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

[Richard]

Originally Posted by luckyeddie

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?

And doing so is good batting, and the batsman deserves credit for not getting out. That's why so few wickets really come from batsmen being "done in the flight".
It's wholly different to playing down the wrong line, which is just poor batting that is massively lucky if it results in playing a delivery that a better stroke would have seen result in a wicket.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Mr. P

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...

Well I do.
Are you actually clear on what a Long-Hop is? It's not just the definition of a bad ball - it's a ball that comes to the batsman at between waist and shoulder height, and is the easiest height to hit cleanly off the back-foot. Like Half-Volley length, it changes depending on how much bounce the bowler and pitch is getting, and how tall the batsman is.
Hence, all the best slower-balls are full, and cannot be Long-Hops.

[Mr. P]

The best slower ball are not always full. Can have much the same effect at any length.

[Mr. P]

Originally Posted by Mr.P

Take note of the word NEVER. Technically an error is made upon every wicket...

Originally Posted by Richard

Second part not true. On RUDs there is no error from the batsman and it is simply a delivery he had no realistic chance of playing.

Originally Posted by Mr.P

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

Originally Posted by Richard

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 is such thing as a "realistically unplayable delivery".

In that second quote you say as if a "RUD" has taken wickets. If so, a mistake was made. I fail to see your point...

How can a "RUD" be possible. For it to take a wicket, a mistake was made...

Unless "RUD" is a fiction and does not exist? If so, you're arguing for no reason...

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Richard

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

Just ask Glenn Mcgrath, Shaun Pollock and Steve Harmison.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Richard

If the batsman nicks (or, in Richardson's case, gloves) the ball, it's a RUD

Except when it's Flintoff bowling.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Richard

And doing so is good batting, and the batsman deserves credit for not getting out.

So by being fooled by the bowler, he deserves credit now?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Mr. P

The best slower ball are not always full. Can have much the same effect at any length.

Hmm, a 70mph half-tracker, yes, that's likely to be effective.
The idea behind a slower-ball is to get the batsman to play early. If they drive early, it's likely to go up. If the placement isn't right (which it isn't about 1\2 the time) then it'll result in a wicket as long as the catch is held.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Mr. P

In that second quote you say as if a "RUD" has taken wickets. If so, a mistake was made. I fail to see your point...

How can a "RUD" be possible. For it to take a wicket, a mistake was made...

Unless "RUD" is a fiction and does not exist? If so, you're arguing for no reason...

As far as I can work-out that doesn't make sense.
A realistically unplayable delivery IS possible - a wicket is taken, no mistake is made by the batsman, he's done all he can be expected to do. You do see that sometimes.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by marc71178

Just ask Glenn Mcgrath, Shaun Pollock and Steve Harmison.

Except, of course, they're not going to make everyone praising them look silly by saying "ah, it was all poor batting, I didn't really bowl that well", are they?
Apart from this, it would also be something of an insult to the batsmen.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by marc71178

Except when it's Flintoff bowling.

No, not at all, Flintoff has bowled a few RUDs in his Test-career (not many, though).
A couple that I can think of off the top of my head are to Dasgupta at Bangalore and Sehwag at Lord's (though Hussain actually dropped the catch - one of the few instances where Flintoff genuinely was unlucky).

[Richard]

Originally Posted by marc71178

So by being fooled by the bowler, he deserves credit now?

Er, no, he deserves credit for not allowing being fooled by a bowler to result in his dismissal.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Richard

No, not at all, Flintoff has bowled a few RUDs in his Test-career (not many, though).
A couple that I can think of off the top of my head are to Dasgupta at Bangalore and Sehwag at Lord's (though Hussain actually dropped the catch - one of the few instances where Flintoff genuinely was unlucky).

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

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Richard

Er, no, he deserves credit for not allowing being fooled by a bowler to result in his dismissal.

Why?

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

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Richard

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

well done in spotting the sarcasm....