View Poll Results: What will the score be in the 2006-07 Ashes series?

Voters
17. You may not vote on this poll
  • 5-0 Aussies

    1 5.88%
  • 3-2 poms

    2 11.76%
  • 5-0 poms

    2 11.76%
  • 4-1 aussies

    4 23.53%
  • 3-2 Aussies

    5 29.41%
  • 4-1 poms

    0 0%
  • Drawn series

    3 17.65%
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 126

Thread: Will England Choke in 2006/07 Ashes And wats your best aussieXI

  1. #76
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Nnanden
    Ahh... no you didn`t. You might think adding in words to make an arguement is pretty witty, but I don`t.
    And that might not be what I appeared to say, but it's certainly what I meant. I know what I meant. You may not.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  2. #77
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    I said no-one has ever had a single good game?
    Sorry, where?
    I said no-one has ever had consistent success in Australia outside The SCG, because it's the only square in Australia that consistently produces turners. Of course you'll get the odd one here and there elsewhere, and of course you'll get the odd instance where a fingerspinner gets a decent bag on a non-turner due to poor strokes, but you'll not get it consistently.
    How do you know that he didn't get those wickets on unresponsive surfaces by actually bowling well? Have you seen the games, for example? Highlights, maybe? Have you read reports which suggested he took 5/36 in the first innings with a series of long-hops smacked to deep midwicket?

    Or are you just making a blind, stupid assumption about something you know absolutely nothing about?

    Thought so.
    I know a place where a royal flush
    Can never beat a pair

  3. #78
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Tell me, please - how does a fingerspinner get wickets on an unresponsive surface?
    Poor strokes.
    Nought else.
    If he can't turn the ball, he can't get wickets with good bowling.

  4. #79
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Tell me, please - how does a fingerspinner get wickets on an unresponsive surface?
    Poor strokes.
    Nought else.
    If he can't turn the ball, he can't get wickets with good bowling.
    For a start, you don't have to give the ball a massive rip to get wickets through turn. Bowling spin isn't just about beating the bat or finding the edge with turn, it's about deceiving the batsman. You can do that with small amounts of turn if you bowl well, or with flight, drift, bowling good lines, bowling to your field well, changing your pace and your length, and with variations such as an arm ball or one that goes the other way.

    There are also pitches where wristspinners don't deviate the ball hugely, and good bowlers can still get wickets on them. Your above statement is equivalent to saying that a good seamer can't get wickets without swinging the ball or deviating it significantly off the pitch, when quality bowlers manage to get wickets on any sort of pitch.


  5. #80
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Seamers cannot get wickets (consistently, against top batsmen) without deviating the ball through the air or off the pitch - it's just that quality seamers can move the ball on any surface (if it's not seaming, bowl cutters and Off-Break\Leg-Break slower-balls) and can also bowl either conventional or reverse swing depending on what state the ball is in. Swing completely takes the nature of the pitch out of the equation.
    Wristspinners will turn the ball on near enough all surfaces - not always the same amount, but pretty much always.
    If, by "small amounts of turn" you mean an inch or two - no, 'fraid not. No ball turning by less than a bat's width is likely to cause problems at 50-55mph, even if very full. Bowling good lines and bowling to your field is all well and good, but all it'll do is keep the runs down. Good bowlers are generally pretty good at doing this - but they also need to take wickets. Changing pace and length, too, is all well and good and neccessary for any bowler - but at 50mph stock-ball it won't get wickets by itself. You need to move it sideways. Likewise - bowling a ball that goes the other way is no use if neither the stock-ball nor the wrong-'un turns - it's just exactly the same. Variation is only of use if your stock-ball moves (or, of course, if your variation moves and your stock-ball doesn't - but that's damn unusual).
    Finally - flight is all well and good, too, but you're only going to achieve 2 things with this:
    Loop - the ball pitching shorter than the batsman thought when seeing it out of the hand. Very useful - but only if the ball turns as well.
    Drift - almost the spinner's equivalent of swing, as turn is of seam\cut for seamers. Almost. Drift is essential for all good spinners, but unlike seamers it's only a compliment for turn. It won't get good batsmen out on it's own - because good batsmen can adjust to the ball at 50-55 as they can't adjust at 75-80.
    For a spinner to get wickets, he has to turn the ball. That is simple reality. Even the like of Derek Underwood, who could quite possibly have bowled at 65-70 mph, rarely troubled batsmen when the ball wasn't turning, and as such was infinately more effective pre-covering than post-covering.

  6. #81
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,102
    Well, if you're unable to accept the reality that every single bowler in the world can and does take wickets without deviating the ball sideways off the pitch or in the air against quality batsmen, it's impossible to discuss this issue with you.

    Simply put, the viewing of one single high quality game of cricket would dispel this myth utterly, because on all but the most severely difficult pitches, bowlers will bowl good balls that take wickets that do not move any significant distance. Sometimes the ball doesn't move off the wicket much at all, and likewise with swing, both conventional and reverse. In such conditions, good bowlers nevertheless take wickets.

  7. #82
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
    Well, if you're unable to accept the reality that every single bowler in the world can and does take wickets without deviating the ball sideways off the pitch or in the air against quality batsmen, it's impossible to discuss this issue with you.
    Of course it happens, plenty - but if the ball hasn't moved (or if other deliveries preceding it haven't) it's not a wicket-taking ball. It's just a poor stroke.
    Of course that happens - but with good batsmen it happens irregularly enough for reliance on this sort of tactic to get your wickets to result in a VERY high strike-rate - high enough to render the bowler utterly useless.
    Simply put, the viewing of one single high quality game of cricket would dispel this myth utterly, because on all but the most severely difficult pitches, bowlers will bowl good balls that take wickets that do not move any significant distance. Sometimes the ball doesn't move off the wicket much at all, and likewise with swing, both conventional and reverse. In such conditions, good bowlers nevertheless take wickets.
    How does a ball get a batsman out without deviating if he's not made a serious error?
    And how many bowlers profit from these serious errors without them being so few and far between as to cause the wicket-taking to take loads of overs?
    Few if any (McGrath 2001-2004 one, of course)
    Uneven bounce, of course ("moving up and down") comes into the issue too, don't forget. Obviously a ball that doesn't bounce as expected is a wicket-taking ball too.

  8. #83
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,584
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    It's perfectly possible to make judgements on some players without seeing them.
    Not by making extreme generalisations.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  9. #84
    International Vice-Captain Dasa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    For a spinner to get wickets, he has to turn the ball. That is simple reality. Even the like of Derek Underwood, who could quite possibly have bowled at 65-70 mph, rarely troubled batsmen when the ball wasn't turning, and as such was infinately more effective pre-covering than post-covering.
    Anyone can turn the ball, a spinner (particularly a finger-spinner) will get more wickets by using drift and flight. Even with little turn in the pitch, it is possible for a finger-spinner to be reasonably successful (as Cullen has been).

  10. #85
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    25,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Swing completely takes the nature of the pitch out of the equation.
    ...yet completely relies on the surface...

  11. #86
    International Captain Cloete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Suncorp Stadium
    Posts
    7,004
    This guy's an idiot..

    But anyway, I can't believe you guys can absolutely trash MacGill then talk up Giles and Panesar on an SCG turner. I agree with almost everything that's been said except the criticism of MacGill. Most of the English contingent on here are pertty fair on most matters, but this MacGill thing gets me every time. You'd have to be a fool to think Giles is better than MacGill!
    CWXI Regular - Member of CW Black

    Blacks ftw

  12. #87
    You'll Never Walk Alone Nate's Avatar
    Bowling tgfg Champion! Carmageddon Champion! Rainman Champion! DTunnel Champion!
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    New South Wales
    Posts
    26,900
    Don`t worry, you get used to it. Some people just refuse to accept anything.
    Jesus saves

    proudly supporting Liverpool FC

  13. #88
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cricket
    Posts
    16,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    And how many bowlers profit from these serious errors without them being so few and far between as to cause the wicket-taking to take loads of overs?
    Few if any (McGrath 2001-2004 one, of course).
    when will you give up on this crap..

  14. #89
    Hall of Fame Member luckyeddie's Avatar
    Target Champion! Stuarts Xtreme Skateboarding Champion!
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Derby, England
    Posts
    17,752
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178
    Not by making extreme generalisations.
    Richard only ever talks in extreme generalisations (yes, I recognise the irony in that statement).

    Fitting really, for the only person in the South Africa-hating west who thinks that Rampers was a great servant of England in the 1990's.
    Nigel Clough's Black and White Army, beating Forest away with 10 men

  15. #90
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178
    Not by making extreme generalisations.
    Except it's not an extreme generalisation, it's basic cricketing fact.

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •