Monty

[andruid]

I made polls sexy again

[Richard]

With regards to the Nagpur game Richard (cbf'd quoting), I think what Scyld Berry meant was that he confined the entire Indian batting lineup, a team that are usually regarded as the best players of spin in the world, even though he only dismissed three batsman. There is a different, just thought I'd point it out.

I know what he meant, and he was generalising without looking at the actual facts, and he was very wrong. I wasn't referring to who he dismissed, I was referring to who scored (and hence spent time at the crease so as to be confined by him) in the first-innings. It's all very easy to say "bowling at India, must always be bowling at some of the best players of spin around". In fact, it wasn't true in this case - those who are indeed some of The World's best players of spin (Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman) spent negligable time at the crease in the first-innings, and one of them didn't even face him.

Hence, those MSP confined to under 2-an-over weren't, really, some of The World's best players of spin, it's just a convenient stereotype if you're trying to get over-excited about MSP.

TBH.

[Richard]

I made polls sexy again

'Scuse me mate, but is there any chance you could change that link in your sig to this one? (It's the exact same card) Just looks a bit better that's all.

[Perm]

I know what he meant, and he was generalising without looking at the actual facts, and he was very wrong. I wasn't referring to who he dismissed, I was referring to who scored (and hence spent time at the crease so as to be confined by him) in the first-innings. It's all very easy to say "bowling at India, must always be bowling at some of the best players of spin around". In fact, it wasn't true in this case - those who are indeed some of The World's best players of spin (Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman) spent negligable time at the crease in the first-innings, and one of them didn't even face him.

Hence, those MSP confined to under 2-an-over weren't, really, some of The World's best players of spin, it's just a convenient stereotype if you're trying to get over-excited about MSP.

TBH.

Indeed.

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm neither a "fan" as such nor a nonbeliever.

You are a "nonbeliever" though, in the sense that you have pre-concieved notions about fingerspinners and what they are capable of, and tailor your summary to suit that. For instance, your dismissal of two decent match performances on non-turning wickets as merely poor batting.

Undoubtedly you would argue that any situation in which a fingerspinner took a bag of wickets on a non-turning pitch was the result of poor batting, so it's an irrelevant analysis. It's circular logic - you argue the bowler can't earn wickets on a flat pitch, he takes wickets on a flat pitch, therefore he didn't earn them.

[Matt79]

^ What he said. Glossed over the WACA performance as well.

[SJS]

What do you think? I think he is

• I am unable to define over rated.
  
• I am not able to decide whose rating should I include for assessingwhether he is over-rated.

Am I right in assuming then that anyone who rates a player higher than I do, over-rates him ?

[The_Bunny]

I think he is a class bowler, but some people do overate him, so I dont know, went with no though

[Unattainableguy]

• I am unable to define over rated.
  
• I am not able to decide whose rating should I include for assessingwhether he is over-rated.

Am I right in assuming then that anyone who rates a player higher than I do, over-rates him ?

[Swervy]

You are a "nonbeliever" though, in the sense that you have pre-concieved notions about fingerspinners and what they are capable of, and tailor your summary to suit that. For instance, your dismissal of two decent match performances on non-turning wickets as merely poor batting.

Undoubtedly you would argue that any situation in which a fingerspinner took a bag of wickets on a non-turning pitch was the result of poor batting, so it's an irrelevant analysis. It's circular logic - you argue the bowler can't earn wickets on a flat pitch, he takes wickets on a flat pitch, therefore he didn't earn them.

All of this is right.

Its Richards 'Black or White, but I am Right' world

You see, what Richard doesnt understand is there is much more to a set of bowling figures than the number of overs, maidens, runs and wickets, but we all know that he doesnt beleive in the concept of building pressure etc.

[Richard]

No, I don't, because pressure is felt, not "built". It cannot be forced upon he who is too cool-minded and sensible to feel it.

[Richard]

You are a "nonbeliever" though, in the sense that you have pre-concieved notions about fingerspinners and what they are capable of, and tailor your summary to suit that. For instance, your dismissal of two decent match performances on non-turning wickets as merely poor batting.

Undoubtedly you would argue that any situation in which a fingerspinner took a bag of wickets on a non-turning pitch was the result of poor batting, so it's an irrelevant analysis. It's circular logic - you argue the bowler can't earn wickets on a flat pitch, he takes wickets on a flat pitch, therefore he didn't earn them.

Probably because it would be so. I have no "pre-conceived notions", because that suggests it's down to stereotyping, etc. It's not. It's down to pure, simple, biological fact: the human fingers cannot impart sufficient spin to turn the ball on any surface. Therefore, fingerspinners cannot be effective on surfaces that are not sufficiently receptive to spin.

The reason I "dismiss" two decent sets of figures (not performances) is, shockingly enough, because that's actually what happened. Just because someone got good figures, doesn't mean he neccessarily bowled well. Getting a large proportion of end-of-innings wickets and a hit-wicket is not good bowling.

[Richard]

Glossed over the WACA performance as well.

Eh? How? I said he bowled well at The WACA until Gilchrist got after him.

Which, incredibly, is what happened.

[Woodster]

There is a lot more to spin bowling, than simply how much you can turn the ball. If there is not big turn in a pitch, thats when you use slight variations, whether that be in speed, flight, being good enough to bowl to a certain plan, changing your angles, generally thinking about the game.

[Matt79]

^^ But we get relatively lengthy descriptions of poor performances, or "lucky" ones - at least a sentence or two explaining it, ie. "WI batsmen inexplicably padded up to straight ones" (perhaps they were at sea and unable to read his variations?). But one of the best bowling performances of the kid's life gets cut down to "bowled well, until Gilchrist got after him" - and incidently when Gilchrist DID get after him, he did exactly what a good attacking spinner should do, and kept his head up, put his hand up for another over, and kept on throwing it up in an attempt to get the wicket.

I'm probably fine with your overall assessment, but your blow by blow of each match sounds a bit like you have a conclusion and then go to find evidence to back it up, rather than reviewing the evidence and then reaching a conclusion.