England v India 5th Test

[Salem Street South]

Warne bowled about three a session. Rashid bowls at least one every over.



Yes, Akram I'd have to consider - for all-round ability and being the most dangerous left-armer.

Warne was also the best bowler ever, Rashid is still developing his game.

The point still stands.

 

[Bri]

The game to judge him on was the Rose Bowl. Turning surface, spinners deciding the game. Fortunately for us, he was not the only we picked otherwise we'd have lost.

He played well at Edgbaston, but he's been poor mainly throughout. He doesn't exert pressure, he bowls too many bad balls. I would play Leach away from home where you need less variety and more control, as the pitch does the deed for you. If - and it's a big if - Moeen can somehow prove himself in the top order then there's probably a space for him as an occasional maverick and/or tail mopper when we play at home. But without that I can't for the life of me see why he deserves to be in the team. Yes, I would pick another batsman.

I also think they would have won without him anyway today. I was not bed wetting remotely - I was however frustrated at his bowling.

But yes, it was still an absolutely remarkable ball.

I like leggies too. I'm interested by the lad at Lancashire, Parkinson. Rashid is a known quality - he's not got the control. We'll have a good one day, but it won't be Rash.

I like leggies too … but with leggies you get lots of spin, variations and if they're good lots of wickets. It's a difficult craft so you also get bad balls and they find it difficult to maintain pressure. I think even Warne had a much much better wicket -taking record than a miserly run rate.

A ball with lots of spin on it landing in a worn bit of pitch ie a foot hole will get lots of turn. Greenwell did for Durham during a T20, not far from as good as anything I've ever seen.

If a batsman is hitting out, trying to score quickly - they can be dangerous.
If a batsman is biding his time, waiting for the bad ball they can go for runs.

T20 is blamed for all kinds of negative influences on technique (mainly 4/5 day cricket batting, not least by me) but leggies are very effective in that format and I think it has revived the art, at least in England.

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

Warne was also the best bowler ever, Rashid is still developing his game.

The point still stands.

Developing his game you say? I'll put this into context: he's only three years younger than Alastair Cook.

He's 30. This is as good as he gets.

I'm not saying call them up, but the likes of Crane, Parkinson are more likely to end up being better leggies than Rash.

IMHO what made a difference to Rashid in this game was changing to Anderson at the other end. Stokes and Ali were serving up one or two four balls every over and the batsmen - who had clearly decided to 'take on' the total - were under less pressure to score from his bowling. Anderson came in and bowled neat and tidy: "holding down an end" like seamers on the sub-continent.

His Warne bowl would have got anyone out, that was just great bowling, but Pant's wild hoik was a direct result of this pressure.

Also, when you bowl a ball like that Warne ball it completely freaks out those in the pavilion. So credit to him for that too, but yes, you do have to build pressure. Especially on the sub-continent.

We've lost this a bit. It's actually how we won the Ashes away in 2011 - we strangled them to death.

 

[Salem Street South]

Developing his game you say? I'll put this into context: he's only three years younger than Alastair Cook.

He's 30. This is as good as he gets.

I'm not saying call them up, but the likes of Crane, Parkinson are more likely to end up being better leggies than Rash.

So you’re saying there is no possibility he can improve or learn? Sorry that’s nonsense.

Again all about opinions but there’s precious little to base Crane and Parkinson ending up better than Rashid on and your ‘context’ re Cook doesn’t tell the full story either.

Cook started very young and has played for 12 years, Rashid has just finished his first home series. Arguably Cook is going out early at 33, there’s certainly a large percentage of people who wish he’d carry on, and most of all people develop at different rates and ages, that’s just a fact of life.

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

So you’re saying there is no possibility he can improve or learn? Sorry that’s nonsense.

Again all about opinions but there’s precious little to base Crane and Parkinson ending up better than Rashid on and your ‘context’ re Cook doesn’t tell the full story either.

Cook started very young and has played for 12 years, Rashid has just finished his first home series. Arguably Cook is going out early at 33, there’s certainly a large percentage of people who wish he’d carry on, and most of all people develop at different rates and ages, that’s just a fact of life.

He can improve.

But we should not expect the exponential improvements you get from young players. He's no spring chicken, he's bowled a lot of overs.

Cook started young because he was good enough young. Like Curran. Rashid is not even in the latter's class now.

You may be right about Parkinson and Crane, but who knows? They are young and can develop. Parkinson has a very tidy first class average for a leggie - there is hope for him. Rashid will get a bit better maybe, but not much. And it's just as likely he will get worse - that happens in cricket, people figure you out and your confidence dips.

Either way, he's a known quantity. I'm not saying we should take the other two on tour or anything - taking Crane to Australia was absurd. But I am saying they may be better one day. And that I'd take and start Leach. I'd take Rashid too, but probably not start him.

 

[Salem Street South]

He can improve.

But we should not expect the exponential improvements you get from young players. He's no spring chicken, he's bowled a lot of overs.

Cook started young because he was good enough young. Like Curran. Rashid is not even in the latter's class now.

You may be right about Parkinson and Crane, but who knows? They are young and can develop. Parkinson has a very tidy first class average for a leggie - there is hope for him. Rashid will get a bit better maybe, but not much. And it's just as likely he will get worse - that happens in cricket, people figure you out and your confidence dips.

Either way, he's a known quantity. I'm not saying we should take the other two on tour or anything - taking Crane to Australia was absurd. But I am saying they may be better one day. And that I'd take and start Leach. I'd take Rashid too, but probably not start him.

Of course he can improve. Nobody’s saying we should expect exponential improvement, but he’s shown enough to me to suggest there may be more to come and that he’s worth sticking with, certainly for the upcoming tours.

Granted he needs to show now he can perform away from home as he may be out of chances if he doesn’t but he did ok in Bangladesh and India and has done ok again this summer.

I just look at Rashid and see someone who could have quite a lot to offer us, potentially a lot more than the other options imo, if he’s supported and shown a bit of patience. The age thing is not really a factor for me, for the reasons I’ve given.

I’d also take Leach but as third choice at the moment.

 

[rentaghost]

With regards to Rashid i'm a bit 50/50. I accept his lack of control is a concern but I think with us not having good enough batsmen at our disposal we need as much variation and bowling options as possible in order to take 20 wickets to give us a chance of winning games. Dropping him for yet another failing batsmen seems pointless, i don't think having yet another moderate quick in his place is beneficial and other spinners might provide more control but don't have the ability to get good, well set players out. Its my opinion but I must admit not one that I have great conviction in.

 

[ProfessionalMackem]

With regards to Rashid i'm a bit 50/50. I accept his lack of control is a concern but I think with us not having good enough batsmen at our disposal we need as much variation and bowling options as possible in order to take 20 wickets to give us a chance of winning games. Dropping him for yet another failing batsmen seems pointless, i don't think having yet another moderate quick in his place is beneficial and other spinners might provide more control but don't have the ability to get good, well set players out. Its my opinion but I must admit not one that I have great conviction in.

Good post. Thats my thoughts too.

What hasnt helped this series is our shite batters havent put up a big 400plus total often for us to let the leggie twirl away. Bang on about trying to get 20 wickets rather than filling the team with another dodgy batter