• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Simon Katich

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Being way too appreciative of Gough's delivery. I still find it hard to have any respect at all for Katich because of that delivery. Getting a stump cartwheeled, on debut, by raising your bat above your head. IMO was lucky to ever get another game after that.
:blink:

Apart from the patent absurdity of writing a player off - completely - because of a single bad stroke, to underplay the excellence of that delivery is simply gross ignorance and points to "well it hit the stumps so a shot should have been played" ism.

Rarely if ever does a bowler get full credit for hoodwinking a batsman if he leaves the ball and is bowled\lbw. That ball swung back a mile - same true of the Simon Jones ball to Michael Clarke in 2005 - and was quite beautifully bowled. Any batsman looking to play that would simply have been bowled anyway - no-one had the slightest right to expect it to swing back that much.
 

andruid

Cricketer Of The Year
Will score 20 of his first 39 deliveries faced in the first test with 2 fours (both cover drives) before getting dropped by Monty Panesar off James Anderson in the first "defining moment of the series".

Everything he does from that point on will be overshadowed by something more epic somebody else does.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
:blink:

Apart from the patent absurdity of writing a player off - completely - because of a single bad stroke, to underplay the excellence of that delivery is simply gross ignorance and points to "well it hit the stumps so a shot should have been played" ism.

Rarely if ever does a bowler get full credit for hoodwinking a batsman if he leaves the ball and is bowled\lbw. That ball swung back a mile - same true of the Simon Jones ball to Michael Clarke in 2005 - and was quite beautifully bowled. Any batsman looking to play that would simply have been bowled anyway - no-one had the slightest right to expect it to swing back that much.
Geez, over-rating it slightly. Thought it was a decent ball but a poor leave by Kat too. Didn't think it was quite as good as Jones' vs Clarke. Been a while since I've seen it, though.
 

andruid

Cricketer Of The Year
With this post I hereby dig this thread.

methinks he might actually outshine Phil Hughes, what with his experience and extra grit he's got since 2005
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Katich averages 53 as a test opener - not just good but outstanding

If the guy managed to convert all the starts he makes into 100s then it would've been phenomenal

In short, he'll be fine
 

Jamee999

Hall of Fame Member
Am I right in thinking that on Katto's test debut he came out for the last ~4 balls of the day, but didn't face any of them, so had to sleep on 0*(0)

(Memories of Jamee circa age 8)
 

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I don't think Katich has ever had his spot as secure as it is on this tour. He'd have to have a very bad tour to face the axe. I'd say if he gets out cheaply in the first two tests the demons of previous tours may start to haunt him.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Katto's great, but I think if we bowl well at him he can be contained at least even when at the absolute peak of his game. With the way the young bloke who opens with him bats tho I wouldn't be so sure.

If Hughes is good enough to play the way he does in tests then kudos to him; when he's on song you'll just have to take it on the chin from time to time.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
:blink:


Rarely if ever does a bowler get full credit for hoodwinking a batsman if he leaves the ball and is bowled\lbw. That ball swung back a mile - same true of the Simon Jones ball to Michael Clarke in 2005 - and was quite beautifully bowled. Any batsman looking to play that would simply have been bowled anyway - no-one had the slightest right to expect it to swing back that much.
And you never give a batsman credit for owning a bowler......
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
:huh:

A batsman cannot own a bowler - that's not how cricket works. The ball is bowled, then it is faced. Without a ball being bowled, it cannot be received.

Ergo, a bowler is either too good for the batsman or he's not too good for the batsman. Obviously, the better a batsman is at batting, the harder a bowler has to work to be too good for him, and the worse a bowler, the less chance he has of achieving the requisites to be too good for the batsman, but the batsman's part in cricket comes second - always. So he cannot do what he does so well that the bowler has no chance, because the bowler does his bit first.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Am I right in thinking that on Katto's test debut he came out for the last ~4 balls of the day, but didn't face any of them, so had to sleep on 0*(0)

(Memories of Jamee circa age 8)
Afraid not - but pretty close. The wicket that brought Katich to the crease fell in the day's final over, but under such circumstances (ie, a wicket in the last over) the day's play is brought to a close. So Katich first came out the following day.

He did come out to face 6 balls in the second-innings and did not score from any of them, however, before yet more rain saw Australia's declaration which meant that rather than being out-of-sight they had merely a total that would've won 99 out of 100 similar matches. Thanks to Mark Butcher's brilliance, it didn't win this one.
 

andruid

Cricketer Of The Year
:huh:

A batsman cannot own a bowler - that's not how cricket works. The ball is bowled, then it is faced. Without a ball being bowled, it cannot be received.

Ergo, a bowler is either too good for the batsman or he's not too good for the batsman. Obviously, the better a batsman is at batting, the harder a bowler has to work to be too good for him, and the worse a bowler, the less chance he has of achieving the requisites to be too good for the batsman, but the batsman's part in cricket comes second - always. So he cannot do what he does so well that the bowler has no chance, because the bowler does his bit first.
Yes he can. When a batsman is in good enough nick to pi9ck and play everything a bowler throws at him then he has owned that bowler.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Nah, he was in shocking form when he was dropped. He literally couldn't score a run in Australia.
The irony though was that he was still being picked in the ODI side around that time quite regularly. Now Katich is a decent ODI player,but not sure what he was doing representing the best side in the world as an opening bat in ODIs.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
:huh:

A batsman cannot own a bowler - that's not how cricket works. The ball is bowled, then it is faced. Without a ball being bowled, it cannot be received.

Ergo, a bowler is either too good for the batsman or he's not too good for the batsman. Obviously, the better a batsman is at batting, the harder a bowler has to work to be too good for him, and the worse a bowler, the less chance he has of achieving the requisites to be too good for the batsman, but the batsman's part in cricket comes second - always. So he cannot do what he does so well that the bowler has no chance, because the bowler does his bit first.
:blowup:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Yes he can. When a batsman is in good enough nick to pi9ck and play everything a bowler throws at him then he has owned that bowler.
That cannot happen - there is always an avenue for a bowler to produce something no batsman is capable of playing. If a bowler is not good enough to produce this, that is a bowler not being good enough to oust a batsman, not a batsman owning a bowler.
 

andruid

Cricketer Of The Year
That cannot happen - there is always an avenue for a bowler to produce something no batsman is capable of playing. If a bowler is not good enough to produce this, that is a bowler not being good enough to oust a batsman, not a batsman owning a bowler.
Oh Yes it can (happen) [/Pantomine Voice]


Seriuosly I could coversely argue that there is always an avenue for a batsman to safely negotiate, even punish every single conceivable delivery any batsman could possibly throw at him, thus when the batsman fails to do so he is the one not being good enough and then conlude that under no circumstances can a bowler be too good for a batsman, rather it is the batsman being inadequate to weild his righteous dominance on the bowler. However doing so would be accepting the logic that defines your argument realting to batsmen v. bowling which is absurd (if not outright po mo)
 
Last edited:

Top