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

[marc71178]

Now you're for it.

He'll be OK - the Troll won't think to look in a thread such as this.

 

[marc71178]

If he thinks he's improved since then, he's kidding himself.
The best I've seen Flintoff bowl was in India in 2001\02, especially at Bangalore.
He's bowled no differently since the Sri Lanka tour (the TRUE time when his figures started to improve, rather than since the time when he had a talk with Troy Cooley) to how he did in his "unlucky" 2 years before that.

I find it amaxing that you still think you know more about the man than the man himself does - do you think you know more about me than I do as well then?

 

[Richard]

No, because I haven't had the chance to analyse your career ball by ball.
In Flintoff's case I have.
And seemingly I have done so more than he himself, however incredible that may seem to you.
Of course, it's also possible that he knows perfectly well that his figures have improved since Sri Lanka and that he hasn't been doing anything different, but that everyone wants to hear that he's made some improvements, and what a nice romantic thing - to have a chat with the bowling coach and realise your mental approach is wrong.
It's exactly what everyone wants to hear and will increase again his ever-rising popularity.

 

[marc71178]

No, because I haven't had the chance to analyse your career ball by ball.
In Flintoff's case I have.
And seemingly I have done so more than he himself, however incredible that may seem to you.

So you've bowled every ball if it as well have you, and felt your way back from not being able to bowl to becoming a really dangerous customer with it?

 

[Richard]

No, but I've watched all of it (bar the last part, given that it hasn't happened) happen.

 

[marc71178]

Which makes you know more about him than he himself does how exactly?

 

[Richard]

Because he seems to be under the misleading impression that he's changed something, when he hasn't.
He's simply been getting the poor strokes people have been saying for ages he must start getting.
Hopefully they might stop in the next 2 tours.

 

[wpdavid]

Because he seems to be under the misleading impression that he's changed something, when he hasn't.
He's simply been getting the poor strokes people have been saying for ages he must start getting.
Hopefully they might stop in the next 2 tours.

Why "hopefully"?

 

[luckyeddie]

Because he seems to be under the misleading impression that he's changed something, when he hasn't.
He's simply been getting the poor strokes people have been saying for ages he must start getting.
Hopefully they might stop in the next 2 tours.

Tosh.

 

[Richard]

Why's that, then?

 

[Richard]

Why "hopefully"?

Because I've no desire to see rubbish short-balls getting wickets.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I find it shocking you'd want an English player to do badly just to prove you right.

 

[Richard]

I don't want him to do badly - I'd love to see him pitching the ball up, seaming it around and taking wickets.
But I don't want to see him getting wickets with short-balls, just so that England can win the series.

 

[tooextracool]

I don't want him to do badly - I'd love to see him pitching the ball up, seaming it around and taking wickets.
But I don't want to see him getting wickets with short-balls, just so that England can win the series.

yes those yorkers that the wickets of lara were all of short balls werent they? as much as you refuse to believe short balls can get wickets if they are directed well enough at the right pace. however it is crucial that you dont overdo it, and both flintoff and harmison have been guilty of doing that on a few occasions. the point though is that its all fine if you bowled a few short balls and then followed them up with pitched up balls and flintoff has certainly of late demonstrated that he can in fact do that successfully.

 

[marc71178]

Why "hopefully"?

Because Richard doesn't like him, so doesn't like it when he takes wickets.

Remember that 7-12 - conveniently he disappeared for about about 3 or 4 months after that...

 

[tooextracool]

Because Richard doesn't like him, so doesn't like it when he takes wickets.

Remember that 7-12 - conveniently he disappeared for about about 3 or 4 months after that...

the fact is that even if harmison does in fact go on to become the most successful english bowler of all time and takes 400 wickets, richard would still be saying that he didnt deserve them and that they all had to do with poor shots rather than good balls.

 

[Swervy]

I don't want him to do badly - I'd love to see him pitching the ball up, seaming it around and taking wickets.
But I don't want to see him getting wickets with short-balls, just so that England can win the series.

isnt getting a wicket with a short ball just as vaild a way of getting a wicket though????

 

[luckyeddie]

Far be it from me to take the mickey out of anyone (waits for applause), so I won't - on this occasion anyway.

However, the word which sums Richard's attitude to (and dismissal of the merits of) the short stuff is 'anachronistic' - yet even the likes of Grace, Fry and Ranji were subjected to a fearful battering on occasion, and good thing too.

 

[Tim]

Richard seems to take the bizarre stance of supporting mediocrity i.e. South Africa's form & rubbishing excellence i.e. England's test form & NZ's ODI form.

 

[Richard]

Because Richard doesn't like him, so doesn't like it when he takes wickets.

Remember that 7-12 - conveniently he disappeared for about about 3 or 4 months after that...

And returned when nothing had changed (except it had been shown that it wasn't just a Massie-like one-off - in other words, there had been in increase in evidence that Harmison might be a good bowler).
So sorry, nothing for you to use against me here.