No, That's sledging. Richard's way.
No, That's sledging. Richard's way.
Watch that Kumble ball at the same time as the Inzamam ball at Lahore the previous season.Originally Posted by shankar
There's no difference.
Both were magnificent balls that neither Inzamam nor Kumble was ever going to keep out.
Both looped, drifted in, then turned enormously away. Whether you step out or stay back, doesn't make much difference.
I'd say Giles bowled enough good wicket-taking balls to be said to have deserved the first-innings figures he got.
Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourthcricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006
(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
Err, any drop takes away from any innings - regardless of the circumstances.Originally Posted by aussie
Because regardless of the circumstances, an innings still wouldn't have happened but for the drop.
Nope...Originally Posted by Swervy
What compelling evidence have you to disprove it then? You watched all 3 of Ahmedabad 2001\02 (when both turned it plenty), Bangalore 2001\02 (when neither turned it an inch) and The Oval 2002 (when neither turned it an inch) did you? You noticed what happened?
If so, you clearly wouldn't come to the conclusion that Harbhajan has some magical gift to spin the ball more than the human hand normally allows.
I don't recall the Kumble delivery exactly, so I won't comment further on it. But even including it it's still just 2 deserved wickets - Anyone could have gotten Laxman the way he was slogging at the end and Srinath and Harbhajan's wickets are obviously not any great achievment - Infact just a few posts ago you've dismissed Harbhajan's five-for at Headingley saying that it contained only 2 top order wickets.Originally Posted by Richard
The Oval, not Headingley.
It contained just 2 top-order wickets and a sum-total of 0 wicket-taking deliveries.
I feel that Giles bowled 2 deliveries that were very much wicket-taking, 1 decent one and 2 that were the result of very poor batting.
Which I feel deserves a five-for if it happens to get one.
If you cut-out every dismissal that doesn't come from a wicket-taking ball you won't have many left. What I make an issue of is when you get bowlers taking 3 or 6 wickets in an innings without a single wicket-taking ball. If you bowl 2 in an innings, I'd say you pretty much deserve any good figures you get.
Please, there was nothing special about the ball that got Srinath. In the end it's still just one top-order wicket of a very mediocre batsman and 3 tail-enders! I'd say it was a decent defensive spell of bowling but nothing special wicket-taking wise.Originally Posted by Richard
I didn't call the Srinath ball a wicket-taking one. Clearly, though, it was better than the Harbhajan and Laxman ones.
I'd say it was a good spell of bowling - I'm not a big one for "attacking" \ "defensive" bowling.
HA HA Phil Jaques! I swear he plays French cricket?
and i love the way now its Flintoff who carries the team and the only half decent player, sorry who was it last time?
did you say, S.Jones, Pieterson or maybe even Harmison?
before the ashes even England fans were saying if he's on form he's our only hope, and he did whitewash the Aussie batsmen in the ODIs from his ten overs per match and in the first test, first innings just before he went off form again Auss were crippled at 187 or so ALL OUT!
That's the problem with pretty much most of the England team though (incosistency) and i haven't seen them ever change and i don't expect them to neither but they usually pull together for the big games.
The England middle order batting consistency is shocking first choice or not (and to be fair to England they've played ALL of their games since the Ashes with most their team missing).
Englands pace bowling first choice bowling is breathtaking and with so many of them injured the youthfull depth has had to come good and they have, under a losing team (proving they're up to it) which is completely the opposite compared to the Aussie backup pensioners who manage to return half-decent figures under a pressureless winning team when they get the chance against West Indies who id expect my Grandma to beat.
apart from Lee and possibly Tait pushing it Australias pace attack is mediocre at best.
and of course medium pacer Mgrath is world class if he can still get out of bed but then he'll probably tread on a ball again
Australia has got the best batting and spin bowling and id definately give them the edge
it's a shame they're still seeming to under-estimate their Ashes victors and rivals which could lead to their downfall again.
England definately with the better pace attack AND backup and maybe the injuries to most of the team (batsmen and bowlers) will serve them well.
good luck our Aussie Counter-Parts (your gonna need it).
I'll put this fairly simply as a long-winded reply simply isn't worth the time and effort - I don't think you know that much about bowling.Originally Posted by Richard
R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best
R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi
Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath
"How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.
"There's more chance of SoC making a good post than Smith averaging 99.95." - Furball
"**** you're such a **** poster." - Furball
Yet MacGill's strike rate remains around 50, which is indisputably the most important statistic when you consider the role he plays in the team.Originally Posted by Richard
"The Australian cricket captain is the Prime Minister Australia wishes it had. Steve Waugh is that man, Michael Clarke is not." - Jarrod Kimber
RIP Fardin Qayyumi and Craig Walsh - true icons of CricketWeb.
Yeah but Giles economy rate is indisputably the most important statistic when you consider the role he plays in the teamOriginally Posted by LongHopCassidy
Giles economy rate is nothing special though. In fact, it's worse than most of the other good spinners in world cricket.Originally Posted by Golaxi
Economy rates, for comparison:
Murali - 2.38
Kumble - 2.62
Warne - 2.64
Vettori - 2.67
Harbhajan - 2.79
Giles - 2.85
Kaneria - 3.04
MacGill - 3.15
Now, strike rates...
Murali - 55.99
Warne - 57.51
Kaneria - 61.16
Harbhajan - 64.90
Kumble - 65.79
Vettori - 77.45
Giles - 83.49
It really is remarkable how good MacGill's is, which is why people bring it up so much. To find a spinner with a strike rate like that, you have to go back to the 19th century.
I know a place where a royal flush
Can never beat a pair
I think I do.Originally Posted by Son Of Coco
Not so - even given the recent improvement in his figures, his SR since Adelaide 2000\01 is 61.7, which is very much average.Originally Posted by LongHopCassidy
And before the most recent 6 games it was up at 71.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)