Remove this Banner Ad

Cummins Overrated?

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

being only 24, he has plenty of time to improve his trade. With an average of 27 with the bat and ball he is already quality.
 
Convenient time to stick the boots in after one average days play where the pitch was offering little and he was clearly under the weather. All reports are pointing to him having a bug that knocked him around so badly that he actually slept in the lunch and tea breaks, but despite this he still came out and bowled throughout the day. The guy is a warrior and will only get better with some continuity in the side.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Before the series, you wouldn't have picked him ahead of Hazlewood or Starc, surely, which makes him the third quick. As far as third quicks go around the world, he goes pretty well.

Collectively, a side of good batsmen will feed off each other, leading each other onto greater and greater scores as they don't take runs off each other. Bowlers, on the other hand, take wickets off each other, which is alright when you've 1 or two good bowlers running around but not when you've 4 at about the same level. All of a sudden you get players who have a dud series due almost to the luck of the draw, and people talking about them as though they're ordinary when in fact they've been the unlucky one this time around. Take a look at Hazlewood and Starc's incredible averages/strike rates over this series - and Lyons too - and you'll get why he hasn't taken wickets as often as he maybe should.

Most countries can't field attacks this quick, or this varied. England'd kill for a young up and comer like Cummins.
 
Gethelred said:
Before the series, you wouldn't have picked him ahead of Hazlewood or Starc, surely, which makes him the third quick. As far as third quicks go around the world, he goes pretty well.

Collectively, a side of good batsmen will feed off each other, leading each other onto greater and greater scores as they don't take runs off each other. Bowlers, on the other hand, take wickets off each other, which is alright when you've 1 or two good bowlers running around but not when you've 4 at about the same level. All of a sudden you get players who have a dud series due almost to the luck of the draw, and people talking about them as though they're ordinary when in fact they've been the unlucky one this time around. Take a look at Hazlewood and Starc's incredible averages/strike rates over this series - and Lyons too - and you'll get why he hasn't taken wickets as often as he maybe should.

Most countries can't field attacks this quick, or this varied. England'd kill for a young up and comer like Cummins.
Click to expand...

Yes, there's only 10 wickets an inning and it's tough to share amongst 4 gun bowlers in-form. He'll go well in South Africa, where it suits genuine fast bowlers even more.
 
Ordinary, unproven bowler at state level and shows it at Test level. Bowls too short, doesn't know how to bowl to a plan or set a batsman up, just runs in and bowls like Starc and that is why they are not Test bowlers. Cummins is even worse at ODI cricket. Shane Watson was better.
 
Gethelred said:
Take a look at Hazlewood and Starc's incredible averages/strike rates over this series - and Lyons too - and you'll get why he hasn't taken wickets as often as he maybe should.

Most countries can't field attacks this quick, or this varied. England'd kill for a young up and comer like Cummins.
Click to expand...
Sorry but how does that excuse fly? He's bowled more overs than Hazlewood and taken less wickets, meaning he is worse and hasn't taken those wickets so Haze et al had to.

Shane Watson wishes he had this much defence. (On the field and off)
 
Bradesmaen said:
Sorry but how does that excuse fly? He's bowled more overs than Hazlewood and taken less wickets, meaning he is worse and hasn't taken those wickets so Haze et al had to.

Shane Watson wishes he had this much defence. (On the field and off)
Click to expand...
Sorry, but cherry-picking parts of my post to help your argument is rather thin.

There are 10 wickets in an innings. Bowlers take wickets off each other. If Hazlewood/Starc/Lyon have good series - and they have - where does that leave Cummins, other than short a few wickets?
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Gethelred said:
Sorry, but cherry-picking parts of my post to help your argument is rather thin.

There are 10 wickets in an innings. Bowlers take wickets off each other. If Hazlewood/Starc/Lyon have good series - and they have - where does that leave Cummins, other than short a few wickets?
Click to expand...
But if he was good enough, he would be getting those wickets considering he bowled the same amount of overs. Your logic is severely flawed. It's not as if he bowled a few overs and the others took all the wickets in more overs.
 
Bradesmaen said:
But if he was good enough, he would be getting those wickets considering he bowled the same amount of overs.
Click to expand...
If he was as good or better than Hazelwood, Starc, Lyon then yeah

If he is our fourth best bowler then no
 
Bradesmaen said:
But if he was good enough, he would be getting those wickets considering he bowled the same amount of overs. Your logic is severely flawed. It's not as if he bowled a few overs and the others took all the wickets in more overs.
Click to expand...
Only if you assume there is no element of luck of the draw involved.

It's one of the things we don't like to mention, but despite all the skill and the work a cricketer puts into their bowling, there's still a fair element of luck involved when you get a wicket. Put your plans in place, watch the tape to see your opponent's weaknesses, but even if you get it right the ball could flash past the edge, take the bat before the pad, get too much bounce and go over the stumps.

In this series, the others have had more luck than Cummins; otherwise, how else did Lyon get Root in the first dig in Perth? It wasn't a good ball by any measure.
 
Gethelred said:
Only if you assume there is no element of luck of the draw involved.

It's one of the things we don't like to mention, but despite all the skill and the work a cricketer puts into their bowling, there's still a fair element of luck involved when you get a wicket. Put your plans in place, watch the tape to see your opponent's weaknesses, but even if you get it right the ball could flash past the edge, take the bat before the pad, get too much bounce and go over the stumps.

In this series, the others have had more luck than Cummins; otherwise, how else did Lyon get Root in the first dig in Perth? It wasn't a good ball by any measure.
Click to expand...
Well then, lets just throw out all the stats and base it on luck of the draw. Despite this happening in 4 straight test matches.

You heard it folks, cricket = luck. Thats it.
 
Bradesmaen said:
Well then, lets just throw out all the stats and base it on luck of the draw. Despite this happening in 4 straight test matches.

You heard it folks, cricket = luck. Thats it.
Click to expand...
Hyperbole much?

If you're determined to think Cummins overrated, by all means feel free.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

W
    • Haha
    • Like
Ashes - the most overrated sporting contest?
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
3K
Kappa
Kappa

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom