The ICC Super Series

[marc71178]

If I adjudge McGrath has bowled well I'll adjudge so.

Even without watching it?

So if you decide he didn't bowl well, we all have to accept that as gospel do we?

 

[aussie]

aussie

No, he made a glaring mistake.
Funny, because he knows plenty of stuff that some don't but is equally capable of durrbrain comments and nonsensical passages.

yes richard agree a made a very in accurate statement but i want u to refresh me on an durrbrain comments and nonsensical passages.

and i dont know about u but i got to see the australia new zealand game in christchurch, i have a dish but doesn't sky sports extra show those matches

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I know he's never been a big swinger, and yes, I know he swung the ball during that WACA match, otherwise I'd not have said he bowled well.

You do realise that there is more to seam bowling than how much you move it, right? Chaminda Vaas moves it a hell of a lot more than McGrath when the conditions are conducive to it, that doesn't mean he's anywhere near as good a bowler.

 

[Richard]

Sorry, but last time I looked, Cricket was a team game, so the best team is the team that performs the best.

No, that's just the team that was best in that particular match.

 

[Richard]

And how do you know that he did that?

How can you answer a question I've asked of someone else about what they meant to do?

I can't with certainty - I can merely suggest a possibility - or a probability as the case may be.

 

[Richard]

Even without watching it?

So if you decide he didn't bowl well, we all have to accept that as gospel do we?

No.
Where did I say that?

 

[Richard]

You do realise that there is more to seam bowling than how much you move it, right? Chaminda Vaas moves it a hell of a lot more than McGrath when the conditions are conducive to it, that doesn't mean he's anywhere near as good a bowler.

It contributes.
Of course it doesn't mean he's better in itself.
But the amount you move it, and more importantly how good a control you have of the variation in the amount you move it, is really the only significant contribution to how good a bowler is aside from accuracy.
And of course Chaminda Vaas when he bowls well is a hell of a lot better than McGrath, he can take a batting-line-up apart without them playing poor strokes on any pitch, McGrath can't.
When Chaminda bowls poorly, of course, he's about 1\100th of the bowler McGrath is.

 

[aussie]

aussie

yes richard agree a made a very in accurate statement but i want u to refresh me on an durrbrain comments and nonsensical passages.

and i dont know about u but i got to see the australia new zealand game in christchurch, i have a dish but doesn't sky sports extra show those matches

richard respond to this

 

[Richard]

What? I didn't see the game, no. So?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

And of course Chaminda Vaas when he bowls well is a hell of a lot better than McGrath, he can take a batting-line-up apart without them playing poor strokes on any pitch, McGrath can't.

Is this obsession with moving the ball around a lot the reason for your delusions about McGrath's quality as a bowler then? You only recognise a ball as a wicket taking delivery if it moves a long way in the air or off the wicket, so you think that McGrath is lucky because he consistently gets wickets without having to move the ball a mile?

Whatever the cause of it is, it's getting increasingly ridiculous. Let me be clear - Chaminda Vaas is a quality bowler, but he has never been and never will be better than McGrath, in any situation, on any surface, against any opposition. McGrath is hands down the greatest seamer of his generation, and one of the greatest in the history of test cricket at bowling on a flat wicket.

 

[Richard]

Rubbish.
Why does it have to be so black-and-white?
There are quite clearly two Chaminda Vaases, one of whom is better than McGrath and one of whom isn't remotely close.
And yes, of course moving the ball is about all there is to bowling a wicket-taking delivery - you find me the occasions batsmen get beaten by something other than sideways-movement (excluding the out-and-out poor strokes, which make-up at least 70% of wickets).
I don't only recognise a ball as wicket-taking if it moves a long way, but a wicket-taking ball that doesn't either move and\or kick off like a horse is exceptionally rare (and obviously something that kicks off can't happen without the pitch).
There are all sorts of factors that determine the amount of movement neccessary to take wickets, but tiny little amounts won't do the trick. You need some big movers, some small ones.
And if you don't move the ball sideways, no, you can't ever be a particularly good bowler as far as I'm concerned, and I think that's borne-out by most of what happens in cricket.

 

[aussie]

aussie

What? I didn't see the game, no. So?

no u said that i am capable of some durrbrain comments and some nonsesical passages and i want u to refresh my memory of some that i have posted

 

[aussie]

aussie

Rubbish.
Why does it have to be so black-and-white?
There are quite clearly two Chaminda Vaases, one of whom is better than McGrath and one of whom isn't remotely close.
And yes, of course moving the ball is about all there is to bowling a wicket-taking delivery - you find me the occasions batsmen get beaten by something other than sideways-movement (excluding the out-and-out poor strokes, which make-up at least 70% of wickets).
I don't only recognise a ball as wicket-taking if it moves a long way, but a wicket-taking ball that doesn't either move and\or kick off like a horse is exceptionally rare (and obviously something that kicks off can't happen without the pitch).
There are all sorts of factors that determine the amount of movement neccessary to take wickets, but tiny little amounts won't do the trick. You need some big movers, some small ones.
And if you don't move the ball sideways, no, you can't ever be a particularly good bowler as far as I'm concerned, and I think that's borne-out by most of what happens in cricket.

Fair comment richard, but how can u say that what faaiDeOaid is saying about Mcgrath is rubbish he is quite right glenn is the greatest seamer of his generation and one of the better bowlers on flat wickets in test history look at his record in the sub-continent, other than some the west indian fast bowlers of the 80's that beat india & pakistan with sheer pace in their flat dustbowls, glenn record over thier is right up their in those conditions. Even when they are occasions when australia has played a team on flat wicket Mcgrath has produced eg (the nz vs aus test match currently playing and also his performances in inida last october)

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Rubbish.
Why does it have to be so black-and-white?
There are quite clearly two Chaminda Vaases, one of whom is better than McGrath and one of whom isn't remotely close..

No, neither of them are remotely close. Vaas on good form is closer, but he's still leagues behind McGrath, who is one of the all-time great seamers. Nobody in the world today comes close to him.

And yes, of course moving the ball is about all there is to bowling a wicket-taking delivery - you find me the occasions batsmen get beaten by something other than sideways-movement (excluding the out-and-out poor strokes, which make-up at least 70% of wickets).

One would be inclined to wonder how ANYONE could be a good bowler by your standards. Not only are 70% of all-wickets undeserved, but only the balls that move a mile are counted as valid wickets. And, since you refuse to acknowledge the bowlers ability to bowl to a plan and out-think the batsman and instead only take interest in the wicket ball, the concept of variation basically goes out the window. If Warne gets a wicket with the one that goes straight on after an over of big spinning leg-breaks, he doesn't deserve the wicket because it didn't move a mile.

I don't only recognise a ball as wicket-taking if it moves a long way, but a wicket-taking ball that doesn't either move and\or kick off like a horse is exceptionally rare (and obviously something that kicks off can't happen without the pitch)..

Rubbish. The majority of wickets from bowlers who aren't one trick ponies who rely on the ball swinging or turning on a dustbowl come from the bowler using clever planning and variation to force the batsman into a mistake. The great bowlers of our time are clear evidence of that.

There are all sorts of factors that determine the amount of movement neccessary to take wickets, but tiny little amounts won't do the trick. You need some big movers, some small ones..

Again, utter rubbish. Some of the great bowlers in test cricket did not rely on large amounts of movement to get wickets, which is precisely why they were effective on flat wickets which all bowlers run into from time to time. Clearly a flat wicket is one which offers little in terms of assistance for the bowlers and as such lateral movement will not be particularly effective. McGrath relies on nagging accuracy, subtle variations and small amounts of movement, which is why he is so effective on flat wickets. Ambrose, another great bowler of our time, was not the sort who relied on large amounts of movement, and neither is Shaun Pollock. Some bowlers use extreme pace and intimidation to get wickets, and others still use large amounts of movement. Hell, Pathan moves the ball in the air more than McGrath as well. Is he a better bowler? Hoggard is a better swing bowler than McGrath, is he a better bowler? This is just as idiotic as saying that Lee is the best bowler in the world because he is the quickest, and Shoaib is second.

 

[marc71178]

No, that's just the team that was best in that particular match.

A one off maybe.

But a whole series where the team lost 3 and drew 2 yet you rate the side higher than the current Australians.

How on Earth does that work?

 

[marc71178]

I can't with certainty - I can merely suggest a possibility - or a probability as the case may be.

How is that a glaring mistake?

I asked him a question about quoting the wrong thing because I wanted to know what post he intended to quote.

There was no need for you to butt in and insult him.

 

[age_master]

Rubbish.
Why does it have to be so black-and-white?
There are quite clearly two Chaminda Vaases, one of whom is better than McGrath and one of whom isn't remotely close.

Vaas isn't a patch on McGrath even playing at twice his best.

 

[aussie]

aussie

Vaas isn't a patch on McGrath even playing at twice his best.

very true

 

[tooextracool]

And against Zimbabwe in Perth he scored 380 at an average of 380. Jeez its funny how 1 test averages can distort things. If you can say the same things after the Ashes, maybe it will have some creedence.

err, i was correcting mistaken statements that were made. AFAIC ive shown enough evidence as to why he hasnt done anything of significant on seaming wickets in tests.
really i dont know what your point of including the 380 against zim proves.

 

[tooextracool]

England in 1998 were emphatically not one of the worst teams of the decade - in the final 2 Tests they had a rare time where they got it together. I'm very confident they'd have beaten most sides in those 2 games. That was about the best England side I've ever seen.

no clearly they were not, i mean the side that lost to both NZ and SL at home, clearly wasnt a poor team.

As for what happened in Australia in 1998, I don't know - I can't even remember the scoreline. Might have been 1-0 to Aus from memory.

which makes them better than australia how exactly?
lowt by an inning in the game that they did lose too.

How can we possibly know that, SA of 1998-1999 haven't had the chance to be let loose on the rubbish sides knocking around this year.

because they couldnt beat a significantly worse australian side then, there really isnt much argument that the aussie side of 01 and now is better than the one back then.