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

[marc71178]

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.

Oh yes, he showed yesterday to that Akhtar ball as well didn't he?

3 times in a short space of time - so what does that say?

Flintoff bowled a ball that was too good for him, and he couldn't get out of the way of it - RUD.

 

[marc71178]

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.

At a smidgin over 51...

 

[marc71178]

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.

Except when the catch is dropped.

If dropped then no wicket results...

Therefore it's no wicket-taking ball.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Oh yes, he showed yesterday to that Akhtar ball as well didn't he?

3 times in a short space of time - so what does that say?

Flintoff bowled a ball that was too good for him, and he couldn't get out of the way of it - RUD.

I think what happened to Lara was just a media mock-up! Good batsmen do not get troubled by short-deliveries - even at 160, a pace at which a normal club batsmen wouldn't even get the bat down (because they wouldn't see what they were trying to hit! haha).

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

I have to disagree with that one. Bowling both on a good length often results in wickets without a poor shot being played from the batsman (unless you class every shot a batsman gets out on 'poor'). It's how McGrath is so effective, and if you bowl both off-cutter and leg-cutters (properly, not rolling your fingers across the ball so it's blatantly obvious what you're doing - e.g a fast bowler using a spinners action and calling it 'seaming' the ball) accurately you'll get results. Seaming a few into the batsman and then one away doesn't need a poor shot to result in a catch in slips, likewise a few away and then one in for and LBW, bowled, caught behind etc.

 

[tooextracool]

Except when the catch is dropped.

If dropped then no wicket results...

Therefore it's no wicket-taking ball.

or for that matter if there was no slip fielder in that position, or if it goes over or between slip, of course the bowler only deserves credit for somehow managing to get the batsman to nick it directly to slip, having bowled a beauty to get the outside edge doesnt matter much at all.

 

[tooextracool]

I have to disagree with that one. Bowling both on a good length often results in wickets without a poor shot being played from the batsman (unless you class every shot a batsman gets out on 'poor'). It's how McGrath is so effective, and if you bowl both off-cutter and leg-cutters (properly, not rolling your fingers across the ball so it's blatantly obvious what you're doing - e.g a fast bowler using a spinners action and calling it 'seaming' the ball) accurately you'll get results. Seaming a few into the batsman and then one away doesn't need a poor shot to result in a catch in slips, likewise a few away and then one in for and LBW, bowled, caught behind etc.

i personally doubt it, most off cutters and leg cutters require some amount of batsman error, its almost like a fast spinner and there is absolutely no way you can bowl an unplayable off or leg cutter.

 

[Swervy]

i personally doubt it, most off cutters and leg cutters require some amount of batsman error, its almost like a fast spinner and there is absolutely no way you can bowl an unplayable off or leg cutter.

just off the top of my head, I remember Dennis Lillee bowling some brilliant cutters which really the batsman didnt have much chance with

 

[tooextracool]

just off the top of my head, I remember Dennis Lillee bowling some brilliant cutters which really the batsman didnt have much chance with

ok then, i'll take your word for it, i never got to watch much of dennis lillee bowling so i wouldnt know. most bowlers i've seen of late havent really been able to get wickets off it without some amount of batsman error

 

[Swervy]

ok then, i'll take your word for it, i never got to watch much of dennis lillee bowling so i wouldnt know. most bowlers i've seen of late havent really been able to get wickets off it without some amount of batsman error

i think to do it well you have to be a complete master of control of fast bowling...there werent many better than Lillee.

I will say that yes at the moment there arent many occasions where a bowler can bowl a fast cutter with good results...maybe bestter batting..maybe better pitches..maybe worse bowlers..just dont know

 

[Richard]

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

Oh, yes, of course they are, but nonetheless if you could increase it an infinate amount (to make it as good as anyone else) everyone who wanted to be would be Don Bradman. Well, presuming they had the eye, that is, but any good club batsman has that.

 

[Richard]

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

Of course, because it was so obvious that I thought that was a genuine comment.

 

[Richard]

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.

Yes, they are - and good bowlers can make a ball in the right condition swing anywhere, it's just a bit easier in England.
There was no seam-movement off that pitch, at any stage, what rubbish "there almost always is in England" - dew has even less effect than England anywhere, because days in summer are longer in England than anywhere, given that England is the furthest cricket-playing country from the equator.
And there's nothing else that should mean the ball moves early on - that's just an assumption that's never been true.

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.

He played rubbish for most of the series (except the Headingley first-innings), yes (though he didn't really have much to gain at Edgbaston or Lord's), but in this instance he was beaten by classic bowling, and couldn't have been expected to predict the inswinger when it came.

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.

He was back - and outside the line. The Laws dictate that you can't be given out correctly when the ball hits you outside the line. Not to mention it was probably going over the top.
And yes, I have taped that day's highlights, too, and you're not going to fool me with your incorrect memory same way you couldn't with the Zoysa-Trescothick ball.

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.

Which is why no-one except Bicknell has ever troubled him with the inswinger.

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?

No, I didn't - I've mentioned several times that it was a fantastic delivery that Kirsten had no realistic chance of playing, he couldn't have left it. It was, however, a leg-cutter, and Harmison hasn't proved very adept at bowling them intentionally, giving me the impression it was probably simply fortune.

and im not surprised that you missed out the long hop on leg stump that bicknell used to get hall out either......

No, I didn't, it's just you'd already mentioned that.

 

[Richard]

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?

No, I've never claimed anything of the sort.
I've claimed they make mistakes about the presence of pressure, but I've never claimed they can't tell when a batsman hasn't picked the ball up.

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.

Fine, if you think I'm making it up - no-one else does!

 

[Richard]

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.

Yes, and that includes the period from The Oval to Kingsmead, where he got good figures in 4 innings out of about 18 innings, all due to poor strokes.
McGrath had a short spell where his luck dried-up (mostly), and hopefully that might happen again as batsmen get the incorrect impression that he's not what he used to be.

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.

Most of his wickets had nothing to do with the seamer-friendly conditions and were simply due to poor batting. So were plenty in New Zealand.
I simply said that he started taking wickets at a flattering average - that period started in Bangalore and ended at Trent Bridge against the same team.
I haven't made a thing up.

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

Yes, you can, quite easily.

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.

It works nowhere near as much for anyone as it worked for the West Indies quintet (or more) of the 70s and 80s.
It is "bowled well" with extreme infrequency, if that's the case!
Seriously, you see bowlers try it all the time - when it works, it was "done well", when it doesn't it "wasn't done well".
Also I might add that if Anderson repeatedly swung the ball away outside the off he'd probably get lots of wickets - his problem is that he doesn't swing it enough and often drifts onto the pads. And drags it down. And basically does everything wrong that a swing-bowler shouldn't be doing wrong if he wants wickets.

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......

No, it might be perceived that the short-balls caused him to get out to the pitched-up ball but the fact is I've seen many occasions where a spell of persistent short, useless bowling is followed by a full ball that is dealt with without trouble.

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.

The slower you are, the later you need to swing it.
You can't adjust to a full ball that swings just before it gets to you, no matter how slow it is.
However, when you're bowling at 80mph you don't need it to swing as late as when you're bowling at 70.

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

Yes, because there was something good about that ball - it moved to somewhere the batsman couldn't play for it going.
If a poor shot does ensue from a ball that was simply different to previous ones, as far as I'm concerned that's far more poor than nicking an away-swinger you could have left.

 

[Richard]

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...

No, he's got better by practising and that has meant he's averaged in the 40s in Tests and the 50s in domestic-First-Class.
Improvement is caused by practice and is borne-out on the field - whatever level at.

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.....

You would - because Harmison's domestic figures would probably have been pretty good judging by his Test figures.
Anyone knows how to bowl to a good batsman, you've got to be totally stupid not to - the difficult part is learning how to do it and you do that by one thing - practice.

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....

We? I thought you were Indian.
Of course he should have been in the side from that Oval Test onwards, there could be no justification for otherwise.

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.

No, I won't - I'll just be stating that something that is the case is the case.

oh no im certain because it is true.

No, it's not - I know, I've been myself watching it - you have just made an assumption.

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

Oh, they have been - nonetheless they've been very infrequent.

 

[Richard]

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.

Yes, true.
But any ball of such which takes a wicket is not a Jaffa and is in fact a RUD.

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.

No, it's not, it moves far more.
They rarely result in wickets ATM, because hardly any bowler can bowl them.

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.

Yes, it does, most of the time.
There are occasions (Harmison in Aus for example) where it doesn't, but generally the most accurate bowlers will be the most economical.

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.

I have heard many say that Marshall was as quick as Holding.
Even if he wasn't, they were both perfectly quick enough for most!

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.

No, not at all.
But it does mean Marshall should be given still more credit than Holding for the cheapness of his wickets.

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.

He could - but he didn't.

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

No, because I never said you had ITFP.

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

Certainly does - it also takes natural gift, otherwise anyone who wanted to could.

 

[Richard]

Oh yes, he showed yesterday to that Akhtar ball as well didn't he?

3 times in a short space of time - so what does that say?

Flintoff bowled a ball that was too good for him, and he couldn't get out of the way of it - RUD.

No, he didn't lose sight of the Akhtar ball - he simply played it poorly. Even the best do that occasionally.

 

[Richard]

Except when the catch is dropped.

If dropped then no wicket results...

Therefore it's no wicket-taking ball.

It is dropped that is not the bowler's fault.
Just because it wasn't a wicket in the 'book doesn't mean the delivery was any worse.

 

[Swervy]

No, he didn't lose sight of the Akhtar ball - he simply played it poorly. Even the best do that occasionally.

I think it was acknowleged throughout the summer by one Richie Benaud that Lara isnt playing the short ball as well as he used to...and from what I have seen he isnt.(thats just my opinion though)