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

First thoughts on the Ashes

The only minor surprise for me in the 2013 Australian Ashes squad announced last week was the selection of James Faulkner ahead of Moises Henriques as the second all-rounder. Minor because given  the Shane Watson shenanigans of recent times, I would have thought that Inverarity and co would have opted for a second batting all-rounder (which is what Henriques clearly is). Instead they've gone with a bowling all-rounder in Faulkner and it'll be interesting to see what happens if Watson's batting woes in Test match cricket continue in the first two Tests. As for the rest of the squad, given the way the inexperienced batting performed in India, Rogers and Haddin were always going to make it in to the team and the choice of Khawaja over Smith appears sound too given that the latter's strength is in playing spin bowling. The batting still looks as unsettled and shaky as the Indian fast bowling line-up and its here that the series will be won or lost for the Aussies. The retu...
Post a Comment
Read more

Much ado about a run-out

Judging by the amount that's been said and written about Ian Bell's run-out-that-wasn't at Trent Bridge, you would think that it has been the most significant occurrence of the series so far when nothing could be further from the truth. Andrew Miller  and Samir Chopra seem to be of the opinion that it was the crucial turning point in the match, which I completely disagree with (the post-tea sessions on days one and two were far more critical and momentum shifting). Andy Flower says that if Tendulkar had been run-out similarly in Bombay, it would have caused an international incident. He's clearly feeling the effects of having been in the England cricket set-up for too long given that a) its very improbable that Tendulkar would do something as daft as Bell did, and b) when a controversial run-out (but within the laws) did happen to him (against Pakistan at Eden Gardens no less), Tendulkar went out to the crowd and appealed to them to calm down and let the game proceed...
Post a Comment
Read more