The worst England bowling attack since 1993? Or....ever?

Dello wrote:
Doesn't explain away James Tredwell, though.

The 'papers were even touting him as a possible second spinner for this upcoming Test, had England decided to go that way.

Incredible.

True, very true. I stand corrected, the qunt from qent proving to be my downfall.

23 wickets @ 32 this season for Tredwell. I don't know how he's managed to sneak that one past me. He's such a nothing bowler that his name barely registers with me on any scorecards.

Rashid's got 28 @ 33. Again, that's a bit of surprise as he started out going great guns. Taken some tonk in the last few games.

Monty Powrightinthekisser: 28 @ 28.

Borthwick's outbowled them all, hasn't he?

DA Cosker 29 @ 30
MS Panesar 28 @ 28
A Rashid 28 @ 33
J Tredwell 23 @ 33
SG Borthwick 22 @ 26
DR Briggs 19 @ 37


Stats don't lie.

Not really, actually.

Henry wrote:Borthwick's outbowled them all, hasn't he?

Not really. He's barely bowled at all. He comes on all the time when the opposition are eight down.

22 wickets @ 25. Looks good on paper, but he's bowled an average of 18 overs per match.

Rashid bowls 31 per match.

I'd say it's pretty common for a part-time bowler to end up with a healthy-looking average over the short-term. Front line bowlers actually have to do the majority of their work against front line batsmen.

It'd be interesting to see how many players in the top seven Borthwick has dismissed this season. I'd speculate less than five.

But he's still a talent. It's just the Saffie Benkenstein has no f*cking clue how to use him.

Gary 111 wrote:I also didn't think Andrew Flintoff would never make a Test class bowler.

While I was digging up those bad bowling attacks I came across the Test squads for the 1999 series against New Zealand, thinking along the Irani / Giddins vibe, didn't realise Graeme Swann actually made the Test squad back then - but was kept out of the team by Phil Tufnell.

I knew he had toured SA that Winter, but it is strange to think that Swann, England's 'newish' bowler was on the scene before players like Vaughan, Trescothick, Harmison, Hoggard and Jones, who's careers are long since over now.

interesting perspective on selections, and the influence of Feltcher

A double-revived thread by Lardy. Is this a record?

Very interesting about Swann. In truth, missing the 2001 & 2002-3 Ashes probably wasn't the worst thing to ever happen to him.

I reckon the "At lot to answer for" has the record. I reckon it has been revived at least 6 or 7 times. And it still makes me PMSL (espesh pages 2 to 10).

JKLever wrote:A double-revived thread by Lardy. Is this a record

sorry squire, I've scratched your record

sorry squire, I've scratched your record

sorry squire, I've scratched your record

sorry squire, I've scratched your record

sorry squire, I've scratched your record

sorry squire, I've scratched your record

sorry squire, I've scratched your record

sorry squire, I've scratched your record

Some say Swann wasn't ready until around 2005, where he started to really get his act together and bowl well consistently. Feltch should have picked him for the tour of Pakistan in late 2005, but was clouded by his pre-conceived assessment of him.

Swann was up to it anytime in his career. How up to it? More than Ashley Giles ever was.

perhaps he wasn't up for what Gilo was up for

It's a team game & everyone contributes in their own "special" way.

WideWally wrote:It's a team game & everyone contributes in their own "special" way.

Some TV schlep was gushing about Ashley's contribution to the Ashes '05 - I mean, yeah, he got some crucial wickets - but he only took 10 @ 50 - talk about ignoring the main point. The man was a shitwad.

Brass Monkey wrote:

WideWally wrote:It's a team game & everyone contributes in their own "special" way.

Some TV schlep was gushing about Ashley's contribution to the Ashes '05 - I mean, yeah, he got some crucial wickets - but he only took 10 @ 50 - talk about ignoring the main point. The man was a shitwad.

Was?

I buried him in Giles' back garden.

Is he under the Mung beans?

He's under the 'blagged an entire international career' beans. Dunno what sort they are. Maybe haricot.

curried fava?

Gary 111 wrote:Speaking of sanctamonious moaning....

Guest wrote:

Henry wrote:
Over the last 16 years, even though England have had quite a few periods when they have been complete pap, they've at least always had 1 bowler who was genuinely world class on his day- Darren Gough, Angus Fraser, Andrew Caddick, Andrew Flintoff....Even Dominic Cork for a 2 year period from 95-97. Dean Headley wasn't the worst either.

Now you can look at the current England attack and say that not one of them is world class. Even Flintoff's bowling, as wholehearted and stirring as it is (when he's fit) is starting to be quietly considered over rated in some parts. England's reserve pacemen are in the process of being hammered all around New Zealand. New Zealand FFS.

Are England's current fast bowling stocks the worst they've ever been in over 120 years of test cricket?

The "attack" that took the field in the last test was the worst in my 27-year memory.  

JKLever wrote:
Worst since 89.

I'd like to think we're not seriously thinking of continuing with Ohmygod Khan.

At least Eric Air Emu had the good sense to shout you lot down, jesus christ. What a load of wattle. The wickets were so flat in that series it was barely cricket, but the bowlers themselves were all of decent quality (except Amjad Khan).

Their Test Careers to date:

Graeme Swann - 138 wickets at 27.62
Ryan Sidebottom - 79 wickets at 28.24
Jimmy Anderson - 215 wickets at 30.98
Steven Harmison - 226 wickets at 31.82
Andrew Flintoff - 226 wickets at 32.78
Monty Panesar - 126 wickets at 34.37
Stuart Broad - 105 wickets at 35.97
Amjad Khan - 1 wicket at 122
Adil Rashid - no tests to date

Seeing as we are reviving the 'Worst England Bowling attack since 1993 thread', they're now on:

Graeme Swann - 235 wickets at 28.14
Ryan Sidebottom - 79 wickets at 28.24
Jimmy Anderson - 320 wickets at 29.66
Stuart Broad - 199 wickets at 31.19
Steven Harmison - 226 wickets at 31.82
Andrew Flintoff - 226 wickets at 32.78
Monty Panesar - 164 wickets at 33.78
Amjad Khan - 1 wicket at 122

In fact, if Flintoff hadn't been injured giving Khan a game - wouldn't Anderson, Broad, Flintoff, Swann & Panesar potentially be England's strongest bowling attack since 1993! Especially with SiBo and Harmison also in the squad.

Textbook reverse Treving from Trev: "Are England's current fast bowling stocks the worst they've ever been in over 120 years of test cricket?" indeed.

Brass Monkey wrote:

WideWally wrote:It's a team game & everyone contributes in their own "special" way.

Some TV schlep was gushing about Ashley's contribution to the Ashes '05 - I mean, yeah, he got some crucial wickets - but he only took 10 @ 50 - talk about ignoring the main point. The man was a shitwad.

He was in there as a largely defensive spinner though, which was all we needed with that pace attack, a bit of control while the quick men were having a rest. Fair enough he wasn't up to the task when we needed more than that, unless the surface was very helpful, and his selection in '06/'07 was inexplicable, but he did contribute to that team of '04-'05 in a supporting role.

Admittedly he was an ordinary bowler at the highest level but it doesn't justify the way he's vilified on here as a player at least, I guess some blame him for holding back the careers of Swann and to a lesser extent Monty but they'd probably have picked Shaun Udal and Robert Croft as alternatives anyway for most of his career! And the fact he's an establishment man who seems to be able to do no wrong in the eyes of some at the top, as a player and coach, that's frustrating to an extent. But he "bored" Tendulkar out and had him stumped which no other bowler had managed before, so deserves a bit of credit for that!

beamer wrote:
He was in there as a largely defensive spinner though, which was all we needed with that pace attack, a bit of control while the quick men were having a rest.

Where was that control, then? His economy was 3.61 in that series. They caned him for 578 runs, which is quite something for a bowler employing the most negative of tactics on the cricketing planet.

beamer wrote:
Admittedly he was an ordinary bowler at the highest level but it doesn't justify the way he's vilified on here as a player at least

I'm really sorry but in no universe does 150 wickets @ 40 deserve anything but the highest of criticism.

He seems like a really good bloke, if that helps you? Everybody seems to love him. Especially all the Warks players, whom he promised would be nearer the England set-up, regardless of performance.

Australia would certainly give a fair bit for a spinner who could take 150 wickets at 40 right now!

We've had a lot of worse spinners before and will surely have a lot of worse ones when Swann and Panesar are long retired. As I said, it's his seemingly favoured status at all levels and the fact he stuck around past his sell-by date that makes people dislike him. As an international player he was mediocre but he did what he could with the ability he had.