[4th Test] South Africa v England

Comeback_Kenwyne said:
I want to see what that looks like: can't be keeping Curran in the team out of niceties if we have a chance to take a look at a pace attack like that on a helpful surface.
Click to expand...

Yeah agree. However I'd like to see more from Archer & particularly broad with the bat. Curran looks like he could possibly score a few runs which is always helpful
 


The Breen Machine said:
Would leave Archer out. If they still aren't sure now he's 100% fit then the chances are he won't be. Same team for me.
Click to expand...

The noise from the camp is that Wood has the greater fitness concerns.
Tongey said:
Yeah agree. However I'd like to see more from Archer & particularly broad with the bat. Curran looks like he could possibly score a few runs which is always helpful
Click to expand...

Archer has been very disappointing as a batsman so far. At first class level he was viewed as a bowling all-rounder, so yes we need more. To be honest a tail of Bess, Broad, Archer, Wood isn't that bad. None of them are rank bunnies - all, you might say, should be capable of batting at least at number nine if - in case of Broad and Archer - their talent is applied.
 
Last edited:
Comeback_Kenwyne said:
I want to see what that looks like: can't be keeping Curran in the team out of niceties if we have a chance to take a look at a pace attack like that on a helpful surface.


He's a good competitor - but I don't see how he gets to the admittedly exalted levels of those bowlers. Nowhere near.

For one, we are talking some of the most accurate bowlers in the history of the game. Anyone who has been successful at 78mph (and Anderson is more like an 83mph bowler, which makes a big difference) has had ludicrous accuracy. Philander, McGrath - we are talking the greats. But usually they have something else too. So Anderson - swing. Philander - bowls a heavy ball, like a kind of souped-up Tim Bresnan. McGrath - height and bounce. And and - they are all somewhat taller than Curran.

Tbh, its his height I think that places a ceiling on him, rather than his pace. Chances are he can get quicker. Unlikely he'll get taller.

If I was his bowling coach I would be telling him to try and add 3-4mph and really really work on his mastery of reverse swing. He's unlikely to be a new ball bowler because of the pace/height issues. But if he can master reverse, then he could become really useful as a third seamer perhaps. Waquar Younis wasn't that tall and his action is quite skiddy too. I don't know.
Click to expand...
Did you watch Jimmy Anderson play for England until 2008/09? He was a quick and all over the place, he dropped his pace and developed his swing game. But were talking 26-28 years old after breaking onto the scene like Curran at 19/20

Curran gets good swing both conventional and reverse already. His control really is the problem.

Speed isn't the be all and end all, but with more time spent with England he will develop that too.

Woakes bowled 78-82 when he first came into the side, now bowls 85-87 albeit advantage of him being a taller man

I'm not saying curran ends up being as good but he has the building blocks to be a good bowler. He averages 30 at the end of the day what more can you ask from him at this stage.
 
Last edited:
Personally I'd rest Wood. His pace will be needed alongside Jof in Sri Lanka and then the summer, and it was his first Test for a year. Don't want to push him too hard and break him again.

We'll still have more than enough to win anyway.
 
mackembhoy said:
@Comeback_Kenwyne

Comparison between Curran,Jimmy,Broad after 16 tests with the ball.

Jimmy Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com
Broad Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com
Curran Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

Curran clearly the best average, albeit a lot less overs bowled and no fifers.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Definitely remember it taking a while for Broad to settle and he was used as third or fourth seamer.

But Anderson - was he seen as a new ball bowler from the get go. Think he was.
mackembhoy said:
Did you watch Jimmy Anderson play for England until 2008/09? He was a quick and all over the place, he dropped his pace and developed his swing game. But were talking 26-28 years old after breaking onto the scene like Curran at 19/20

Curran gets good swing both conventional and reverse already. His control really is the problem.

Speed isn't the be all and end all, but with more time spent with England he will develop that too.

Woakes bowled 78-82 when he first came into the side, now bowls 85-87 albeit advantage of him being a taller man

I'm not saying curran ends up being as good but he has the building blocks to be a good bowler. He averages 30 at the end of the day what more can you ask from him at this stage.
Click to expand...

I've not seen much in the way of real reverse from him tbh, think that's overreach. He can obviously swing it conventionally, but sometimes its from the arm a lot of the time. It could do with being a bit later, though there's a trade off there because to do that he might lose some of his natural shape, which is good at the moment. His action, almost like a spinner, is quite good at the moment for getting natural variation of the pitch.

His main thing that gives him a chance - whichever way he goes - is his intelligence. He's already thinking about how to use seam variations to get the later movement, rather than the arm movement.

I'm not writing him off. But I don't see him as that useful in the short term - I don't think he's needed at home because Chris Woakes is better and I think Australia is definitely not for him - he'll get marmalised. Sri Lanka, he's perhaps got as good a chance as any of the other seamers, I'd take him on wickets like that if only because I worry about them running people like Archer into the ground.

I think though, that take him out of the home series and the Ashes down under - that gives him almost eighteen months after Sri Lanka to develop his game. It's so hard to tell, but its priorities. If Ben Stokes didn't exist, he'd be in the team as fourth seamer already. The question for me is - is turning him into a frontline test bowler an easier challenge for him to work on than turning him into a number six/seven who bowls fourth seamer. Seems to me he's nearer the latter naturally, but if he pulls the other off then great.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top