Cricketweb poster with the best understanding of the game

[SJS]

you can if you think those ricketty old legs of yours can get yourselves up the steps of the courtroom

>>>>>>>>




>>>>>>>

 

[Top_Cat]

*cough* Fulton

THANK YOU! Was waiting for someone to bring that up!

 

[vic_orthdox]

well going back to the main topic of this post, i know i do know a lot about cricket and i state my views accordingly, but guys who i have posted againts like Richard, Faaip, Top cat, Tec & Neil seem to know the game well

modesty is a virtue

 

[Neil Pickup]

THANK YOU! Was waiting for someone to bring that up!

Please, leave it in the past. You're hurting me inside

 

[C_C]

maybe he's getting laid!

drat man!
cant you paparazzi stay away ?

Thank you for all yer comments....i personally find most here to be quiete knowledgable...even when their individual opinions contradict mine.

I for one am happy to be here...well...not so much..... coz i am beginning to get really ****ty grades!
but many of you (faaip, SJS, marc, boybrumbie,T_CSlow_Love,(why do i think he is jamaican?:P) etc.) make me consider angles and thoughtstreams i hadnt before and its quiete mind-stimulating.

 

[honestbharani]

drat man!
cant you paparazzi stay away ?

Thank you for all yer comments....i personally find most here to be quiete knowledgable...even when their individual opinions contradict mine.

I for one am happy to be here...well...not so much..... coz i am beginning to get really ****ty grades!
but many of you (faaip, SJS, marc, boybrumbie,T_CSlow_Love,(why do i think he is jamaican?:P) etc.) make me consider angles and thoughtstreams i hadnt before and its quiete mind-stimulating.

I have got company , I mean with the grades.

 

[Richard]

Should have seen me four years ago, then... oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. A lot of it is, I think, acquired communication skills and word choice in the way that you post what you post, coming across as authoritative but not arrogant when you make claims or assertions, and being accomodating and not simply state/restating when discussing.

For example...

"Granted, the match-winning innings that Dalton played at Wellington in 2002 was a fine example of batting under pressure - not many people can make those kinds of scores with a middle-order and tail committing hara-kiri around them, but there has been little else in his career to back up your claim that he's one of the world's best batsman.

If, for example, you look at the ODI series in Sri Lanka the year after - there were two or three times where he played very rash, injudicious shots when the onus was on him to remain unbeaten and see the team to victory in the games. His disproportionately high ratio of dismissals in single figures also suggests a weakness early in his innings"

contrasted against...

"rubbish. one innings doesnt make dalton a good batsman even if that innings was good and on that i would disagree entirely because the bowlers bowled short and wide too often and the wicket was flatter than others he has failed repeatedly on. in sri lanka he was nothing but useless and probably cost the game and series because he was unable to play anything other than that idiot hoik shot off the leg spinner and got stumped twice and caught off skiers so many other times. no one who bats like that can even be thought of as good never mind great"

I just can't imagine you posting the latter... I mean, I've never used that sort of "poor communication skills" as you put it... with referance particularly to the grammar.

 

[Richard]

Well given that I'm in the age group you listed here, I'm inclined to wonder what you are talking about. I certainly didn't select the people I listed based on age, nor did I suggest that the people you listed don't know what they are on about.

Also, I believe among the people I listed that Jono is much closer to the age group you mentioned than late 20s/early 30s, since he started uni this year.

Yeah, I thought he was, too. I didn't actually include him in the late-20s\early-30s group.
Maybe you didn't consciously select the people you did based on their age but I'm almost certain it had an impact, because so often it does, even if you don't realise it.

 

[Richard]

I would like to add that wpdavid is a welcome, but too infrequent, visitor to CW shores

Yeah, I'm astounded that he doesn't have the will to post more; I always make sure I read an article whenever he writes one.
He and SJS have much in common.

Speaking of C_C....

Am I the only one to notice it, but is it me or has C_C pulled his head in a bit of late? He's obviously a clever chap, that much was evident from day one, but I had him down as a bit of a head-of-the-d1ck because he was a victim of the "My opinion is bigger than your opinion & here's a point-by-point refutation of your opinion" cod-macho posturing that can occasionally afflict Cricket Chat (& that we all find so desperately tiresome).

Lately tho, while still opinionated, he seems less aggressive & altogether more chilled (maybe he's getting laid! ). His post on Sehwag was one of the best I'd seen for some time.

However many improvements C_C has made I can't ever think too much of him while he uses the strategem he uses to dismiss the older cricketing feats; it's just too typical of subcontinentals and while it's original and one I've not heard before, it's fundamentally flawed and contains many things where he states that things are not the way they are (ie that learned opticians believe the human eye can accurately gauge speed and relative speed of objects; that cricket was not professional, in attitude or in actuality, before the mid-60s; and that cricket's embryonic stage was the 1930s).

 

[Richard]

Yeah, serious. From C C's posts, i think he supports India and even though i support England, i never seem to find something in his post that i contradict.

You either don't take interest in the past part eras of the game (not a crime, don't take that the wrong way) or haven't heard C_C's ideas about it, then.

 

[Richard]

modesty is a virtue

And in much greater measure it's a bad thing.
Overt modesty often, nay always, leads to flawed self-deprication.

 

[Richard]

Please, leave it in the past. You're hurting me inside

Aww, go on, explain to us post-2002-ers.

 

[Top_Cat]

Aww, go on, explain to us post-2002-ers.

Come on, Neil. Let everyone else in on your obsession with Fulton. You wanted to have his babies, didn't you?

 

[C_C]

Richard- if you are gonna take a 'he says so because he is subcontinental' veiw akin to neo-racists, i would ask you to do one thing- go fack yourself.

FYI, i have spent more time in England than in India. And FYI, that is not a 'subcontinental only' argument in matters related to sports.
It is also a very prevalent viewpoint in north america, something that is backed up with detailed social analysis.

Cricket was not modernised till the post war era and the past greats mostly were nothing but fuddy duddy players capitalising on substandard quality. Ofcourse,a few of them were decent enough but still got over-accentuated by the massive quality differential through the field.

I wouldnt give Jack Hobbs 10 overs against Lillee and Thommo. And considering that he as an opener routinely faced dibbly dobbly medium pacers or slow bowler alone, i wouldnt bet a dollar on his ability or expertise to play brutal pace bowling.

If you think the likes of Bradman or Barnes could keep the same average in the new era, you obviously are deluding yourself.
This is not just a cricket-only viewpoint, this is a viewpoint about pre and post modernisation in ANY game.Tillden wouldnt stand a snowball's chance in hell against Sampras or MacEnroe. Not with wooden rackets,graphite rackets or rackets of any material.
Bradman would struggle to average over 65-70 in post 60s, Barnes would struggle to average 21-22 in test cricket, Rocket Richard would get mowed down by the likes of Al McInness, etc. etc.

This is a sociologically accepted view in sports. Look at how the aussies whined their **** off when faced with bodyline...and then look in the post 60s era- bodyline was the name of the game- be it Thommo/Lillee, WI four prong or Imran.
You always see exponential performances in the period where the sport isnt standardized, simply because the field quality is spread too much and the good ones over-accentuate their records by it.
Its either that or the men from the pre-war era were stronger, smarter and more skilled than men post-war in general- not just cricket but over every sport.
Which is the silliest thing i've ever heard and not supported by medical science-infact refuted by medical science.

 

[vic_orthdox]

This is a sociologically accepted view in sports. Look at how the aussies whined their **** off when faced with bodyline...and then look in the post 60s era- bodyline was the name of the game- be it Thommo/Lillee, WI four prong or Imran.

while i do understand your point, i still don't really believe that the tactics of Bodyline have ever been close to repeated in full from 1940 onwards (i remember hearing a story about the Windies using it on England a few years after the original Bodyline, after which rules were implemented to stop the practice).

 

[SJS]

while i do understand your point, i still don't really believe that the tactics of Bodyline have ever been close to repeated in full from 1940 onwards (i remember hearing a story about the Windies using it on England a few years after the original Bodyline, after which rules were implemented to stop the practice).

There was no way bodyline tactics could be repeated once the restriction was placed on fielders behind square on the leg side.

If this had been in place during the 32-33 series, Bradman would have slaughtered Larwood and company.

 

[vic_orthdox]

it is a bit hard to pull and hook your way around it when you have three men on the fence behind square, plus three more catching on the leg side for the fend.

 

[SJS]

it is a bit hard to pull and hook your way around it when you have three men on the fence behind square, plus three more catching on the leg side for the fend.

And yet there are those learned few who feel that faced with these tactics, Bradman countering these with his innovative jumping to the legside and hitting those bouncers towards the off and managing a fifty plus average is shown in poor light !!

 

[vic_orthdox]

yup. shows bradman definently had a weakness to a 2-7 field and 4+ bouncers per over. that's how we would have got him out if he were playing in our day.....

then again, it also makes stan mccabe's innings in the first test all the greater.

 

[SJS]

yup. shows bradman definently had a weakness to a 2-7 field and 4+ bouncers per over. that's how we would have got him out if he were playing in our day.....

then again, it also makes stan mccabe's innings in the first test all the greater.

Yes it does. But even McCabe could not play two such innings in the series. He scored only 198 runs in the other 9 innings of the series. He averaged 42.8 to Bradman's 56.7 in the series.

It was just one of those innings. McCabe, a very fine hooker even otherwise, decided to attack and connected most of his hooks.

One has seen such extraordinary, once in a lifetime innings from others . Randalls innings in the centenary test comes to mind as does Laxman's epic at Calcutta.

McCabe's innings did not prove as some learned friends have tried to show here. No one, not even McCabe himself believed it was the way to handle it. He couldnt do it again.

But he did not have Bradmans agility to jump out of way and play from the leg stump and outside to off from bouncing deliveries. So he tried to do the only thing HE was capable of, and in one out of ten innings, he got away and played one of the legendry knocks in history.