - for me we got wickets because they HAD TO up the tempo and then Mpofu took over...with logical straight bowling

[Jemisi]

[quote="]

Then probably Meth/Vitori depending on the return from injury.

In your response Jemisi, are you taking into account Elton as a bowler, or are you setting him aside as an allrounder.[/quote]

No, I wasn't including Chigs as a bowler. I was just trying to pick 4 bowlers and I think that Chigs can only be at 7 and then only if he is doing a decent job with both bat and ball. He has to be averaging 25-30 with the bat and taking 1.5 wickets per test. I can't see him as part of the 4 bowlers really.

So slow bowler Price, Cremer as a reserve or when we need two spinners in BD, Sri Lanka, etc.

Seam bowlers, Jarvis, Mpofu definites. Meth, Vitori, Rainsford are next in line for me atm.

I don't see Meth and Chigs as being up against each other, because Meth shouldn't be higher than 8 and Chigs probably shouldn't be a part of the 4 main bowlers.

[FlowerPower]

Injury free, the Test line up in a couple of years will be:

7. Meth
8. Cremer
9. Jarvis
10. Vitori
11. Mpofu

Mpofu holds one end, the rest attack the other. The tail is long enough: Meth and Cremer can bat, Jarvis and Vitori can hang around. But in order to get to this line up, we should not put all the novices in at once, and a mixture of experienced place holders and older but inferior hands should be blended in.

In Test number 7 is for a batter (ok wicket keeper batsman, but for us he bats higher so 7 becomes a batter's spot). If he can bowl all the better, but this is not a necessity as you have 4 unrestricted bowlers to do that job, ... most teams will still have their quartet (Cummings, Siddle, Johnson, Lyon), (Steyn, Morkel, Philander, Tahir),(Jones, Hoggard, Harmison, Jiles).

The three quartets you mention have two things in common: 1). one who can at the very least hold a bat (Johnson, Philander and Giles respectively) and 2). a very strong batting line-up.

I concur almost totally with Jemisi and somewhat with betterdays, and would even go further to say they didn't really need an allrounder because of (2) the strong batting line up. I would also say such teams tend to be even stronger as they have a FIFTH bowler. But I would hasten to say this is not a MUST for all teams, Freddie, Jacques, Watson (throw in Shakib there too) are phenomenal once in a life time talents (ok Biffy for England, and Polly to a lesser extent would make that second in a lifetime for some of us older guys...).

Having such guys is a HUGE bonus but not a must, we too had such talents in the past, Streak, Blignaut (although erratic), and Sean Ervine. Currently the closest we have is Chigs, Lamb (although hhm would cringe at a slow bowling allrounder!) and Meth. I'd say none of these guys are on current form are classic Test allrounders. I would pick them either in the 4 bowling attack, or 7 batting lineup, and not as allrounders for the sake of having an allrounder. In ODI having an allrounder (even a misfiring one) is almost a must, but in Test it is a bonus but not a necessity.

Even if you look at the teams with an allrounder you will note that these allrounders are picked exclusively in the batting 7(including keeper) or bowling 4. So the question would be is this guy one of our best 7 batters (for his position) irrespective of his bowling? Then he gets picked, if there is marginal difference, his bowling would tip the scale in his favour, so I'm sure you would agree Kallis, Flintoff and Watson get in solely on their batting, their bowling (which is world class) is a bonus. The same approach is done for the bowling, and we don't say since we have Watson in then we'll have a bowler short, we pick 4 (Ciummings, Johnson, Siddel and Lyon)...

I think the fact that part of the quartet can hold a bat is another bonus, a necessary one if your batting 7 isn't dependable, but again a luxury. So for me I would not pick a bowler solely because he can hold a bat, I would pick them based on my bowling strategy, and how they would contribute to that strategy and personally my bowling strategy would never put the ability to get tail end runs (note I do not discourage if and leave the runs getting to the batting 7. If he can get runs like Mitch and Dale did this weekend, all the better, but its not essential, especially if my 7 batters are the best I have and I trust them to do the job. (note both Mitch and Dale were picked probably first in their bowling line irregardless of their batting) So having a bowler (Meth) at 7 Boundary for me would take away from the batting.

Translated to our case, if Chigs bowling wise is less than Meth or Vitori, I would not sacrifice the potential bite in attack for an extra 20 runs at the expense of wickets...its a debatable issue though not cast in stone, and largely influenced by your batting 7. So for Chigs, ODI is a certainty in the absence of another allrounder, but Test for me is tight, question for fitting him in the batting 7 would be is he better than Mutizwa and Ervine? And frankly at the moment I'd say No. Then in the bowling four, would he do the job of any of the 3 pacemen better? Again I find myself saying No.

[FlowerPower]

in my attack I left a space for a fiery newcomer to come along and display his talents (Jarvis for now). We'd know pretty soon how that will pan out and, if well, then bring in a second by all means but only Price truly contains, even though Mpofu is certainly, atm, doing it more than Vitori and Jarvis so if you have Cremer, Mpofu, Vitori and Jarvis and the other teams starts getting going, you are in a world of pain. It may seem harsh to leave Vitori out as he's done nothing spectacularly wrong - though he performed in one of 4 innings (25% is risky) - but he'll have plenty of time to prove we were wrong to do so, which is what we want ultimately.

Interestingly that's what I originally said and feared about the Protea attack, but quite interestingly I was proved wrong, they may attack your bowlers but if your bowlers are wicket taking bowlers (as Steyn, Morkel, Philander and Tahir have proved) then you can go at 4 an over and limit via wicket taking.

I suppose its not an exact science, one could say having Price and Mpofu is safer, but if wickets don't come then 3 an over is enough for the opposition to win a match if you don't take wickets, but like yourself I also prescribe to the school of thought that containment, can lead to wickets...so its a tight call let them go at 5 an over and have them all out in 50-60 overs (250-300), or contain, and let them declare after 150 overs at 3.5 an over (525)?

But to be fair Mpofu does take wickets, and pre 2004 Price was a strike bowler, bu I suppose his role has changed lately, point being he is able to strike if required...interesting viewpoint... so Mpofu, Jarvis (as the sole out and out strike bowler), Price + one of (Meth, Rainsford, for more containment) may be an option...moreso since Vitori has not proven himself as a genuine strike bowler...

[betterdays]

Interestingly that's what I originally said and feared about the Protea attack, but quite interestingly I was proved wrong,

it didn't work for them yesterday ... when it didn't work for them. They could easily lose this match to Aus becasue they have noone there who will be able to build pressure. In fact when Aus were taking a boundary off every over that they bowled the pressure was actually on SA. They have the means to cope with the pressure but they may struggle to build any today (becasue of their inability to do so yesterday. Anyway, we'll see...

[FlowerPower]

Interestingly that's what I originally said and feared about the Protea attack, but quite interestingly I was proved wrong,

it didn't work for them yesterday ... when it didn't work for them. They could easily lose this match to Aus becasue they have noone there who will be able to build pressure. In fact when Aus were taking a boundary off every over that they bowled the pressure was actually on SA. They have the means to cope with the pressure but they may struggle to build any today (becasue of their inability to do so yesterday. Anyway, we'll see...

Like I said, its not cast in stone, and there are arguments for both approaches. Letting an opposition race at five an over is not an issue if your bowlers are able to get the batting 7 in 40/50 overs (the damage is only 250+/-)...but I will concur such an approach would require a good attacking quartet, and a very good attack should be fierce enough to act as containment or am I misreading it? I mean Lee, Steyn Morkel, James Anderson are strike bowlers but hardly go at over 4?.... when it doesn't come off, its messy (see my initial fears)...but when it works, there's no worries...I suppose the containment route does make sense as security...and with our inexperienced attack one can accept the case of a cautious attack:

8. Vitori/Meth/Rainsford/Chigs 9. Price 10. Jarvis 11. Mpofu ...Creamer makes way for Price who contains with Mpofu then Vitori and Jarvis attack? Or would you rather go all containment and Jarvis attacking alone 8. Meth 9. Price 10. Jarvis 11. Mpofu

[hhm]

Exaggeration takes away from your points, if this was EVERYTIME... such a team with such a bowler would hardley ever lose, if fact I challenge you to show me such a bowler with a first innings advantage EVERYTIME...

Pardon me, but I did not intend for my statement to be misconstrued. However, to reduce it to an exaggeration is to betray one's understanding. In actual fact, I am not exaggerating but employing hyperbole. More applicable than the mere term 'exaggeration', which forms an element of it. It's meant to add to my point, not take away from it.

you have this knack of trying to falsely discredit those you don't prefer...and you aren't alone in this respect

The fact of the matter is Zim's opposition(quality, not understrength - deliberate or otherwise) won't often bat twice, if they do it will be a forgone conclusion as in the case of Pakistan where they merely went through the procession of confirming a victory. Therefore my point about Jarvis being a poor first innings bowler is not false, it's a FACT! Facts which you demand at every turn. Jarvis has taken just 3 wickets in 3 first innings efforts. On two occasions the opposition has scored over 420runs(Ban280), and(unlike the others) has ALWAYS fetched at more than their innings run rate, alarmingly far more in the case of little Bangladesh's innings. That's not hating my friend, it's telling!

I have refuted and continue to refute the loosely held view that Jarvis&Vitori are better strike bowlers than Mpofu, Rainsford, Elton & Panyangara, as is the case for Cremer in comparison to Price. What the latter are, is bowlers who take wickets and have the ability to maintain a Test-like economy rate, hence better bowlers overall. I am strictly against the belief that, their less than modest wicket-taking abilities will compensate for their inevitable expensive efforts, because they simply show no signs of being able to rip through a good top order yet. The others on the other hand will ably perform both functions. What you mistake for a 'conservative' outlook on my part, is actually being realistic!

Drawing an analogy between our attack and it's balnce to SA, is scandalous, particularly when Warner&Finch(spectators of the show at the Wanderers) jointly destroyed our boys with none of your leading two contributing to any of the top six wickets, Vitori managing the least expected, while Jarvis fared horribly as the seniors led the way! To even imagine or consider the thought that Mpofu, Jarvis, Vitori&Cremer can remove a decent top 7 for 250odd at a 5eco is highly wishful. To put you to perspective, Fidel+Roach+Sammy+Ramapul/Bishoo can easily do that to us for WI(not that our batsmen will ever go at 5rpo against that attack), but in that event, our attack will NEVER recompense. Against quality opposition you're talking at least 600+/5dec! Have you misread it? YES! Will it go horribly wrong? ALWAYS! Should we entertain that approach? NO!

Just so we're ALL on the clear, everyone is entitled to their take on things, I'm just sharing my views, vigorously or not, but in no way am I or will ever impose them on anyone.

[sloandog]

If you think panysngara is a better strike bowler than Jarvis, well, that's your own crazy opinion. You're living I'm the past mate. He no longer has the pace, nor the accuracy.

[FlowerPower]

The fact of the matter is Zim's opposition(quality, not understrength - deliberate or otherwise) won't often bat twice, if they do it will be a forgone conclusion as in the case of Pakistan where they merely went through the procession of confirming a victory.

Don't remember us losing by an innings, so I assume this is a prediction...I will indulge you...

Therefore my point about Jarvis being a poor first innings bowler is not false, it's a FACT! Facts which you demand at every turn. Jarvis has taken just 3 wickets in 3 first innings efforts. On two occasions the opposition has scored over 420runs(Ban280), and(unlike the others) has ALWAYS fetched at more than their innings run rate, alarmingly far more in the case of little Bangladesh's innings. That's not hating my friend, it's telling!

Its possible you have mixed me with someone else, my objection was at your analysis of Vitori not Jarvis...but I'm pretty sure you'd use a similar argument (or a more emphatic one for Vitori)....to err is human, will let it slide...what I also did object to was the insinuation that the attack as a pair (Jarvis and Vitori) will go at 4+, to which I gave stats to the contrary...

I have refuted and continue to refute the loosely held view that Jarvis&Vitori are better strike bowlers than Mpofu, Rainsford, Elton & Panyangara, as is the case for Cremer in comparison to Price. What the latter are, is bowlers who take wickets and have the ability to maintain a Test-like economy rate, hence better bowlers overall. I am strictly against the belief that, their less than modest wicket-taking abilities will compensate for their inevitable expensive efforts, because they simply show no signs of being able to rip through a good top order yet. The others on the other hand will ably perform both functions. What you mistake for a 'conservative' outlook on my part, is actually being realistic!

Aside stats I don't know how to prove that Jarvis is indeed a better strike bowler (is there more conclusive way of adjudicating it?): I include Streak to contextualise, and this is post 2004 exodus...

Jarvis (SR 49.6, Econ 3.59, Streak (56.2, 3.20) Panyangara (66.8,3.20) Creamer (66.9, 4.10)Price (67.7, 2.57) Mpofu (72.4,3.68) Vitori( 78, 3.69) Chig (86.0, 3.45)

As much as I believe 3 Test career stats are futile, I think most of these guys are on a level footing, Jarvis and Panyangara have played 3 tests each, Vitori 2, the rest Mpofu, Cremer, Price, Chigs a bit lot more...clearly Jarvis is a strike bowler contrast his figures with Steyn's (39.6, 3.47), yes inferior, but out of our lot the closest, and ofcourse he has a long way to go in terms of games yet. Your Mpofu's (72.4,3.68) is way behind and so is Vitori ( 78, 3.69) and I had conceeded as much in my response to betterdays :

But to be fair Mpofu does take wickets, and pre 2004 Price was a strike bowler, but I suppose his role has changed lately, point being he is able to strike if required...interesting viewpoint... so Mpofu, Jarvis (as the sole out and out strike bowler), Price + one of (Meth, Rainsford, for more containment) may be an option...moreso since Vitori has not proven himself as a genuine strike bowler...

I also note Price's potency (career wide) but since our return he has gone into a shell and contained as opposed to attack, perhaps as a result of team strategy, (SR 89.2 as compared to career 76.2 including prior 2004, which are both inferior to Cremer's career 66.9).

Panyangara's 3 matches on the otherhand, despite being markedly inferior to Jarvis are decent (66.8,3.20), but this was a whole 6 years ago, on current FC form, he is behind a number of players, Querl, Masakadza, Meth, Chinouya to mention a few...so to use your term...I'm not hating its the figures speaking.

Drawing an analogy between our attack and it's balnce to SA, is scandalous, particularly when Warner&Finch(spectators of the show at the Wanderers) jointly destroyed our boys with none of your leading two contributing to any of the top six wickets, Vitori managing the least expected, while Jarvis fared horribly as the seniors led the way!

You have TOTALLY missed the point, nowhere do I equate our attack to that of the Proteas (even I am not that delusional ), I am simply looking at the balance and appraising the argument for and against going with an all out attack, and its intriguing, as I follow the goings on at the Bull Ring (which I am tempted to dash to right now) as merits of the approach show and demerits also appear...and personally I have gone one way and then the other, and I believe as a student of the game one must be flexible enough to consider different approaches and their appropriateness, learning comes from having a malleable mind (of course,no one can accuse you of such flip-flopping my friend!, and trust me I was not and will not hold my breath for that to happen! no malice meant just truth! a learned colleague once said, you stop learning the minute you start thinking you know everything and hence become shut to alternative ideas, but note I interrogate all different ideas vigorously)

To even imagine or consider the thought that Mpofu, Jarvis, Vitori&Cremer can remove a decent top 7 for 250odd at a 5eco is highly wishful. To put you to perspective, Fidel+Roach+Sammy+Ramapul/Bishoo can easily do that to us for WI(not that our batsmen will ever go at 5rpo against that attack), but in that event, our attack will NEVER recompense. Against quality opposition you're talking at least 600+/5dec! Have you misread it? YES! Will it go horribly wrong? ALWAYS! Should we entertain that approach? NO!

You see what I mean about failing to debate holistically. If you had followed my arguments, at some point I do concede that a) we would need a very good attack to do that, and if the vaunted Protea attack is failing to make this approach work for them, what of our limited attack...b) I have almost conceded to the Vitori-Jarvis inexperience and the dangers it exposes...

Just so we're ALL on the clear, everyone is entitled to their take on things, I'm just sharing my views, vigorously or not, but in no way am I or will ever impose them on anyone.

Likewise I don't impose anything on anyone, and if truth be told all I seek is different views, that I argue against them doesn't imply they are not welcome...for the record (I must stop this!) I ALWAYS like reading your ideas, even if your stubbornness drives me up the wall sometimes, keep it coming.