Skip to main content

England in the 90s revisited and oh, for backup bowlers!

So its come to this finally. As the cliche goes, the wheel comes full circle. Australian selection policies these days resemble that of England from the 1990s :-) Took a quick look at the last two years and over 37 Test matches since 1 Jan 2008, Australia have used 36 different players. That's an average of roughly one additional/new player every 1.48 matches! Talk about instability. When compared to India (a new player every 1.94 matches), South Africa (2.14), England (2.24) it shows how things have changed in the last two years with regards to the power balance in Test cricket.

What the overall stat also does not show directly is that most of these new players have been bowlers. With the exception of replacing Hayden and Symonds the batting line-up has been quite stable but the bowling has been the exact opposite. Indian spinners like Amit Mishra, Piyush Chawla, Ashwin, and Murali Kartik must be ruing the fact that they don't have an Australian passport! The latter in particular since his India playing days seem over. This isn't a uniquely Australian problem though. Bowling the world over has been pretty poor in the last two years, with most teams struggling to produce any Test class back-up bowlers. The over-reliance that each team has on one or two bowlers really shows them up when these guys get injured. Whether that's Zaheer for India, Steyn for South Africa, Anderson and Swann for England, most teams really lack depth in their bowling stocks. Hell, Sri Lanka was finding it difficult to bowl out the West Indies on their own soil just recently. And if Asif and Aamer get life bans the average quality will go plummeting further. Hopefully there will be a turnaround soon!

Comments

AS said…
Is there a correlation between the rate of change of players and the success of the team? I guess the analysis to answer this question will have to be slightly more complex, but interesting?
December 27, 2010 at 1:10 PM
Buttax said…
In the normal course, not really because turnover is pretty steady. But every so often a team goes through a phase where they lose a clutch of good players at the same time. That usually has a big effect (like Australia are seeing now after Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist, Hayden, Langer, and Martyn all retired in 2006/7). I think the reason the effect is magnified is also driven by the fact that when you have a clutch of really good players, they were probably driving better results than average :)
January 5, 2011 at 8:26 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Et tu?

As a single sport website, I think Cricinfo has brought about a revolution and the fact that they were bought by ESPN is testament to how highly valued they've become. Their editing and approach to articles/opinion has been refreshing to say the least and even though they seem to have had a lot of editorial staff movement they've usually maintained very high standards. Off late though, both in their headline styles as well as in actual content, there seems to be an occasional slippage of standards and an inching towards the modern media sensationalism which is a bit of a pity. This piece  by Siddharth Monga is a classic example. Granted that the last two press conferences by Dhoni and Sehwag  indicated clearly that the captain and his deputy did not agree on this aspect of selection but "discord", "dissent", "public sniping" feels rather presumptuous and heavy handed. Yes, it is a team sport but there is no reason why everyone on the team needs ...
1 comment
Read more

Of backward selections and England's future

A couple of interesting selectorial decisions recently by England and India (and actually as its turning out Australia as well!). For once I think the England selectors didn't panic and showed the right thinking by not picking either Key or Ramprakash for the Oval Test. And luckily for them, both Bell and Trott have performed well enough to vindicate the decision. India on the other hand have actually gone the other way bringing Dravid back to the one-day squad. I'm a bit ambivalent on that one. While the decision to leave out Rohit Sharma and retain Raina was certainly the right one, bringing back Dravid is questionable. It would have been a bolder decision to pick someone like Kohli or Rahane who both played really well in the Emerging Players Trophy recently, mainly because Dravid is quite unlikely to feature in the 2011 World Cup so why bring him back now? As for the Aussies, they will certainly be regretting not picking Nathan Hauritz for the Oval. A defensive decision if...
Post a Comment
Read more

The final elusive pieces

Now that Mahendra Singh Dhoni has essentially announced his decision to stay on as skipper of the side till at least the 2015 World Cup, every ODI series India plays hereon is a stage for defining the plans and alternatives for that tournament. And none of them will be more critical than the current series against New Zealand given its the closest the team will get to play in conditions resembling that in the actual World Cup. A lot gets written about India's poor record in Test cricket away from home even though its improved hugely since the turn of the millennium. Their one-day record away from home is not outstanding either with a win-loss ratio well below 1 (though only Australia and South Africa are better). What is more concerning is the fact that Australia and New Zealand are two of the three worst venues for the team thereby making the title defence even more challenging. Their recent record and especially the win in the Champions Trophy certainly gives cause for hope ...
Post a Comment
Read more