The era of defensive captaincy

[FaaipDeOiad]

Not saying I even REMOTELY agree with Richard's contention here. Just saying that Ponting's knock, whilst good, wasn't brilliant. Hayden's was pretty damn impressive though.

I'm not saying it was brilliant either, it was good but not flawless by any means, though it was crucial to the game. I'm simply saying that South Africa's catching had little to nothing to do with the outcome of the game. They dropped a couple of catches, but they didn't have a major impact on Australia's score.

 

[Richard]

South Africa did the Hussein trick to Ponting today. 5 men on the leg-side for most of the day, with two on the fence for the hook from the first over Ponting was at the crease (second of the day). Bowled a straight line with the leg-side field to cut off his scoring opportunities. Ponting would get a half-volley on the pads and hit it sweetly and get just a single for it every time.

Certainly did well at slowing him down, but the fact that he made 103 says a lot.

Yes - about the let-offs.
Ponting had at least 3, if not 4, let-offs in the innings.

 

[Richard]

I'm not saying it was brilliant either, it was good but not flawless by any means, though it was crucial to the game. I'm simply saying that South Africa's catching had little to nothing to do with the outcome of the game. They dropped a couple of catches, but they didn't have a major impact on Australia's score.

You're joking, aren't you?
As has been pointed-out (I'd forgotten) Ponting was actually let-off very early.
Had that been taken and the rest of the batting panned-out the way it did (pretty reasonable to assume - certainly more reasonable than assuming it'd have been different) there's no gurantee Australia would even have had a lead, let alone as telling a lead as they ended-up getting.

 

[marc71178]

And if and if and if and if...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You're joking, aren't you?
As has been pointed-out (I'd forgotten) Ponting was actually let-off very early.
Had that been taken and the rest of the batting panned-out the way it did (pretty reasonable to assume - certainly more reasonable than assuming it'd have been different) there's no gurantee Australia would even have had a lead, let alone as telling a lead as they ended-up getting.

Hang on, haven't you said in the past that a) if a fielder touch the ball, it's not a chance, and b) catches aren't taken with fingertips, so getting your fingertips to the ball doesn't count either?

Nobody touched the ball Ponting edged through the slips, so it wasn't a chance. And yesterday, Boucher only got the webbing of his glove to the ball (and only just at that), so it wouldn't be a chance either, since of course catches aren't taking with the edge of webbing, and neither would his other edge through the slips, or the ball that bounced just short of Kallis.

Mind you, I don't particularly care about missed chances, and I know that Ponting played brilliantly yesterday and nevertheless could have been out at least twice, but going by your standards I don't think any of those three would count as chances, unless the standards have changed.

 

[Richard]

Hang on, haven't you said in the past that a) if a fielder touch the ball, it's not a chance, and b) catches aren't taken with fingertips, so getting your fingertips to the ball doesn't count either?

Err, what? I've said, purely and simply, "use your discretion". Any fool could tell that the Ponting edge should have been taken, same exactly as the Trescothick one at The WACA off Gillespie a couple of years back.
Catches certainly are't taken with fingertips - but either Boucher or Smith could clearly have got full hands on that one - if they'd even bothered to go for it.

Nobody touched the ball Ponting edged through the slips, so it wasn't a chance. And yesterday, Boucher only got the webbing of his glove to the ball (and only just at that), so it wouldn't be a chance either, since of course catches aren't taking with the edge of webbing, and neither would his other edge through the slips, or the ball that bounced just short of Kallis.

Mind you, I don't particularly care about missed chances, and I know that Ponting played brilliantly yesterday and nevertheless could have been out at least twice, but going by your standards I don't think any of those three would count as chances, unless the standards have changed.

Catches aren't taken with the webbing? Clearly you haven't been watching much wicketkeeping recently. While even wicketkeepers can't catch with the fingers, the gauntlets pretty obviously give them an advantage other fielders don't have, and wicketkeepers can take things that would, clearly, be beyond other fielders, such as that one.
Equally, if you think that one didn't carry to Kallis you weren't watching properly. It blatantly did, and he should've caught it.

 

[Richard]

And if and if and if and if...

The World is based on ifs and you know it.

 

[Jamee999]

Yes, but if the world wasn't based on ifs...

 

[marc71178]

Err, what? I've said, purely and simply, "use your discretion".

Every person's discretion is different, therefore these figures are no longer set in stone, meaning they're as useful as a random number generator.

 

[marc71178]

The World is based on ifs and you know it.

Yet in spite of all these ifs, its funny how the better side tends to win far more often than it loses isn't it?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Err, what? I've said, purely and simply, "use your discretion". Any fool could tell that the Ponting edge should have been taken, same exactly as the Trescothick one at The WACA off Gillespie a couple of years back.
Catches certainly are't taken with fingertips - but either Boucher or Smith could clearly have got full hands on that one - if they'd even bothered to go for it.

Whose discretion? If it's mine, the Kallis "chance" was no chance at all, as the ball clearly bounced in front of him. Boucher certainly dropped him, though he never looked like taking it. The edge through the slips could have been caught if it had been edged to a good slip cordon with confident fielders, but it wasn't.

 

[Richard]

Every person's discretion is different, therefore these figures are no longer set in stone, meaning they're as useful as a random number generator.

As are every number in cricket.
Every person's discretion is broadly very similar.

 

[Richard]

Yet in spite of all these ifs, its funny how the better side tends to win far more often than it loses isn't it?

Partly because catching your catches has a huge influence on who's the better side.

 

[Richard]

Whose discretion? If it's mine, the Kallis "chance" was no chance at all, as the ball clearly bounced in front of him. Boucher certainly dropped him, though he never looked like taking it. The edge through the slips could have been caught if it had been edged to a good slip cordon with confident fielders, but it wasn't.

The slippers are all good.
Slip-catches come at such a speed that things like "confidence" and "pressure" don't matter. You don't have time to think, or be under pressure, or lack confidence.
You clearly haven't watched the edge to Kallis too well.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The slippers are all good.
Slip-catches come at such a speed that things like "confidence" and "pressure" don't matter. You don't have time to think, or be under pressure, or lack confidence.
You clearly haven't watched the edge to Kallis too well.

Neither of them had the confidence to go for the catch themselves, hence each tried to leave it to the other player, hence it wasn't taken or even attempted.

And I certainly have. It bounced in front of his fingers, so it wasn't a drop. Mark Waugh might have caught it, but Kallis never would.

 

[Swervy]

Err, what? I've said, purely and simply, "use your discretion". Any fool could tell that the Ponting edge should have been taken, same exactly as the Trescothick one at The WACA off Gillespie a couple of years back.

What I like are these kind of insults in anticipation of people disagreeing with you (any fool....or dunce or whatever word you have stuck in your brain at the time). Its as if you think that people wont disagree with you for fear of actually being a fool....and the best bit is, absolutely no-one does feel like a fool for disagreeing with you....you are a comedian of the highest order (unintentionally of course).

 

[marc71178]

Partly because catching your catches has a huge influence on who's the better side.

Despite the fact Australia are still head and shoulders above the rest and you say their catching is rubbish?

 

[Richard]

Neither of them had the confidence to go for the catch themselves, hence each tried to leave it to the other player, hence it wasn't taken or even attempted.

And you've never seen that before?
To put it down to confidence (lack of) is blatant opportunism - these things happen and it doesn't make the blindest bit of difference who the slippers are. You really think Graeme Smith ever lacks confidence in his ability to catch at slip?

And I certainly have. It bounced in front of his fingers, so it wasn't a drop. Mark Waugh might have caught it, but Kallis never would.

You clearly don't really know much about Kallis, then, because Kallis isn't a million miles behind Mark Waugh in slipping. Not quite as good, no, but a damn good one.

 

[Richard]

Despite the fact Australia are still head and shoulders above the rest and you say their catching is rubbish?

It hasn't been as bad this winter as it had been the previous 4 years, I'll give you that, but it's still pretty poor.
They, of course, can get away with it because, before this winter, they were getting so many chances they could afford to drop plenty. Only twice has their catch-dropping really exposed them - India in 2003\04 and England in 2005.
I can categorically assure you - if they'd caught this winter like they did against India in 2003\04, South Africa might well have beaten them. And if South Africa could catch like they have been for the last year on top of that, South Africa would certainly have beaten them.

 

[Richard]

What I like are these kind of insults in anticipation of people disagreeing with you (any fool....or dunce or whatever word you have stuck in your brain at the time). Its as if you think that people wont disagree with you for fear of actually being a fool....and the best bit is, absolutely no-one does feel like a fool for disagreeing with you....you are a comedian of the highest order (unintentionally of course).

So... you've never seen people (many of them, in fact) write the same thing?
tec, for one, writes it all the time.
You are using exactly the same tactic of insults here.