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
The other thing that confuses me a bit is when pundits say things like, "He's got the technique, so he just needs to get the mental side of his game sorted out and he'll be fine." Mental problems are invariably harder to sort out than technical ones, and I'd much rather they chose someone whose head is in the right place and worked on the technical side of his game than someone whose head is ****ed but is technically perfect.
Personally I think not having enough faith in yourself and your ability is a pathway to other mental issues that will ultimately affect your game. His technique never looked amazing either though in my opinion. Certainly didn't stand out from anyone else batting to me.
I don't think Bell knows what approach to take and tries them all.
I don't know what to say.Agree with someone else here who said you sound eerily familiar...
Please explain how my views are "parochial"? (Yes I know the meaning of the word, but I can't see how you could come to that conclusion after a matter of a few posts on cricket).
Bare in mind only Australian forumites have argued against my point. That pretty much says it all and proves my point does it not? (That Australian sportsmen/women and fans, in general, don't find "cockiness" to be cocky- not you or anyone in particular, but just the general feeling I get when watching interviews).
I don't think anyone genuinely viewed Ganga as a long term player for the West Indies outside of Trinidad and Trinidad whereas Bell was scouted in his early 20's as a long-term England player in both formats of the game (this was before the invention of T-20).
The fact both get starts and piss it away is very similar, but Bell seems in complete control before he gets out and the times I've seen Daren Ganga, he's looked pretty uneasy.
Bell should have AT LEAST 4 more centuries to his name (nearer 6-8). That would be a century under every 7 innings and people would say what a ratio that is.
All-Time Test XI:
Gavaskar, Boycott, Tendulkar, G.Pollock, V.Richards, Sobers, Gilchrist (wk), Warne (c), Waqar/Wasim, Lillee, Ambrose.
Overwhelmingly Bell's most common method of dismissal is caught wicketkeeper or slip - same as most good-to-decent Test batsmen. However, he also gets bowled and lbw with enough regularity to suggest there's no one recurring fault there. I can't remember off the top of my head if he's got out caught in front of the wicket in the ring regularly against Australia, but he certainly hasn't against all teams.
He just doesn't have - or hasn't so far demonstrated - the ability to play well enough for really long periods of time to do anything much of note against top-quality attacks. Though he's very capable of pasting weak attacks for lots and lots of runs. In a way he's similar to Collingwood, though Collingwood has recently shown he can do more than that. But both of them have such high averages because they can cash-in very well on the relatively rare occasions they do cash-in, which disguises the fact that they fail most of the time.
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.
Devon Smith is another one, though he obviously does it far worse than Bell and even Ganga. Shiv Sundar Das is another eerily similar case from a little while back.
Ganga's test record is only slightly worse than it should be. He's only really a 30 average test player IMHO. Sure, shot selection is part of being a quality batsman and Ganga seems to play loose shots earlier in his innings than Bell, but talent wise I wouldn't say he was a 45 average batsman like Bell is.
Bell on the other hand has got to a half-century 19 times including 6 against Australia in 20 innings. 5 of those times he's been caught. I'm no saying he should've converted all 6 into centuries, but he should've 3 of them (2nd Innings @ Old Trafford in 2005; 1st Innings @ Adelaide Oval in 2006/07 and 2nd Innings @ Perth in 2006/07).
All 3 times, he played well enough to deserve a century but then got out via poor shot selection.
Talent wise he's way above Ganga and should be averaging 45 against all the countries at least in England.
So what are you if you think you know what I or Phillip Hughes am thinking? You've branded him cocky on the back of a statement that suggests he is because you think privately he's got tickets on himself.
I think you have an overly grandiose perception of your own mental abilities just quietly.
And I don't think the suggestion has been made that sportsmen always tell the truth, the question simply was how do you know what Hughes is like away from the cameras? You're making massive assumptions with nothing concrete to back them up. Unless we're supposed to believe that every sportsperson is a **** off camera...
Or, you could be Andre Nel
Last edited by Son Of Coco; 22-05-2009 at 06:31 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)