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

[Richard]

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.

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.

Slower-ball Long-Hops are the worst type of slower-ball - equally, slower-balls are the worst type of Long-Hop, because the batsman is least likely to be deceived by the pace, and to hit the ball in the air.
The best slower-balls are always fullish deliveries, because if you hit a drive early it'll go up.
And yes, I know Long-Hops take wickets occasionally - it's very, very poor batting when they do.

[Richard]

RUDs?

Roughed-Up Dorks

(aka Yorkshiremen on a Saturday night)

Hmm, well, that's one thing it could stand for, but not in this instance (at least...)
It stands for realistically unplayable delivery. Surely everyone must have heard me use that abbreviation before?

[Richard]

and i can say that the contrary is applicable to you

Exactly - which means I've got it right and those that remember the minority and forget the majority have got it wrong.

[Richard]

because the smart people realised that he relied too heavily on the conditions to suit his bowling.......

Which is why he took a pivotal four-for on a pitch that was as good for batting as any which has ever existed, yes.
Haven't you realised you're badly wrong about Bicknell, yet? Still?

[Richard]

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'.

So you reckon Lara did not lose sight of those two Flintoff deliveries I refer to, then? Another example of how clearly you don't watch cricket.

[Mingster]

Don't watch cricket?

I'm still waiting for those "first-chance averages", you know those ones you said you would post up on the forum, but it never turned up? Are you telling me that are not true are there? No way....

And are you saying you WATCHED every single game of cricket to collect those statistics? Or are they just a pile of rubbish opinion?

[Richard]

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.

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 past

Whether they are perceived to have been "pushed back" or not, the fact is, they hardly ever get out to short-pitched balls.

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.

Only if it's a Half-Volley or if they're very lucky are they going to hit the middle of the bat to one that swings late.
Yes, it's far more likely that you'll play-and-miss than you'll nick a late swinging ball, and it's about an even chance of a nick carrying as falling short. But nonetheless if you're good enough to keep bowling there, you'll get the nick that carries eventually.

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 batsman

No, it's not as easy to bowl good deliveries as it was 4 or 5 years ago - but equally we have far fewer bowlers around who can bowl them in any conditions.
It is these sorts of bowlers who are more needed in this era - instead, we have less of them.

[Richard]

Don't watch cricket?

I'm still waiting for those "first-chance averages", you know those ones you said you would post up on the forum, but it never turned up? Are you telling me that are not true are there? No way....

And are you saying you WATCHED every single game of cricket to collect those statistics? Or are they just a pile of rubbish opinion?

No, the pile of rubbish is the opinion that a dropped catch and a caught catch are different as far as the batsman's ability is concerned.

[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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

oh you've said that bowlers couldnt get wickets using only bounce....yet harmison has.

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.

[Mr. P]

Slower-ball Long-Hops are the worst type of slower-ball - equally, slower-balls are the worst type of Long-Hop, because the batsman is least likely to be deceived by the pace, and to hit the ball in the air.
The best slower-balls are always fullish deliveries, because if you hit a drive early it'll go up.
And yes, I know Long-Hops take wickets occasionally - it's very, very poor batting when they do.

Slower balls ARE long-hops. They are successful very regularly. It is a long-hop that at the same time is a good delivery.

I also don't think that all long-hop wickets fall to bad batting...

[Mr. P]

Hmm, well, that's one thing it could stand for, but not in this instance (at least...)
It stands for realistically unplayable delivery. Surely everyone must have heard me use that abbreviation before?

There is no such thing as a "RUD"

Every ball can be played in some way. And off every ball some sort of mistake is made.

[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.
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.

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.

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.....

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.

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" etc

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.

and not once have i stated any of the above....

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

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.

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.

[Richard]

There is no such thing as a "RUD"

Every ball can be played in some way. And off every ball some sort of mistake is made.

Yes, every ball could be played. If you get a ball that pitches leg and moves onto off you might play completely down the wrong line and end-up playing precisely the line the ball moves onto. But it's not realistic. It's just about so unlikely as to be ruled-out.
There is no such thing as an "unplayable delivery". There [/b]is[/b] such thing as a "realistically unplayable delivery".

[luckyeddie]

There is no such thing as a "RUD"

Every ball can be played in some way. And off every ball some sort of mistake is made.

It's quite conceivable that someone could smack a RUD for four or six.

All the batsman has to do is play down the wrong line or pick the wrong length, then compensate.

How often do we see it anyway - the batsman 'done in the flight' but playing through the line and not checking the shot he gets it away over long off?

[Richard]

^^^^ Read the one above.