Quality of wickets

[honestbharani]

Yes. It's not likely to happen, there's a reason why full tosses and half-trackers aren't generally successful at any decent level of competition - however, if the bowler is able to consistenly and deliberately produce a delivery that the orthodoxy would frown upon as a poor delivery, and that delivery consistently takes wickets, then, as the delivery has done what it was designed to do and taken a wicket, it can't really be called poor.

I'm thinking of the Craig McDermott circa 95-96 when Sri Lanka were touring Australia. He took lots of wickets, and at one stage was on a hat trick in an ODI with a slow full toss delivery. THere was a modicum of deception in the aciton with which he bowled it, but it was basically a slow, full toss at people's legs - and for a period he consistently took wickets with it - not only against tailenders.

Adding to that, wasn't there a time when yorkers were just thought off as full tosses that were not put away?

 

[Ikki]

cricket itself is way too subjective. That is why you and I have been talking about the value of actually "Watching" players and judging them based on that. But the problem is that there are few around the cricket world (and in CW) who are more than happy to judge how a pitch behaved and how the conditions were based on the scorecard. I am sorry, but at best, it will be a decent guess but there is no way you can say that "so and so" pitch for the "so and so" match was a flat track or a green top or a dust bowl based on just the scorecard. And same goes for quality of wickets. You look at the players' name, the runs he has scored and you quickly say "nah, that batter was just not in form" or that "it was just a lucky wicket". How much can you conclude without watching the game? AFAIC, the answer is ZILCH. Cricket is perhaps the only game in the world which as so many variables and that is the reason why I believe it is almost impossible to judge players, matches, quality of wickets etc. without having watched the match. Maybe if we all just stick to the stuff we have seen and judge only those things, we will be a lot more accurate.

Sorry mate, that is making it way too subjective, like: "When he made that century, how fast was he running between the stumps?"

There is also another point here. A team like Bangladesh doesn't need someone to bowl them quality bowls for them to get out. If they did, they'd surely be a better cricket team. That is the point, whilst they may play well occaisionally, the majority of the time they're not good enough to bring in the quality of wickets argument. I know this is an argument for Murali really, but this reasoning is not consistant or measurable. It's taking the argument and digressing just for the sake of saving face.

What about balls that are bowled but were really good yet dealt with suberbly. I'm sure Murali wasn't bowling crap to Lara even though getting smacked around. What about those "great bowls" that didn't get a wicket. It's about what you get and what you don't get, and who you're getting. The bowler is not the only variable in getting wickets, there are people called batsmen . Unless Rafique or any of the Bangladeshi's really improve in their batting, this kind of assessment is pretty flattering. EVEN so, where would you rank the Bangladeshi's? Last surely? So, as stated, bottom of the pile.

 

[Matt79]

I think you have to allow that Bangladesh have shown some real improvement in the last couple of years. In that time they've beaten Australia in a ODI, really pushed an admittedly tired Aussie unit in tests, and played at a more consistently competitive level than previously.

You'd have to rank them above Zimbabwe, and a long way ahead of any of the non-test nations now. At home, they'd almost be a tougher prospect than a touring West Indies (esp. if Lara doesn't fire). So I don't think you can exclude wickets against them, from this period on - not arguing about their earlier efforts, unless you exclude some others...

 

[Ikki]

Ok, let's say they're above Zimbabwe. Certainly at home, in one innings at least they were very tough. My argument isn't that, it's when their wickets are overemphasised.

It's akin to a batsman getting a century over Australia and another over the West Indies. Sure at times there will be times when the Australians are bowling at a worse standard than the West Indies and that's not argued. It's arguing that a crop of centuries will go under that umbrella, very few will. That's why Australia is Australia and West Indies aren't the power they once were.

Gilchrist's knock and Macgill's wickets in the first innings were invaluable. Now how many times is that statement going to repeated in that context? Not many.

 

[Matt79]

Probably not in the next few years - however is there any reasons Bang. will not continue to improve and soon pass teams like West Indies or Sri Lanka, once Lara and Murali respectively hang up the boots?

 

[GotSpin]

Yes. It's not likely to happen, there's a reason why full tosses and half-trackers aren't generally successful at any decent level of competition - however, if the bowler is able to consistenly and deliberately produce a delivery that the orthodoxy would frown upon as a poor delivery, and that delivery consistently takes wickets, then, as the delivery has done what it was designed to do and taken a wicket, it can't really be called poor.

I'm thinking of the Craig McDermott circa 95-96 when Sri Lanka were touring Australia. He took lots of wickets, and at one stage was on a hat trick in an ODI with a slow full toss delivery. THere was a modicum of deception in the aciton with which he bowled it, but it was basically a slow, full toss at people's legs - and for a period he consistently took wickets with it - not only against tailenders.

That is called bad batting, not good bowling and therefore not quality wickets

 

[Ikki]

Probably not in the next few years - however is there any reasons Bang. will not continue to improve and soon pass teams like West Indies or Sri Lanka, once Lara and Murali respectively hang up the boots?

It's not the point as to whether they'll be good from now on. It's the argument that certain statistics are skewed because of their past performances.

 

[Matt79]

That is called bad batting, not good bowling and therefore not quality wickets

Isn't one form of good bowling to target and cpitalise on your opponents weaknesses as a batsman?

 

[Matt79]

So what date do the Bangladesh wickets stop being not valid?

When did NZ wickets stop being not quality?

Pakistani? Australia?

At all times in the history of cricket there have been teams of varying strength. New teams have come in, and have generally struggled. Other teams have fallen to low standards after previous periods of success.

There's a criteria for whether a wicket or run is considered worthy of inclusion in a player's international record - whether it was scored against a team that has been accorded Test or ODI standard. Bangladesh has been a test nation for some time now and they have shown definite improvement in that time. There'll always be an argument that to be the best, you have to beat the best, and hence breaking down stats by country etc has validity, but its a bit ostritch like to just mentally wish Bangladesh out of the game, or downgrade thei performances with one very broad brush.

 

[Ikki]

Well, from my point of view it isn't about that. It's when you compare player's records and you see that a large proportion of one player's wickets comes from worst test playing nations.

 

[Craig]

If MacGill's wickets were cheap and easy then why didn't say Brett Lee run through the Bangladeshi team and if it weren't for him how many runs Bangladesh would have got? Another 50-100?

A wicket is a wicket, unless it is the worst possible ball you have ever bowled and the person had never held a cricket bat before, then chances are you have bowled well to get a wicket, because you had to outsmart him tatically (ie getting him to hole out and having a man there) to get him to play badly.

 

[Craig]

So does that mean that Ireland-vs-West Indies in 2004 should've been a ODI, because Ireland comprehensively dominated it?

Considering most people probably expected them to cop a massive hiding (ie by an innings and plenty), and whilst they did lose Bangladesh pushed Australia a lot more then what other teams have (unlike those obig mouthed South Africans) and come closer to getting a win over Australia then they ever have (in Test though) and are probably going to in a long time, what more do they have to do?

 

[GotSpin]

Isn't one form of good bowling to target and cpitalise on your opponents weaknesses as a batsman?

No but if u had seen some of the wickets he got, you would know he wasn't trying to bowl a half tracker

 

[marc71178]

Considering most people probably expected them to cop a massive hiding (ie by an innings and plenty), and whilst they did lose Bangladesh pushed Australia a lot more then what other teams have (unlike those obig mouthed South Africans) and come closer to getting a win over Australia then they ever have (in Test though) and are probably going to in a long time, what more do they have to do?

Not just closer than they have, but pretty much closer than most Test sides have in the last 5 years.

 

[Matt79]

No but if u had seen some of the wickets he got, you would know he wasn't trying to bowl a half tracker

I was talking generally, not specifcally about McGill.

 

[GotSpin]

I was talking generally, not specifcally about McGill.

But generally bowlers do not attempt to bowl half trackers or full tosses as good opp. will give them a good beating.

Therefore, wickets gained via full toss or half tracker are not quality wickets

 

[Matt79]

Generally yes, with the exception that if it was intentional then, if not a top quality piece of bowling, it isn't poor bowling.

Geez, that's a motherhood statement for you

 

[Richard]

Considering most people probably expected them to cop a massive hiding (ie by an innings and plenty), and whilst they did lose Bangladesh pushed Australia a lot more then what other teams have (unlike those obig mouthed South Africans) and come closer to getting a win over Australia then they ever have (in Test though) and are probably going to in a long time, what more do they have to do?

Do it more than once every 3 years.

 

[honestbharani]

Ok, let's say they're above Zimbabwe. Certainly at home, in one innings at least they were very tough. My argument isn't that, it's when their wickets are overemphasised.

It's akin to a batsman getting a century over Australia and another over the West Indies. Sure at times there will be times when the Australians are bowling at a worse standard than the West Indies and that's not argued. It's arguing that a crop of centuries will go under that umbrella, very few will. That's why Australia is Australia and West Indies aren't the power they once were.

Gilchrist's knock and Macgill's wickets in the first innings were invaluable. Now how many times is that statement going to repeated in that context? Not many.

Murali took wickets against them a few months ago, in late 2005. Why should they be considered "cheap", since it is obvious that Bangla have improved over the last two years? And why shouldn't we use records against Bangla NOW (let us say, the stats of Murali Vs the tigers in 2005 and that of warne Vs the tigers in 2006) because it is virtually the same team playing now.

 

[honestbharani]

Sorry mate, that is making it way too subjective, like: "When he made that century, how fast was he running between the stumps?"

There is also another point here. A team like Bangladesh doesn't need someone to bowl them quality bowls for them to get out. If they did, they'd surely be a better cricket team. That is the point, whilst they may play well occaisionally, the majority of the time they're not good enough to bring in the quality of wickets argument. I know this is an argument for Murali really, but this reasoning is not consistant or measurable. It's taking the argument and digressing just for the sake of saving face.

What about balls that are bowled but were really good yet dealt with suberbly. I'm sure Murali wasn't bowling crap to Lara even though getting smacked around. What about those "great bowls" that didn't get a wicket. It's about what you get and what you don't get, and who you're getting. The bowler is not the only variable in getting wickets, there are people called batsmen . Unless Rafique or any of the Bangladeshi's really improve in their batting, this kind of assessment is pretty flattering. EVEN so, where would you rank the Bangladeshi's? Last surely? So, as stated, bottom of the pile.

good point about good balls that didn't get a wicket. That is why you have to watch matches before judging players performances in those matches. It is perfectly possible for say someone like Sreesanth to bowl better than he did in the last ODI against England and end with only 2 wickets or so. And yet, he got 6 in the last ODI when he didn't bowl all that special. Similarly, Murali was outstanding the SS test match but didn't get as many wickets to show for it. That is why one needs to have watched the matches before commenting on them. Personally, I think it has helped me get a better idea of players' capabilities when I have watched the games and THEN made the judgments.