tooextracool said:
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.
