players Who You Thought WOULDN'T Make It.............

[tooextracool]

Wrong, you can be lucky for any length of time.

so what was the point of this then ?

"Originally Posted by tooextracool
and i dont see any reason why it wont continue, just like it did for pollock and mcgrath. "

"For the same reason it didn't with Hoggard for the Second, Third (Sri Lanka) and First (India) Tests in 2002. And the many, many other bowlers who've had spells of getting a good average due to lots of poor strokes."

Yes, I was quite justified in saying he should be dropped from the side up to the final Test at The Oval last summer, because unlike some people I don't believe a player has to play international cricket for him to develop.
Just because I think someone has potential doesn't mean I think they should continue to be picked..

which is stupid, because time and time again we've seen players develop after playing quality bowlers and batsman at the international level.
and no matter how stupid you are, you dont drop anyone with potential, if you had dropped someone like harmison after his performance in australia would you have ever picked him again given his continuing poor domestic record? and what a smart move that would have been now?

I thought it would happen - I was not certain it would happen. No-one can ever but guess at what'll happen, and they can't be said to be wrong, just to have guessed wrong. Anyone who says "x\y will happen" is setting themselves up for a fall.

of course if you think that something will happen that doesnt then you are wrong if it doesnt you big big fool. if i think the answer to a question is something and if ithe answer ends up being different does that mean it isnt wrong then?

No, he hasn't, he's used poor strokes. He's not benefited from repeated top-edged cross-bat strokes or batsmen being gloved or spliced. That's what getting wickets with bounce involves. That the poor strokes were caused by bounce is merely due to the perception of the viewers involved.

now im certain that you havent been watching any of his bowling in the last 7 months...seriously there have been many many occasions of batsmen gloving and top edging him in the last 7 months anybody whos watched it knows that....

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, you don't need to keep telling me that there are far more jaffas than wicket-taking balls, I'm more than aware of that.
You do, however, need to get out of your head the idea that the what the ball is will be decided the second it's bowled. If the batsman nicks (or, in Richardson's case, gloves) the ball, it's a RUD - if he doesn't, it's a Jaffa. We only know what it is after it passes the batsman.

yes but its quite like that the same ball wouldnt have been nicked by several other batsmen....therefore you cant say for sure whether a delivery is a jaffa or a wicket-taking delivery in the first place....so you cant say that all wicket taking balls will take a wicket, because the same ball would not have been a wicket taking ball had some other batsman who wasnt as capable had played at it...

Rubbish, wicket-taking balls can be bowled on any track, by bowling cutters. And there is swing available at almost any stage, either conventional or reverse. There are only about 10-15 overs where no swing happens with a red-ball, about 30-45. Sometimes, of course, a ball will swing conventionally for 80 overs - occasionally, it'll be reversing by the 30th over. It all depends on the state of the outfield, to a lesser extent the pitch, and the type of ball used - a Kookaburra lasts longer than a Duke or a Reader, for instance.

rubbishm far more often there is no swing at all after the first 25 overs, along with the fact that there is no seam movement it makes it almost impossible to bowl a wicket taking delivery.

The point is, it wasn't good bowling, it was poor batting that the batsmen would have had the chance to rectify if they'd got another go at him..

oh no there was good bowling, its quite conceivable that sometime just sometime he might actually have bowled accurately and not bowled as many long hops then?

You try telling some of the batsmen who faced both that Holding was significantly quicker! No-one has ever said that. The fact is, we'll never know if either was quicker or exactly how quick either was, but we can tell that there was no significant difference in their speed.

hold on a second here, if you cant tell that either of them was quicker then how can you say that there was no significant difference in their speed. after all every batsman that faced both said that holding was much faster than marshall....

And Michael Holding used two methods to get his wickets - seam-movement and cutters. Like many tall bowlers, he was not a swing bowler. Just like Curtley Ambrose. Marshall used more methods, but had less advantage with bounce.
Dennis Lillee, on the other hand, was a tall swing-bowler. But I still think Marshall was better, and so, by the sounds of things, do most people..

err yes i know what they were capable off, but that doesnt escape the fact that bowlers like holding were far more gifted than bowlers like marhsall....so why do you not consider holding lucky then?

I know that, but you do need some technique. I have never said you need anything like a sound technique - others have, and I've said shot-selection is the important thing. It doesn't matter how few shots you have, what matters is how often you know when to use which shot. The more often you pick the right one, the better player you are.
Like it or not, Viv Richards had a perfectly sound technique that worked for him. He also had excellent hand-eye coordination and very, very good shot-selection. That shot-selection, though, was most unorthodox.

no he didnt have a 'sound technique' he had limitations such as the tendency to play on the front foot but he worked his way around it by playing front foot pull shots etc. in the same way you cant guarantee me that someone like hick would in fact fail when he had a similar weakness.

No, I never said "you did", but they are generalisations held fond by many, many cricket followers..

what point does it make in this argument which concerns me and you then?

Concentration is a natural gift - you can learn it only to an extent. And if you think Richards (or any good player, ever) didn't need it for his success you're very stupid indeed.
All good players use a lot of natural gift (otherwise anyone who wanted to could be a good player) and, usually, a lot of hard work.

and yet again you take both sides of an argument...that last line what half my posts in this thread are about....natural gifts are indeed important and just because someone like harmison relied heavily natual gifts it doesnt mean that they dont deserve any credit for taking wickets...
and not once did i say that richards didnt need concentration....its you putting words on my keyboard, i said that he relied far more on natural gifts than he did on concentration and technique......

 

[tooextracool]

Which changes the fact that almost everyone said he bowled really well and should have been playing a lot more for the last 10 years how?

the same people who you claim know not half as much about cricket as you do?just because many fools err people say that he deserved to play doesnt make it true....

 

[Richard]

Then there's Old Trafford 2004, to a certain World Record holding West Indian.

In spite of the fact we've seen this particular batsman and thousands and thousands of other instances where straight-on Yorkers and Bouncers have been played without the slightest difficulty.

 

[Richard]

Why?

How does him fluking staying in when he should've been dismissed make him a better batsman and worthy of credit?

Because the chances are it wasn't fluking anything.
And if it was, it's just the same as being drawn into driving an away-swinger and nicking it where there's no fielder.
It's a poor stroke, but it didn't get you out - every mistake won't. You've done well enough to avoid dismissal.
Unlike a dropped catch, where you've not done so - you've done everything that will normally result in your dismissal, only the fielder's incompetance has averted it.

 

[Richard]

well done in spotting the sarcasm....

Yes, and equally well done in answering it in such a clinical way that the best response was "well done in spotting the sarcasm".

 

[Richard]

and if harmison got those wickets by luck then so did bicknell....especially the long hop that got hall.regardless there was swing and movement off the pitch for bicknell to work with on those last 2 days....

Err, there was no movement off the pitch which got wickets, but the movement through the air was possibly in the ball that got Graeme Smith lbw, like no other bowler had managed that series (except Kirtley when he inside-edged the cover off it), and then those 3 away-swingers followed by an in-swinger that had Jacques Rudolph all at sea.
Not to mention, of course, those 2 Long-Hops which got Harmison his last 2 wickets. Nor the poor lbw decision which saw-off Jacques Kallis.

 

[Richard]

There is a mistake off every wicket. No matter how "realistically unplayable" it seems. Just because he has "done all can be expected to do," doesn't mean there is no mistake.

Well, all right - but no more mistake than is made every second of every minute of every hour of every day. The sort of mistakes that human-beings make.
Perfection does not exist - but I think most people will agree that there are sometimes dismissals that the batsman cannot be expected to have avoided.

 

[Richard]

Of course a 70mph half-tracker can be effective.

You say the aim is to make the batsman play early, well yes, and that applies to pulls and hooks as well. This is tactics mate, this is a long-hop, it takes wickets, it deserves them.

Well, OK, then - you give credit where you think it's due, I'll give it where I think it's due.
Personally I also think that you can never be certain where a bad delivery was bowled deliberately - the bowler might say it was, but it's kinda embarrasing getting a wicket with a terrible delivery, so they'll often joke that "I was trying that".

 

[Richard]

no he didnt lose sight of the wicket....how someone who makes such a stupid claim can accusing me of not watching cricket is amazing....occasions where a batsman can lose sight of a ball are extremely rare indeed, and mostly have something to do with movement behind the bowlers arm. lara was just out-thought

Well, there's a new one - Lara didn't lose sight of the respective deliveries.
Yes, despite the fact everyone else who I've ever heard talk about the Old Trafford wicket and the 2 balls before the Edgbaston wicket said he lost sight of it.
Yes, occasions where batsmen fail to pick-up the ball are extremely rare - but you think about how many balls are bowled, you'll see that it'll happen plenty. And they're not always to do with movement behind the arm - most sightscreens nowadays are palpably substandard, most bowlers deliver from above them. As per usual, money (and more seating) takes priority over the quality of the cricket.
So it's not in the least surprising that batsmen don't pick-up the ball on occasions.

 

[Richard]

or the fact that they are completely different bowlers perhaps? hoggard for instance isnt anywhere near as accurate or for that matter anywhere near as good as mcgrath......

No, he's not. But nonetheless, he had a spell of Test-matches (that actually began in India) where he picked-up wickets at a good average, despite having bowled very poorly. Very similar, in fact, to Harmison.

this is got to be the foolish post you have ever come up with

For about the 50th time...
Aren't you getting bored with posting that crap line yet?

the fact that they played a poor stroke had a direct connection to the ball(s) before where they were pushed back on the crease

In your perception it did - in mine, I've seen too many instances of persistant short-pitched bowling failing (and inevitably there is going to be the odd fuller delivery in there, there always is) to believe this "being pushed back" rubbish.

it seems that you have lost the argument again, and are coming up with stupid posts like those when you have nothing to reply to my post.....

And it seems that you are resorting to this again.

nope, sometimes particularly when you dont have much pace, good batsman can play along with the swing...we've seen many occasions of batsmen hitting swinging balls for four through the covers.....

Yes, if the swing is too early. Everyone knows that early swing, at 70mph, isn't that threatening. Swing at any point at 90mph is, very threatening. Equally, late swing at 65mph is threatening.
But if we could teach the difference between swinging it late and swinging it early, we could make 50 Test-class bowlers a day.

yes so finally you admit that it happens so very irregularly, just about as regularly as short balls picking up wickets....

No, not that irregularly.

 

[Richard]

which is stupid, because time and time again we've seen players develop after playing quality bowlers and batsman at the international level.
and no matter how stupid you are, you dont drop anyone with potential, if you had dropped someone like harmison after his performance in australia would you have ever picked him again given his continuing poor domestic record? and what a smart move that would have been now?

Except, if the potential had begun to develop, his domestic record would have improved. Just like, for instance, Vaughan's did as soon as he made the adjustments in his game. From 2000, his domestic-First-Class-average is well over 50.
We've never seen players develop because they're playing at the international level - the time for development is off the field, the time for performance is on the field.
It is ridiculous to say "you don't drop someone with potential" - you pick your best side, that you think will win you the up-and-coming Test-match. You then give that player you think has potential his best chance to develop.
And in my experience, the best way to develop a potentially good bowler isn't to let them get smacked around the park in a Test-match. All that'll do is dent their confidence. And lose you Test-matches.
Regardless, if someone isn't performing, you can only give them so many chances. But for the 4-33 in the Oval second-innings, I can't believe Harmison's first opportunity wouldn't have run-out. At 24, though, he'd still have had plenty of opportunity to go back to the domestic level and improve.
Fortunately for England, the 4-33 happened, and Harmison has played a large part in the sensational 7 months England have enjoyed.

of course if you think that something will happen that doesnt then you are wrong if it doesnt you big big fool. if i think the answer to a question is something and if ithe answer ends up being different does that mean it isnt wrong then?

OK, fine - "I was wrong to think that Harmison wouldn't get figures anywhere near as good as those he's got in the last 7 months".
Happy now?
It will still do you sod-all good if I turn-out to be right in predicting that these figures will be evened-out in the next 14-15 months.

now im certain that you havent been watching any of his bowling in the last 7 months

Then you're certain of one more thing that's not true then.

seriously there have been many many occasions of batsmen gloving and top edging him in the last 7 months anybody whos watched it knows that....

And how many of those occasions have resulted in wickets...?

 

[Richard]

yes but its quite like that the same ball wouldnt have been nicked by several other batsmen....therefore you cant say for sure whether a delivery is a jaffa or a wicket-taking delivery in the first place....so you cant say that all wicket taking balls will take a wicket, because the same ball would not have been a wicket taking ball had some other batsman who wasnt as capable had played at it...

A wicket-taking ball has taken a wicket.
A Jaffa has been played-and-missed at.
This is decided AFTER THE BALL HAS PASSED THE BATSMAN AND STUMPS.
Of course you can't say what will be what as it comes out of the hand, I've just said that.
But once a ball has been bowled and the result is known, you can say what the delivery was. If it got a wicket, it deserved it. If it didn't, it might have taken a wicket - but tough luck. Bowl another one and maybe that will.

rubbishm far more often there is no swing at all after the first 25 overs, along with the fact that there is no seam movement it makes it almost impossible to bowl a wicket taking delivery.

Wrong, you can always use the off-cutter or leg-cutter to move the ball off the pitch. You can also use the off-break slower-ball if the pitch is turning enough.

oh no there was good bowling, its quite conceivable that sometime just sometime he might actually have bowled accurately and not bowled as many long hops then?

Oh, of course there will have been these times, and on them he's a very good bowler (eg Bridgetown, 2003) - but they're so rare that it seems a bit of a coincidence to me that they might have both occurred in a South Africa Test-match where he played just once that series. And judging by his economy-rate in one of those games and by watching the game in the other, I can say otherwise for certain.

hold on a second here, if you cant tell that either of them was quicker then how can you say that there was no significant difference in their speed. after all every batsman that faced both said that holding was much faster than marshall....

Did they really? Why have I not once heard anyone say that, then? And let me assure you, I've read and listened to plenty of batsmen who faced both.
The only time I've ever heard Holding rated "the fastest bowler in The World" was by Boycs after The Greatest Over Of All-Time - not surprising, given that Marshall had hardly played at that point.

err yes i know what they were capable off, but that doesnt escape the fact that bowlers like holding were far more gifted than bowlers like marhsall....so why do you not consider holding lucky then?

Oh, he was lucky, but that's so obvious that no-one mentions it.
Same way no-one mentions the fact that every cricketer who is more gifted than another is lucky - it's sort of very obvious.
And personally I'd say that Holding's height was cancelled-out by Marshall's greater control of length - so, it seems, would everyone else who rated Marshall the better bowler.

no he didnt have a 'sound technique' he had limitations such as the tendency to play on the front foot but he worked his way around it by playing front foot pull shots etc. in the same way you cant guarantee me that someone like hick would in fact fail when he had a similar weakness.

Did anyone ever manage to exploit that perceived weakness to make him fail for an extended stretch? No, thought not.
So therefore it wasn't really much of a weakness at all.

what point does it make in this argument which concerns me and you then?

Because you've come very close to saying those sorts of things.

and yet again you take both sides of an argument...that last line what half my posts in this thread are about....natural gifts are indeed important and just because someone like harmison relied heavily natual gifts it doesnt mean that they dont deserve any credit for taking wickets...
and not once did i say that richards didnt need concentration....its you putting words on my keyboard, i said that he relied far more on natural gifts than he did on concentration and technique......

Despite the fact that concentration is a natural gift. Which he relied very heavily upon, like any good batsman.
If you ask me anyone who relies very heavily on exclusively poor strokes to get wickets deserves less credit than someone who bowls good deliveries to get a proportion of their wickets.

 

[Swervy]

Despite the fact that concentration is a natural gift. Which he relied very heavily upon, like any good batsman.
If you ask me anyone who relies very heavily on exclusively poor strokes to get wickets deserves less credit than someone who bowls good deliveries to get a proportion of their wickets.

I would argue against that..there are definatly ways that one can train oneself to increase concentration levels

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, and equally well done in answering it in such a clinical way that the best response was "well done in spotting the sarcasm".

and equally well done in making a fool of yourself again.....

 

[tooextracool]

Err, there was no movement off the pitch which got wickets, but the movement through the air was possibly in the ball that got Graeme Smith lbw, like no other bowler had managed that series (except Kirtley when he inside-edged the cover off it), and then those 3 away-swingers followed by an in-swinger that had Jacques Rudolph all at sea.
Not to mention, of course, those 2 Long-Hops which got Harmison his last 2 wickets. Nor the poor lbw decision which saw-off Jacques Kallis.

rubbish there was movement off the pitch early on, there almost always is in england, and there was plenty of movement in the air, both of which are primary requirements for bicknell to come close to bowling well.
interesting you say that rudolphs wicket had to with good bowling, when in fact it had to do with poor batting where he just let the ball hit the stumps, not surprising though because he basically played rubbish throughout that series....good batsmen dont make those mistakes though.
and the kallis decision wasnt poor at all, it was one of the several decisions that involved doubt but which usually go either way. kallis was back in his crease too.
the greame smith wicket, as much as you would hate to believe had as much to do with bad batting as any of your so called harmisons lucky wickets. graeme smith has the tendency to plant his front foot in front of mid stump to anything that pitches on off or mid stump, which makes him susceptible to the ball that comes into him.
interestingly you forget to look at harmisons wicket of kirsten, got the ball to move away and get the outside edge of kirsten's bat.....another one of those lucky wickets i presume?
and im not surprised that you missed out the long hop on leg stump that bicknell used to get hall out either......

 

[tooextracool]

Well, there's a new one - Lara didn't lose sight of the respective deliveries.
Yes, despite the fact everyone else who I've ever heard talk about the Old Trafford wicket and the 2 balls before the Edgbaston wicket said he lost sight of it.

and who are these so called people who you've heard so that?you're little imaginary experts who you claim know nothing about cricket anyways?

Yes, occasions where batsmen fail to pick-up the ball are extremely rare - but you think about how many balls are bowled, you'll see that it'll happen plenty. And they're not always to do with movement behind the arm - most sightscreens nowadays are palpably substandard, most bowlers deliver from above them. As per usual, money (and more seating) takes priority over the quality of the cricket.
So it's not in the least surprising that batsmen don't pick-up the ball on occasions.

no and it definetly doesnt happen as often as thrice in 30 balls or so. you can continue to make up stuff that didnt happen, just to try and save your life long theories that just dont seem to be working as well as you want them to.

 

[tooextracool]

No, he's not. But nonetheless, he had a spell of Test-matches (that actually began in India) where he picked-up wickets at a good average, despite having bowled very poorly. Very similar, in fact, to Harmison..

whats the **** is your point though? hes not half as accurate as what mcgrath is or even harmison is ATM, he definetly doesnt get as much bounce as harmison or mcgrath are capable off. yes of course there have been some bowlers who are not so good who have had small spells where they have taken a lot off wickets where have i ever denied that?
but because he was never half as good as mcgrath his luck didnt carry on for too long, mcgrath on the other hand has bowled well consistently everywhere in the world, hence hes got more wickets.
and seriously when will you stop making up stuff that didnt happen? hoggard took wickets in india at 31, nowhere near as good as mcgrath has been taking them and the only reason he even got close to taking them at 31 was because off the 4 wickets that he took in b'lore on an extremely seamer friendly surface.

For about the 50th time...
Aren't you getting bored with posting that crap line yet?.

can i help it if you keep bringing them on??

In your perception it did - in mine, I've seen too many instances of persistant short-pitched bowling failing (and inevitably there is going to be the odd fuller delivery in there, there always is) to believe this "being pushed back" rubbish.

youve seen them failed when the bowlers have bowled it pooly, in the same way that if you watched bowlers like anderson swing the ball wide outside the off stump you might be led to the belief that swing doesnt get any wickets. it worked time and time again in the 80s and it worked again in the 90s and is still working, you just wont admit it.

And it seems that you are resorting to this again. .

then what kind of statement is that? if a batsman ends up getting out to a pitched up ball after he was peppered by some short pitch bowling, surely you would say that it was because of the short pitch bowling that he got out. even you as stupid as you can be would realise that if it werent for those short ball the batsman wouldnt have got out to the pitched up delivery......

Yes, if the swing is too early. Everyone knows that early swing, at 70mph, isn't that threatening. Swing at any point at 90mph is, very threatening. Equally, late swing at 65mph is threatening.
But if we could teach the difference between swinging it late and swinging it early, we could make 50 Test-class bowlers a day..

nope no matter how late you swing it, you arent going to be half as effective at 70 mph or so, because the batsman has no problems adjusting to the change.

No, not that irregularly.

and i have just shown why it is that regularly, you just would like to believe that its not by claiming that it had to do with poor shots, yet of course when a batsman played a poor shot to a seaming/swinging pitched up delivery you claim that it is still a wicket-taking ball

 

[tooextracool]

Except, if the potential had begun to develop, his domestic record would have improved. Just like, for instance, Vaughan's did as soon as he made the adjustments in his game. From 2000, his domestic-First-Class-average is well over 50.
We've never seen players develop because they're playing at the international level - the time for development is off the field, the time for performance is on the field.

err no, dont be ridiculous, you dont develop in a day, and therefore your performances dont improve immediately, and it is equally stupid to suggest that vaughan has been averaging 50 in the first class game and that has contributed to his success in the intl arena when the fact is that its more likely to be the other way around....hes got better at the intl arena and therefore his domestic record has improved. if it hadnt been for intl experience he would still be averaging in the 30s...

It is ridiculous to say "you don't drop someone with potential" - you pick your best side, that you think will win you the up-and-coming Test-match. You then give that player you think has potential his best chance to develop.
And in my experience, the best way to develop a potentially good bowler isn't to let them get smacked around the park in a Test-match. All that'll do is dent their confidence. And lose you Test-matches.

no it wont because the best players learn from that experience.....in fact theres never been a bowler who hasnt been smashed around the park at some point of his career, its the best way to learn how to bowl to good batsman. believe me if you just keep players with potential at the domestic arena until they start getting good figures, a) its quite likely that they wont
b) you wouldnt have got harmison.....

Regardless, if someone isn't performing, you can only give them so many chances. But for the 4-33 in the Oval second-innings, I can't believe Harmison's first opportunity wouldn't have run-out. At 24, though, he'd still have had plenty of opportunity to go back to the domestic level and improve.
Fortunately for England, the 4-33 happened, and Harmison has played a large part in the sensational 7 months England have enjoyed.

and has he been getting a truck load of wickets since then? no he hasnt, so you still believe that harmison should never have been in the side in the first place? brilliant that, and we would probably be on a losing streak at the moment....

OK, fine - "I was wrong to think that Harmison wouldn't get figures anywhere near as good as those he's got in the last 7 months".
Happy now?
It will still do you sod-all good if I turn-out to be right in predicting that these figures will be evened-out in the next 14-15 months.

yes i am, and if he continues to prove you wrong for the rest of his career you will only be making a bigger ass of yourself.

Then you're certain of one more thing that's not true then. .

oh no im certain because it is true.

And how many of those occasions have resulted in wickets...?

if you have been watching closely, you would realise that there have been several, most of which you believe are 'lucky' wickets.

 

[tooextracool]

A wicket-taking ball has taken a wicket.
A Jaffa has been played-and-missed at.
This is decided AFTER THE BALL HAS PASSED THE BATSMAN AND STUMPS.
Of course you can't say what will be what as it comes out of the hand, I've just said that.
But once a ball has been bowled and the result is known, you can say what the delivery was. If it got a wicket, it deserved it. If it didn't, it might have taken a wicket - but tough luck. Bowl another one and maybe that will.

and the point is that someone can bowl the exact same delivery as what hoggard bowled to richardson and still come out with it being called a jaffa instead of a wicket taking delivery. therefore certain bowlers can have bowled many many jaffas and not got wickets, which on a good day might have.

Wrong, you can always use the off-cutter or leg-cutter to move the ball off the pitch. You can also use the off-break slower-ball if the pitch is turning enough..

and as much as you try, off cutters and leg cutters rarely ever result in wickets unless a batsman plays a poor shot. and an off-break slower ball is extremely similar to an off cutter.

Oh, of course there will have been these times, and on them he's a very good bowler (eg Bridgetown, 2003) - but they're so rare that it seems a bit of a coincidence to me that they might have both occurred in a South Africa Test-match where he played just once that series. And judging by his economy-rate in one of those games and by watching the game in the other, I can say otherwise for certain.

you mean the ER of 2.66 in the 01-02 series then?
and how many times must it be said, ER bares no relation to how well a bowler bowls in test matches.

Did they really? Why have I not once heard anyone say that, then? And let me assure you, I've read and listened to plenty of batsmen who faced both.
The only time I've ever heard Holding rated "the fastest bowler in The World" was by Boycs after The Greatest Over Of All-Time - not surprising, given that Marshall had hardly played at that point.

2 things
1) if you havent heard anyone say that marshall was just as quick as holding then you cant say that they were....
2) of course boycs opinion doesnt count at all, despite the fact that he had in fact faced him even if it wasnt as frequent as he faced holding.

Oh, he was lucky, but that's so obvious that no-one mentions it.
Same way no-one mentions the fact that every cricketer who is more gifted than another is lucky - it's sort of very obvious.
And personally I'd say that Holding's height was cancelled-out by Marshall's greater control of length - so, it seems, would everyone else who rated Marshall the better bowler.

err yes of course but that doesnt mean that he doesnt deserve his wickets because of that now does it? or that he shouldnt rated as a better bowler just because he was taller than someone else.

Did anyone ever manage to exploit that perceived weakness to make him fail for an extended stretch? No, thought not.
So therefore it wasn't really much of a weakness at all..

no they didnt because he always managed to get around it.....that doesnt mean that he didnt have the weakness in the first place, he just nullified it by modifying his technique to accomodate that weakness, much the same way someone like gary kirsten does. the fact is that they succeeded despite having some technical flaw, and that suggests that so could hick.

Because you've come very close to saying those sorts of things...

but i havent and you just said that i havent and therefore you can be said to be putting words on my keyboard....

Despite the fact that concentration is a natural gift. Which he relied very heavily upon, like any good batsman.
If you ask me anyone who relies very heavily on exclusively poor strokes to get wickets deserves less credit than someone who bowls good deliveries to get a proportion of their wickets.

no concentration is not a natural gift, believe me, it takes practice to be able to concentrate for long periods of time