Fletcher still obsessed with the pace!

First things first. Congratulations to Jimmy Anderson and Ryan Sidebottom for exploiting the swing at Trent Bridge so ruthlessly, and very well batted Kevin Pietersen, who really should have been man of the match for proving his class in what was essentially a bowler's game. But watching England's victory, I just couldn't shake off this nagging concern that against better sides in tougher conditions they will not dig themselves out of a hole so easily.

I said before the series started that my one big concern about this England attack is its sameness, especially when it comes to pace. That's not an issue if the ball is swinging like it did in Nottingham but 80% of the time in Test cricket the conditions are going to be less helpful. That was always my fear when I was trying to build bowling attacks: I needed to keep in mind the task of creating a side for all occasions, and that means a team capable of taking 20 wickets in the subcontinent. That's why sticking with Simon Jones was a good option when at first others questioned his selection.

It would be nice to see Stuart Broad, who has such exciting potential, to strengthen up so that he can touch 90mph. If he can do that and Andrew Flintoff returns, England are covering their bases. But if he's just going to bowl at 80-85mph, you're not going to get top-class sides out, and Broad is then reduced to doing the holding job. I'm just hoping that as he matures he will add a few mphs to the speedgun.

It's one of my bugbears but I believe that to succeed consistently in Test cricket you need an attack with genuine pace, which is advantageous in any conditions because even for the best batsmen there is absolutely no margin for error. Australia have Brett Lee, South Africa have Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel and Pakistan always looked more dangerous when Shoaib Akhtar was playing. The reason India have traditionally struggled overseas is because of their lack of cutting edge.

Having said that, it was fantastic to see the way Anderson bowled. Like Jones, he's a bowler who can get you five-fors, and the most pleasing aspect is the way he's learned to bowl the inswinger. He's a bowler who's willing to listen and learn and the way he set up Jacob Oram in the first innings showed how far he's come in the last few years. It irritates me when people say he was Troy Cooley's one failure as a bowling coach. We tried to change Jimmy's action because Troy, being the visionary he was, believed there was a chance of a serious back injury. I think it did confuse Jimmy a bit but what are you supposed to do as a coach if you spot the danger signs? Ignore them?

It's rare to have a swing bowler like Jimmy who can bowl top batsmen out. We saw two classic examples at Trent Bridge with Aaron Redmond and Brendon McCullum, who were both done by the angle because they thought the ball was going down leg. Most swing bowlers try to get batsmen to nick off, with the left-hander being an lbw option, but Jimmy has both those options plus the priceless ability to bowl batsmen.

England must realise, though, that they won't always recover from 86 for five on the first day. Against a team in transition like New Zealand you'll maybe escape from that position two times out of five. But against South Africa, England's next Test opponents, the figure is going to be once or twice in 10.

That makes the question of Flintoff's potential return a very tricky one. Do England want to bat deep - and we saw the benefits of that once more in this Test - in which case one of the bowlers might have to make way? But is he fit enough to be part of a four-man attack? Or do they bat Flintoff at No7, below Tim Ambrose, who supported Pietersen very well at Trent Bridge, in which case one of the batsmen must miss out? It's a really tough decision for the selectors and it will depend on things like Flintoff's batting form and how many overs he can bowl. What's for sure is that the extra pace of Flintoff could be vital if Steyn and Morkel are not going to have everything their own way next month.

Basil wrote:When Jimmy first played for England - he regularly got the ball down at 87/88 mph and still swung it - I wonder if his reduced pace is a legacy of Cooley's coaching.

Dello wrote:

Basil wrote:When Jimmy first played for England - he regularly got the ball down at 87/88 mph and still swung it - I wonder if his reduced pace is a legacy of Cooley's coaching.

He still pops the odd one down at 90.

I think his pace is just like the rest of his bowling: weirdly erratic.

It's also a bit harsh to continually blame Troy Cooley for Anderson's slow development - he never got the chance to finish the job, so to speak, so we'll never know if the changes he was trying to make to Jammy would've paid off in the long run.

Still can't believe the ECB let him go...

Rob I wrote:Broad really out to quicken up a bit in the next few years, though.

JKLever wrote:You can see his point. Although he took it to extremes after Ashes....
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/06/10/italian_uninterested_in_inflat.html...

Basil wrote:

Rob I wrote:Broad really out to quicken up a bit in the next few years, though.

I bet most of the Aussies said the same thing about Pidge when he was Broad's age - it might not happen.

JKLever wrote:McGrath was never that quick.

JKLever wrote:Broad is consistently between 83-86mph.

I can't ever remember McGrath bowling 88+

PeterCS wrote:For once, I think the Felthc might have a point re: need for pace, vs. almost exclusive belief in swing in helpful "English conditions". The overcast skies and heavy stmospher can't last for long, and especially can't be wrapped up adn taken to countries with baked, bouncy pitches.

The only trouble is the point is so farkin bleedin obvious anyone coudl have made it. Felthc is a hack.

PeterCS wrote:For once, I think the Felthc might have a point re: need for pace, vs. almost exclusive belief in swing in helpful "English conditions". The overcast skies and heavy stmospher can't last for long, and especially can't be wrapped up adn taken to countries with baked, bouncy pitches.

The only trouble is the point is so farkin bleedin obvious anyone coudl have made it. Felthc is a hack.

Felcher wrote:It would be nice to see Stuart Broad, who has such exciting potential, to strengthen up so that he can touch 90mph. If he can do that and Andrew Flintoff returns, England are covering their bases. But if he's just going to bowl at 80-85mph, you're not going to get top-class sides out, and Broad is then reduced to doing the holding job. I'm just hoping that as he matures he will add a few mphs to the speedgun.

Felcher wrote:
Having said that, it was fantastic to see the way Anderson bowled. Like Jones, he's a bowler who can get you five-fors, and the most pleasing aspect is the way he's learned to bowl the inswinger. He's a bowler who's willing to listen and learn and the way he set up Jacob Oram in the first innings showed how far he's come in the last few years. It irritates me when people say he was Troy Cooley's one failure as a bowling coach. We tried to change Jimmy's action because Troy, being the visionary he was, believed there was a chance of a serious back injury. I think it did confuse Jimmy a bit but what are you supposed to do as a coach if you spot the danger signs? Ignore them?