Michael Clarke - all hype, no performance

[Richard]

And why does this happen with Harmison? Is it impossible to accept the fact that he can bowl well at times. Your judgement is severly clouded on this particular issue.

I've never said he's never bowled well. Fact is, though, Harmison is someone many people have said many, many things which are untrue about, more than pretty much any player that I've ever encountered.

The slower delivery does infact out-fox some batsman though, as it did with Michael Clarke in the 2005 Ashes, which I beleive is where this argument stemmed from.

It didn't outfox him, though - watch it, you'll see pretty clearly that he picked it. He just missed it. He actually did the exact same thing in the "Super" Test with a normal-pace ball, funnily enough.

You are taking a very extreme stance. Of course people can work out that Sir Donald Bradman was the best Test batsman of all-time, and that Rawl Lewis was a terrible Test bowler. I am talking about players like Umar Gul, whose career you dismissed as rubbish after only seeing him bowl once.

That's because his career has been rubbish so far. There's no two ways about the fact that 5.34-an-overs and 8.25-an-overs are awful spells.

I've seen you do it countless number of times, and you did so earlier in this particular thread. I can't remember the exact quote and I can't be arsed going to find it, but it was something along the lines of "Only one pitch in this series was a turner, as the spin bowlers didn't take wickets on the others"

It was two pitches in the series in question, actually, and what I said was "funny how unsuccessful the spinners were at Bangalore" (Bangalore being the Test that Fuller was arguing was a turner and I was arguing wasn't) Completely different to saying "spinners didn't take wickets so therefore the pitch couldn't have turned.

That pitch, incidentally, was described as "a lamb in wolf's clothing". It looked like it'd turn hugely, but didn't.

It's disguised in the fact that he bowls it, yet it doesn't come out like a normal Harmison delivery.

That is not being disguised - being disguised would be bowling it, it coming out differently but there being nothing in the action to make it obvious that it was different.

Oh, and you're calling people fools because they aren't up to your so called intellect. How very mature.

I'm not calling anyone a fool; I'm saying any fool can pick it - pretty well everyone has. What conclusion does this lead to?

 

[Richard]

No, it seems to me you won't admit you were wrong because you're afraid of the ridicule that you will receive. Ridicule that would be rightly administered, might I add.

I won't admit I'm wrong because I don't see myself as having been wrong. Simple as.

 

[Richard]

And you don't find it the least bit strange, that of the thousands of people you've encountered and no doubt discussed this situation with, that not one single other person believes that at one stage Michael Clarke was a poor fielder?

No I don't, because 1) I've not discussed it with many people, certainly nowhere near thousands and 2) as I've said, many are very obviously - as obvious as anything ever is - more concerned with less important aspects of fielding than more.

 

[Perm]

I've never said he's never bowled well. Fact is, though, Harmison is someone many people have said many, many things which are untrue about, more than pretty much any player that I've ever encountered.

They are untrue in your eyes, that's the difference between fact and your opinion.

It didn't outfox him, though - watch it, you'll see pretty clearly that he picked it. He just missed it. He actually did the exact same thing in the "Super" Test with a normal-pace ball, funnily enough.

The slower ball gained the wicket, and was bowled well by Harmison. It did enough to beat Michael Clarke, so you should give credit where credit is due. Instead you rubbish Harmison's bowling.

That's because his career has been rubbish so far. There's no two ways about the fact that 5.34-an-overs and 8.25-an-overs are awful spells.

His career has not been rubbish, but again you bring up extreme examples to try and justify your claims. Umar Gul has had sucess in ODI cricket, and has the tools to continue that sucess, as was evident at the Twenty20 World Cup where he was one of the most effective bowlers. Gul's economy has been a touch expensive so far in his career, but his strike rate and average have been good. You have to look past the figures Richard, which I beleive you constantly bring up in regards to Hussain-Hayden.

It was two pitches in the series in question, actually, and what I said was "funny how unsuccessful the spinners were at Bangalore" (Bangalore being the Test that Fuller was arguing was a turner and I was arguing wasn't) Completely different to saying "spinners didn't take wickets so therefore the pitch couldn't have turned.
That pitch, incidentally, was described as "a lamb in wolf's clothing". It looked like it'd turn hugely, but didn't.

I dispute that's what you said, but as I mentioned earlier, I can't be arsed reading through all the pages of this thread to find the quote I referred to in my previous post.

That is not being disguised - being disguised would be bowling it, it coming out differently but there being nothing in the action to make it obvious that it was different.

It is still disguised sufficiently, although I agree that it could be done better.

I'm not calling anyone a fool; I'm saying any fool can pick it - pretty well everyone has. What conclusion does this lead to?

You are deriding those people who can't pick it.

 

[Perm]

Richard, I am reminded of a thread started by Hoggy31 regarding a certain Justin Rodgie.

Replace his name with yours and you'll find a question that most members on CW must ask atleast once a day.

 

[Richard]

They are untrue in your eyes, that's the difference between fact and your opinion.

Yes, they are untrue in my eyes - hence, I shall endeavour to show why. This is not because I "hate Harmison" as so many like to make-out; it's because I hate the fact that people make (in my eyes) errors about lots of different things, all concerning him.

The slower ball gained the wicket, and was bowled well by Harmison. It did enough to beat Michael Clarke, so you should give credit where credit is due. Instead you rubbish Harmison's bowling.

I should give a bowler credit for a batsman playing around a straight, slow (and obviously slow - so obvious that Clarke picked it) ball that did not move at all?

No, sorry, I shouldn't. And I won't. And yes, I'll argue against those that do.

His career has not been rubbish, but again you bring up extreme examples to try and justify your claims. Umar Gul has had sucess in ODI cricket, and has the tools to continue that sucess, as was evident at the Twenty20 World Cup where he was one of the most effective bowlers. Gul's economy has been a touch expensive so far in his career, but his strike rate and average have been good. You have to look past the figures Richard, which I beleive you constantly bring up in regards to Hussain-Hayden.

You have to look past the figures to see whether he may or may not have potential. This is something I've not commented on, at all.

You try looking past the figures (and his SR is poor too - though substandard sides skew it if you don't take ODI-standard sides only) to see whether what he's done so far has been good or bad, and you're simply saying what's happened hasn't happened.

I dispute that's what you said, but as I mentioned earlier, I can't be arsed reading through all the pages of this thread to find the quote I referred to in my previous post.

That's exactly what I said. I'd not have said "I said such-and-such" if I said anything else. If you CBA reading through to find what has been said, do not accuse someone of saying something they have not.

It is still disguised sufficiently, although I agree that it could be done better.

It is not disguised sufficiently - anyone and everyone who's been on commentary when he's bowled one has commented on how blatantly obvious it is. And it's always been the same, ever since I first saw him bowl one.

You are deriding those people who can't pick it.

Those people who, as far as I can see, number zero.

 

[Richard]

Richard, I am reminded of a thread started by Hoggy31 regarding a certain Justin Rodgie.

Replace his name with yours and you'll find a question that most members on CW must ask atleast once a day.

No, only a relatively small number.

Why do I continue to come on this site? Unlike Rodgie, I wouldn't do if I felt I wasn't welcome.

 

[Perm]

Hah, Richard, you're a sad individual. I pity you, massively.

 

[Richard]

I'm actually perfectly content, frankly.

 

[Perm]

I'm actually perfectly content, frankly.

 

[Richard]

No, not laughing - just contented.

Either way, this bickering is pointless, as you've realised more than once before now - I hope you will do so again. I've had enough of it. Unlike some, you're not a nitwit, nor are you generally an unpleasant person, which makes times like these all the more disappointing.

I'm not being drawn into this

You're a ****

No, you're a ****

crap. For any multitude of reasons.

 

[Craig]

AWTA, this is getting tedious, it isn't going anywhere and surely this has to come to an end?

 

[Perm]

AWTA, this is getting tedious, it isn't going anywhere and surely this has to come to an end?

I, and many others, say exactly the same things about Richard's posting habits and the continual crap he spouts.

 

[Perm]

No, not laughing - just contented.

Either way, this bickering is pointless, as you've realised more than once before now - I hope you will do so again. I've had enough of it. Unlike some, you're not a nitwit, nor are you generally an unpleasant person, which makes times like these all the more disappointing.

I'm not being drawn into this crap. For any multitude of reasons.

Last word.

 

[Craig]

I, and many others, say exactly the same things about Richard's posting habits and the continual crap he spouts.

It was a general comment for both sides.

 

[Richard]

Last word.

Wast lurd.















Either way - I've had my last word on the subject, that's all that really matters.

 

[Athlai]

From the eyes of history to the hearts of your friends I don't think any of this matters.

 

[Nate]

Poor form by Richard. Man up and admit you were wrong mate.

I LOL'ed.

 

[PhoenixFire]

And can we make sure it stays finished (Y).