POTW : Junaids

[MenInG]

Excellent poster regarding the Australian bowling attack is this week's POTW - Congratulations [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...n-bowling-attack-rank&p=10480915#post10480915

It’s a very fine attack, and actually not especially suited to English conditions.

Cummins is world class, as is Pattinson (whose workload has to be strictly managed).

Hazlewood is identical to Stuart Clark, as a sort of Poor Man’s Glenn McGrath/Ambrose/Garner/Van Der Bijl.

Nathan Lyon is actually the weak link: a very good but not quite top class off-spinner. He’s good in the fourth innings and keeps it tight in the first three, but Swann and Ashwin were both better bowlers and Ashwin’s batting and Swann’s slip catching made them more useful in the first three innings of a match.

Starc is exactly what Geoff Lemon wrote about in yesterday’s Guardian: a white Ball Specialist who lacks the accuracy to knock over the top order with a normal red ball, but who has the speed to knock over the tail.

In terms of historical equivalents:

Cummins is on a par with Gillespie and Harris.

Hazlewood is on a par with Clark or Shaun Pollock or Courtney Walsh (ie below Ambrose and McGrath).

Pattinson is like Shane Bond: excellent but fragile and needs his workload managing closely.

Lyon is what John Emburey would have been with DRS. Vettori level with the ball but not the bat.

Starc is equivalent to Mitchell Johnson in his bad years. Very quick and scary for the tail, but too easy to score off. He is Wahab Riaz, but he isn’t Trent Boult.

Siddle is equivalent to Max Walker or Jacques Kallis: a reliable fourth bowler in the attack.

 

[Abdullah719]

Congrats.

 

[Junaids]

Wow, I’m honoured.

I saw I had a personal message and thought “oh no, I’ve overstepped the mark, they’re banning me!”

Seriously, I think the Aussie attack is very strong but not quite top drawer.

If you think of the West Indies, we knew that Roberts-Garner-Holding-Croft was a foursome of Five Star bowlers.

But when there was Ambrose-Bishop-Walsh-Winston Benjamin we knew that Walsh was a step down and Benjamin was two steps down.

South Africa were the same: Kallis wasn’t as good as Steyn and Philander.

This Aussie attack is superb, but compared with the early 2000’s, even the leader Cummins is only at the level of Gillespie who himself was slightly inferior to McGrath, while Lyon is miles behind Warne.

 

[Shazzam]

The way this man presents knowledge to Pakpassion is a blessing. Very good pick for post of the week. I would argue he deserves more of these as he always posts more quality. I wish I could time travel to see the greats. Thankfully through him I could live the dream.

 

[MMHS]

I read [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] every post, but won't have picked this one for PoTW, sorry. I don't agree with the assessment of Lyon and this is the main weakness of the post. I can accept any logical argument, but that has to be backed by data - otherwise, that post/argument loses it's weight.

For a change, Lyon is one exceptional spinner who is surprisingly good on non spin tracks. And, he is the most consistent spinner across 4 innings that I can recall. Guy averages 32.20, 33.85, 31.36, 32.14 in 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th innings respectively - remarkably consistent to his career average of 32.43.

I understand, being spinner he is used in lesser capacity in first innings of the game, but still he is unique in the other parameter - his career Strike Rate is 65, and 4 innings SR are : 62, 69, 64, 64..... that's even more remarkable.

Finally, an astonishing fact is that guy has 15 5fors in career - 3, 6, 4 & 2 respectively - I am sure, this unique for any spinner, guy is more impactful in first 3 days of the game!!!!! Contrary to popular beliefs, I would say his 4th innings stats are quite poor.

And, the killer line (for which I had to write this argument in a thread normally we praise the PoTW winners) - Nathan Lyon is at least 3 times the bowler than John Embury, even with (or without) DRS. I am really surprised that a poster like Junaids will take his chances with such a comment that won't go unnoticed for people who know how DRS works, and how LBW law applied. An off-spinner is the least beneficiary of DRS, because unless Umpire gives LBW on line (of off-stick), which they hardly do, an Offie will never get LBW on review. And, I have seen Umpires reluctant to give marginal LBWs against offies, because they are scared of being proven wrong - just outside of the line on stressed front foot, every time that call will be reversed in favor of batsman. Off-spinners won't ever get away with short ball, therefore 95% or their balls bring batsmen forward - after that, against right handers, his chances of getting LBW, not sure if it increases or decreases. DRS actually can work negatively for Off-spinner, because benefit of doubt "Bat-pads" will be revised with DRS. For a data point, Embury has 6 5fors in his entire career, Lyon has 7 against India only, in 18 Tests - this one really went south I guess.

If Junaids still believes that the difference between two Off-spinners, one taking 360 wickets in 91 Tests and another one 147 in 64 Tests (not to mention that the first offie had played half of his career on Australian tracks) - I don't think, that post deserved a PoTW, sorry.

 

[mak36]

How can you say Gillespie is equal to Cummins?

 

[barah_admi]

I agree with the overall sentiment in the post. This is a good attack but not quite great and shouldn't be knocking England over as often as they have done here (the selectors at ECB will need to re-think the top 6 positions).

However, I disagree about Lyon. He is a pretty good bowler and nowhere near the weak link in this side. Yes England has not suited him but he has still chimed in with some good overs and spells.

Congrats on POTW

 

[Godhelpma]

Congratulations!

 

[Junaids]

I’m not saying that Lyon is no good.

I’m saying that he is not as good an off-spinner as Murali or Swann or Ashwin.

I think [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] is a little harsh on John Emburey. He was pretty much identical to Graeme Swann, but prior to DRS umpires just didn’t really give many LBW decisions to spin bowlers except in what you might call Shakoor Rana style situations.

The Australian bowling unit can field three 8/10 bowlers and one 9/10 bowler, which is exceptional and puts the opposition under sustained pressure.

But go back 15 years and they had two 10/10 bowlers, a 9/10 in Gillespie and a 7/10 in Bichel or Lee.

Go back 40 years and the West Indies fielded four 9/10 bowlers.

Whereas Australia at full strength tomorrow would be:

Cummins 9/10
Hazlewood 8/10
Pattinson 8/10
Lyon 8/ 10

 

[Junaids]

How can you say Gillespie is equal to Cummins?

Because although Gillespie lost his zip at the end, he was previously only just short of being an all-time great.

If Gillespie was around today he would be up with Cummins well ahead of Bumrah and Rabada as a Test bowler.

 

[MMHS]

I’m not saying that Lyon is no good.

I’m saying that he is not as good an off-spinner as Murali or Swann or Ashwin.

I think [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] is a little harsh on John Emburey. He was pretty much identical to Graeme Swann, but prior to DRS umpires just didn’t really give many LBW decisions to spin bowlers except in what you might call Shakoor Rana style situations.

The Australian bowling unit can field three 8/10 bowlers and one 9/10 bowler, which is exceptional and puts the opposition under sustained pressure.

But go back 15 years and they had two 10/10 bowlers, a 9/10 in Gillespie and a 7/10 in Bichel or Lee.

Go back 40 years and the West Indies fielded four 9/10 bowlers.

Whereas Australia at full strength tomorrow would be:

Cummins 9/10
Hazlewood 8/10
Pattinson 8/10
Lyon 8/ 10

You levelled him as “weak link”, which he clearly isn’t. He is taking 4 wickets/Test at 32 with an economy of 3 in this era, for a SR of 65; means at average guy has a simulated per Test bowling analysis of 43-8-129-4. That’s very good at any standard, excellent considering that the has played most of his career in SENA.

On top of that, he is allowing Aussie captain to manage over rate, which wasn’t any issue for Lloyd’s team (otherwise, Clive Lloyd would have sit out in alternate game).

John Embury was a County product - earned his bucks based on his bits & pieces skills of bat & bowl both a little. Without his batting he won’t have played 20 Tests and with his bowling he won’t have made top 6 Ranji teams of 1970s & 80s - Bombay, Delhi, Punjab, Karnataka, Hyderabad & Baroda - that’s the bitter reality. Net, net DRS won’t have earned him any extra wicket over his 147 in 64 Tests - I explained why in my post.

The fundamental philosophy of your assessment (in this case) is flawed - specialist spinners are burden in a Test team outside Asia & Lyon is useless before 4th innings, I just countered that. Not to mention that, you had been suggesting Maxwell’s offspin instead of Lyon for his 20-30 slogged contribution.

 

[sweep_shot]

Congratulations. Great post.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

I read [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] every post, but won't have picked this one for PoTW, sorry. I don't agree with the assessment of Lyon and this is the main weakness of the post. I can accept any logical argument, but that has to be backed by data - otherwise, that post/argument loses it's weight.

For a change, Lyon is one exceptional spinner who is surprisingly good on non spin tracks. And, he is the most consistent spinner across 4 innings that I can recall. Guy averages 32.20, 33.85, 31.36, 32.14 in 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th innings respectively - remarkably consistent to his career average of 32.43.

I understand, being spinner he is used in lesser capacity in first innings of the game, but still he is unique in the other parameter - his career Strike Rate is 65, and 4 innings SR are : 62, 69, 64, 64..... that's even more remarkable.

Finally, an astonishing fact is that guy has 15 5fors in career - 3, 6, 4 & 2 respectively - I am sure, this unique for any spinner, guy is more impactful in first 3 days of the game!!!!! Contrary to popular beliefs, I would say his 4th innings stats are quite poor.

And, the killer line (for which I had to write this argument in a thread normally we praise the PoTW winners) - Nathan Lyon is at least 3 times the bowler than John Embury, even with (or without) DRS. I am really surprised that a poster like Junaids will take his chances with such a comment that won't go unnoticed for people who know how DRS works, and how LBW law applied. An off-spinner is the least beneficiary of DRS, because unless Umpire gives LBW on line (of off-stick), which they hardly do, an Offie will never get LBW on review. And, I have seen Umpires reluctant to give marginal LBWs against offies, because they are scared of being proven wrong - just outside of the line on stressed front foot, every time that call will be reversed in favor of batsman. Off-spinners won't ever get away with short ball, therefore 95% or their balls bring batsmen forward - after that, against right handers, his chances of getting LBW, not sure if it increases or decreases. DRS actually can work negatively for Off-spinner, because benefit of doubt "Bat-pads" will be revised with DRS. For a data point, Embury has 6 5fors in his entire career, Lyon has 7 against India only, in 18 Tests - this one really went south I guess.

If Junaids still believes that the difference between two Off-spinners, one taking 360 wickets in 91 Tests and another one 147 in 64 Tests (not to mention that the first offie had played half of his career on Australian tracks) - I don't think, that post deserved a PoTW, sorry.

Agree. Very unfair assessment of Lyons abilities. He's a very high quality spinner and over the last 5 years had transformed himself into a real threat in Asian conditions. A superb all conditions spinner who is perfect for the australian attack.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

Because although Gillespie lost his zip at the end, he was previously only just short of being an all-time great.

If Gillespie was around today he would be up with Cummins well ahead of Bumrah and Rabada as a Test bowler.

There is absolutely no basis for saying Gillespie was better than rabada. Gillespie was a quality support bowler and that was his ceiling. The natural length he bowled meant he rarely ran through sides and was never suited to be the frontline spearhead of an attack like rabada or Cummins. On the few occasions he was given the burden of being the spearhead he failed. Even in shield cricket his relative lack of 5fers points to the exact same thing.

 

[Cric_lover4487]

Its disappointing to see this post as POTW. Very unfair criticism of Nathan Lyon. He has improved vastly and has a sharp cricketing brain. Its painful to see him pained as a poor man's Ashwin considering he has outperformed his contemporaries in non-asian conditions in recent times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VFrkG0YvqA

 

[FreePalestine]

Congrats, but i agree with above comments, equation of Gillespie with Cummins is wildly inaccurate, comparison of Gillespie with Rabada, Bumrah as well not correct. Not a great choice for POTW.

 

[Junaids]

The careers of Lyon and Swann overlapped. They both benefitted from modern DRS and the consequent willingness of on-field umpires to give LBW decisions.

Swann won a series in India.

Swann averaged just under 30.

Lyon can’t get his average under 30 in any of the four innings of Test matches.

Lyon is a fine bowler, but I would prefer Swann as a pure bowler, and as an overall cricketer I’d take Ashwin over Lyon because he will score you 60 runs per Test.