Originally Posted by Richard
When are you going to give up imposing these mad ideas on the forum?
Originally Posted by Richard
When are you going to give up imposing these mad ideas on the forum?
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.
Got it in one, so I don't know why bowlers bother playing the game.Originally Posted by Mr. P
Why not just get 2 bowling machines and set them up.
It would also remove all chucking controversies, and there's be no need for umpires as the machine can be programmed to give the decisions as well.
Then we could get rid of batsmen and fielders and play the came completely with programmed robots.
Then there'd be no mistakes made by anyone and wouldn't it be a better game?!
Only with respect to catches in slips or short leg - everybody knows that (that statement ought to be banned, incidentally).Originally Posted by Richard
In order for the taller bowler to hit the stumps, he has to pitch the ball closer to the 'driving length' than the shorter bowler.
Thus the Munchkin bowler has the bigger margin of error for bowled or leg-before dismissals.
Strangely enough, by the same token (or by the same 'what you're toking) it could be argued that shorter batsmen have an unfair advantage over taller ones for reasons less obvious than the usually quoted 'good balance'.
Short batsmen wear smaller pads. Consequently, there is a greater chance of them being struck above the knee-roll - an anea so frequently taken as an indicator that the ball might well have gone on to pass over the top of the stumps. Consequently, they are less likely to be given out leg before wicket.
Therefore, smaller batsmen are lucky.
Most batsmen are right-handed, most bowlers are right-handed. Most bowlers deliver the ball over the wicket. Therefore, all left-handed batsmen face a right-handed bowler delivering the ball over the wicket most of the time.
Few right-handed bowlers can bowl a decent out-swinger to a right-handed batsman. Even fewer can repeat the exercise when they have to change their line to a left-hander (in-swinger here). How often have you heard commentators say "he set the ball off outside leg and it didn't swing?".
Not many balls, therefore, will be pitching outside off stump yet offering a leg-before threat to a left-handed batsman. Most balls which would go on to strike the stumps would be pitching close to or outside leg stump.
There is a lesser chance that left-handed batsmen will be dismissed leg before wicket. Therefore, left-handed batsmen are lucky.
Therefore, smaller, left-handed batsmen are doubly lucky - everybody knows that..
Nigel Clough's Black and White Army, beating Forest away with 10 men
So a Long-Hop which is bowled on purpose should not be hit for four, because it's good bowling?Originally Posted by Mr. P
Whenever someone has tried a Long-Hop tactically if you ask me that's a poor tactic. And in my experience, Long-Hops (and you can't ever say for certain whether a Long-Hop is deliberate or not) tend not to take wickets.
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.
Second part not true. On RUDs there is no error from the batsman and it is simply a delivery he had no realistic chance of playing.Originally Posted by Mr. P
But first part - true, I did not phrase it very well.
What I should have said was something along the lines of: where a bowler has encouraged error in that delivery, ie where he has drawn a batsman into playing at a ball he could leave, swinging it away and nicking it, he deserves credit for encouraging that error.
When the batsman makes an error casued by previous deliveries, which he should be putting out of his mind, the bowler doesn't deserve any credit IMO.
I've never called any advantage gained by height, fast arm, double-jointed wrist or whatever unfair - that would be wholly ridiculous - though anyone could call someone blessed with unusual abilities "lucky", but personally I just think it sort of goes without saying.Originally Posted by luckyeddie
But I do think to bowl economically from a height of 5"8' takes more accuracy than bowling from 6"6'. Because taller bowlers have a greater margin for error in length. Maybe it's a bit easier to get lbws from a shorter stature, yes, but I wasn't talking about wickets, I was talking about not getting hit for runs.
And I also refute the theory that taller bowlers find it harder to get batsmen playing - because you don't need to bowl on the length to hit the stumps to force the batsman to play, you just need to bowl on the line. Otherwise no-one would ever promote the bowling of "back-of-length" deliveries, because they'd all be let go.
I never said every long hop should not be hit for four. If the batsman can counter the tactic well, then he should hit it away, by all means. But this does not mean the bowling is not good. Just because a ball is hit for four off a long-hop we can automatically presume it was down to bad bowling.Originally Posted by Richard
How is it a poor tactic? It is perfect in many situations.
Finally if you think long-hops don't take wickets then you are blind. The slower ball (Or long-hop as we shall call it) is an extremely successful long-hop.
RUDs?Originally Posted by Richard
Roughed-Up DorksOriginally Posted by Mr. P
(aka Yorkshiremen on a Saturday night)
and i can say that the contrary is applicable to youOriginally Posted by Richard
Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!
we see it often enough from good bowlers believe me, and on most of those occasions you come up with something stupid like the 'batsman lost sight of it'.Originally Posted by Richard
and i dont see any reason why it wont continue, just like it did for pollock and mcgrath.Originally Posted by Richard
oh there were plenty of times when both of them got out either directly to a short delivery or by being pushed back into the crease and then forcing them to play a wild stroke at a ball pitched up, much the same to what happened to lara and what has happened to several international batsman in the pastOriginally Posted by Richard
oh no believe me, the chances of a batsman edging a ball that swings away to the keeper or slip is quite small indeed. whats far more likely is that he plays and misses, or that he manages to get a thick edge that falls safe, or sometimes the batsmen can even play it with the swing and get it off the middle of the bat.Originally Posted by Richard
and that because your analysis of how wickets are got is quite faulty, pressure wickets are far more important in this era than they were in any other era because the pitches have gotten flatter and it hard to bowl good deliveries(which by your definition is swinging and/or seaming deliveries) to dismiss a batsmanOriginally Posted by Richard
oh all of them do get a similar proportion of poor shots, the fact is certain bowlers are just more capable of putting the ball in the right place often enough and creating pressure. and mcgrath in particular has been a master of it. you can only be lucky for a short period of time not for an entire career.Originally Posted by Richard
oh really?so you believed that harmison had potential after the series in australia then?yet you were quite ready to drop him from the side at one point of time too?Originally Posted by Richard
oh yes it does, because if something happens that you didnt think would happen then obviously you were wrong to think so in the first place.Originally Posted by Richard
oh you've said that bowlers couldnt get wickets using only bounce....yet harmison has.Originally Posted by Richard
nope how many times must it be said, there are certain deliveries that might be too good for some batsmen and not good enough for others. the old example of hoggard-richardson from headingly comes up again because not every batsman would nick that ball.Originally Posted by Richard
regardless, whatever you want to call it, there are far more jaffas than there are wicket taking balls, because we see more plays and misses than we see edges to slip or keeper in any cricket match.
which nicely evades the issue...the point is that wicket taking balls can seldom be bowled on most tracks today because there isnt much seam movement or swing available for bowlers.....Originally Posted by Richard
oh i dont rate him as a quality leg spinner, but i dont try to make up reasons for some of his good bowling performances such as " it was a one off test so it doesnt count" etcOriginally Posted by Richard
nope malcolm marshall wasnt half as gifted as someone like holding was, he was shorter,didnt have as smooth an action and didnt have as much pace as he did. so he had to use other methods such as swing and seam movement to get wickets.Originally Posted by Richard
and i never said that viv richards had no technique, i said that he didnt have much technique (so instead of accusing me of putting words onto your keyboard you might wanna do that to yourself)which was quite the case because he relied more on hand eye coordination to score runs rather than foot movement etc.Originally Posted by Richard
and you dont need to have anywhere near a sound technique to score runs, as people like kirsten and gibbs have shown in the past.
and not once have i stated any of the above....Originally Posted by Richard
yes i know, but to dismiss players like harmison who succeed because they use natural gifts as not deserving wickets is just ludicrous especially considering that you credit people like richards who too relied heavily on natural gifts rather than concentration and technique.Originally Posted by Richard
Last edited by tooextracool; 21-09-2004 at 09:46 PM.
because the smart people realised that he relied too heavily on the conditions to suit his bowling.......Originally Posted by Richard
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)