Thilan Samaraweera: a victim of black magic?

[NUFAN]

Hayden's century at Sharjah was a tremendous knock, anyways more Thilan talk IMO, I think he should be in the ODI side.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Hayden's score against Walsh and Bishop involved apparently about 5 dropped catches. Completely worthless. Pollock was no longer any good on flat pitches by 2001/02 as I've already mentioned, and Kallis has never had a peak, he's always been up and down. Shoaib Akhtar barely bowled in the Hayden innings in Sharjah in 2002/03 because it was too hot, Vaas has never had a peak either, same as Kallis (he's always up-and-down and was 100% down in the game in which Hayden made twin centuries), and Ntini and Nel may have bowled OK in 2005/06 but they were handicapped by diabolical fielding.

Try again.

Pollock didn't lose his peak until 2003. You can't say otherwise because there is no proof and he was equally as effective between 2001-2003 as he was prior to 2001.

When Shoaib was at his peak, he was hitting the 155kph mark and swinging it aswell. Hardly faced him? He bowled 14 overs, in short spells to Hayden.

Vaas, up and down, coicindently his 100% down, the time he gets destroyed Hayden. I wonder why? The irony?

South Africans poor fielders? Nope, that doesn't work. Ntini at his peak was very difficult to contend with. How can you say that he "wasn't all that good" when his one of the leading wicket-takers of the past decade? Nel was also very threatening, if you watched that match.

 

[Richard]

Hayden's century at Sharjah was a tremendous knock, anyways more Thilan talk IMO, I think he should be in the ODI side.

Hayden's knock in Sharjah involved virtually no combatting of seam-bowling (it was simply too hot for seamers to bowl properly - absolutely ridiculous that they were playing in that heat, not only beyond a farce but also very dangerous to health) and he was also dropped at least once.

It was admirable to defy the heat to bat for more than 5 minutes without collapsing, for sure. But the knock proved nothing about his skill against good-quality seamers.

 

[NUFAN]

When Shoaib was at his peak, he was hitting the 155kph mark and swinging it aswell. Hardly faced him? He bowled 14 overs, in short spells to Hayden.

Akhtar bowled 31 balls to Hayden in which he scored 10 runs. Not a big deal at all.

Hayden made most of his runs against the spinners.

 

[NUFAN]

Hayden's knock in Sharjah involved virtually no combatting of seam-bowling (it was simply too hot for seamers to bowl properly - absolutely ridiculous that they were playing in that heat, not only beyond a farce but also very dangerous to health) and he was also dropped at least once.

It was admirable to defy the heat to bat for more than 5 minutes without collapsing, for sure. But the knock probed nothing about his skill against good-quality seamers.

Ah yes, I wasn't so much disagreeing with you regarding the seam bowling [that's why I didn't quote you], just making a point that in the context of the match, that innings was tremendous.

 

[Richard]

Pollock didn't lose his peak until 2003. You can't say otherwise because there is no proof and he was equally as effective between 2001-2003 as he was prior to 2001.

I can actually say otherwise, because that's how it happened. Pollock between 2001/02 and 2003/04 (and thereafter) remained lethal on seaming decks and was anodyne on non-seaming ones.

You see, if you'd actually watched his games you'd know that, because it was completely impossible to miss.

When Shoaib was at his peak, he was hitting the 155kph mark and swinging it aswell. Hardly faced him? He bowled 14 overs, in short spells to Hayden.

No, Shoaib did not bowl at remotely close to 155kph in Sharjah (he did in Columbo where conditions were more suitable to bowl). Shoaib bowled 31 deliveries at Hayden, including just 4 with the new ball. As Wisden stated, he "could not cope with the heat". Hardly surprising either, given it was 50 degrees Celsius +.

Vaas, up and down, coicindently his 100% down, the time he gets destroyed Hayden. I wonder why? The irony?

No, Hayden destroyed him because he was down. See, the bowler delivers the ball, so he controls the game. It would make zero sense for the batsman to do the destroying before the ball is bowled, because, well, that's not how cricket works.

You might notice, BTW, that Hayden has never scored runs against Vaas when he's been on top of his game. Nor have very many, because he's exceptionally good when on top of his game.

South Africans poor fielders? Nope, that doesn't work.

"Doesn't work"? What are you on about. The SAfricans dropped countless catches in that 2005/06 series (and plenty in 2001/02 as well). That's the way it happened. If you state otherwise, you weren't watching or were ignoring the drops for some odd reason.

Ntini at his peak was very difficult to contend with. How can you say that he "wasn't all that good" when his one of the leading wicket-takers of the past decade? Nel was also very threatening, if you watched that match.

I did, Nel is another of my favourite bowlers. He was let down by his fielders though, as were all the bowlers. Ntini is one of the leading wicket-takers of recent times because of his tirelessness and the fact that he's not the worst bowler you'll see. He is not an outstanding one, by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Richard]

Akhtar bowled 31 balls to Hayden in which he scored 10 runs. Not a big deal at all.

Hayden made most of his runs against the spinners.

Daym, seems it was a waste of time me looking this up.

 

[Manee]

Daym

Daymn*.

 

[Richard]

Nah. It's either "damn" or "daym". The former is a literal exclamation of annoyance, the latter is along the lines of "whoopsie" - a "oops but never mind much" sort of thing.

Bit like

Love,
Rich

is very, very different to

Luv
Rich

for example.

 

[Manee]

Interesting (well, not really), I always tend to go in with "daymn" in place of your "daym"...

 

[nightprowler10]

Have to say the discussion in the last three posts is much more interesting than the one in the last three pages.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

I can actually say otherwise, because that's how it happened. Pollock between 2001/02 and 2003/04 (and thereafter) remained lethal on seaming decks and was anodyne on non-seaming ones.

You see, if you'd actually watched his games you'd know that, because it was completely impossible to miss.

In the other thread you said between 2001-2004 that South African decks were as flat as anything and he didn't play in England until midway through 2003. Where were all of this seaming decks that helped Pollock's average then?

No, Shoaib did not bowl at remotely close to 155kph in Sharjah (he did in Columbo where conditions were more suitable to bowl). Shoaib bowled 31 deliveries at Hayden, including just 4 with the new ball. As Wisden stated, he "could not cope with the heat". Hardly surprising either, given it was 50 degrees Celsius +.

Ok, and what about the 89 he scored in the next Test where Waqar Younis was bowling superbly? What's the excuse for that one? Not good enough or was it too hot?

No, Hayden destroyed him because he was down. See, the bowler delivers the ball, so he controls the game. It would make zero sense for the batsman to do the destroying before the ball is bowled, because, well, that's not how cricket works.

You might notice, BTW, that Hayden has never scored runs against Vaas when he's been on top of his game. Nor have very many, because he's exceptionally good when on top of his game.

Yeah, he was down because he was obviously demoralised from being carted by a world-class batsman. There is no other excuse for it. When a batsman gets going, it's not the most unusual thing to see a bowlers head drop. Hayden's been one of the most intimidating batsman of the modern era - he even intimidated one of the intimidating pace bowlers in recent times: Jason Gillespie.

"Doesn't work"? What are you on about. The SAfricans dropped countless catches in that 2005/06 series (and plenty in 2001/02 as well). That's the way it happened. If you state otherwise, you weren't watching or were ignoring the drops for some odd reason.

I did, Nel is another of my favourite bowlers. He was let down by his fielders though, as were all the bowlers. Ntini is one of the leading wicket-takers of recent times because of his tirelessness and the fact that he's not the worst bowler you'll see. He is not an outstanding one, by any stretch of the imagination.

You make it sound like the fielders were blindly misfielding the ball on purpose and that anything that hit the bat was instant runs. What a copout. Don't quite remember any noticiably drop catches from that innings.

You say that after 2001 that batting became easier and yet since that period Ntini has averaged under 30 but yet he is not an outstanding bowler. Where is the logic?

 

[Richard]

In the other thread you said between 2001-2004 that South African decks were as flat as anything and he didn't play in England until midway through 2003. Where were all of this seaming decks that helped Pollock's average then?

As I say - you're far too reliant on averages and don't look enough at what actually happened. There was the odd flat deck in South Africa on which Pollock got decent figures on (this one, this one and this one) despite in reality posing little threat. In Zimbabwe, England, Australia and Pakistan he encountered 7 surfaces that offered nothing to seam and did nothing much on any of them. He also encountered a couple of seamers and excelled.

Ok, and what about the 89 he scored in the next Test where Waqar Younis was bowling superbly? What's the excuse for that one? Not good enough or was it too hot?

You think it cooled down in a week? The Second and Third Tests of that series were both playing in utterly ridiculous conditions. Why you mention Waqar Younis either I'm not sure - he'd been useless for a couple of years by then.

Yeah, he was down because he was obviously demoralised from being carted by a world-class batsman. There is no other excuse for it. When a batsman gets going, it's not the most unusual thing to see a bowlers head drop.

No, he wasn't. He got going because Vaas was bowling poorly and the pitch was a rank road, not the other way around.

You make it sound like the fielders were blindly misfielding the ball on purpose and that anything that hit the bat was instant runs. What a copout. Don't quite remember any noticiably drop catches from that innings.

No, they weren't misfielding on purpose. They were, however, misfielding with huge regularity and that made some good bowling from Nel and Ntini look pretty anodyne. Throughout the 6 Tests.

You say that after 2001 that batting became easier and yet since that period Ntini has averaged under 30 but yet he is not an outstanding bowler. Where is the logic?

That averages aren't everything. Ntini has many times bowled utterly terribly in that time, including a good few Tests against Australia. He has sometimes also bowled well - on both seamers and non-seamers - but he's been poor more than good. An overall average is not an accurate way of summising a bowler.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

As I say - you're far too reliant on averages and don't look enough at what actually happened. There was the odd flat deck in South Africa on which Pollock got decent figures on (this one, this one and this one) despite in reality posing little threat. In Zimbabwe, England, Australia and Pakistan he encountered 7 surfaces that offered nothing to seam and did nothing much on any of them. He also encountered a couple of seamers and excelled.

You don't take a 10fer against India and pose little threat. It just proves that you're a class act and furthermore proves that you are wrong about Shaun Pollock.

You think it cooled down in a week? The Second and Third Tests of that series were both playing in utterly ridiculous conditions. Why you mention Waqar Younis either I'm not sure - he'd been useless for a couple of years by then.

4 for 55 off 17 overs, against the best batting lineup in world cricket. Useless? I think not. Give credit where it's due.

No, he wasn't. He got going because Vaas was bowling poorly and the pitch was a rank road, not the other way around.

Nope, it is the other way round. You just think that because of your ludicrous views on Matthew Hayden.

No, they weren't misfielding on purpose. They were, however, misfielding with huge regularity and that made some good bowling from Nel and Ntini look pretty anodyne. Throughout the 6 Tests.

So Ntini or Nel bowl a decent ball to Hayden, which he cracks through the covers and a fielder dives widely to his left, only to just faintly miss it and this somehow discredits Hayden? Because I don't recall Hayden smashing the ball to a flat-footed fieldsmen who didn't have to move and then see them just miss the ball.

That averages aren't everything. Ntini has many times bowled utterly terribly in that time, including a good few Tests against Australia. He has sometimes also bowled well - on both seamers and non-seamers - but he's been poor more than good. An overall average is not an accurate way of summising a bowler.

The fact is that Hayden faced Ntini when he was at his peak and most dangerous. Hayden made runs against him. Ntini is one of the more difficult bowlers to face for left-handers.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Have to say the discussion in the last three posts is much more interesting than the one in the last three pages.

Not entirely sure I agree. There was that phase where the discussion took on ****** undertones with all that dirty talk about knickers.

 

[chaminda_00]

anyways more Thilan talk IMO, I think he should be in the ODI side.

Score some runs at domestic level or when the field is back and then we will talk.

 

[chaminda_00]

CBF quoting ikki post, but looking at it I think it shows more the quality of bowling attacks as much as anything. Australian pitches haven't been that hard to bat on it just the bowling attack has been that good. Pakistan pitches haven't that much better to bowl on, but apart a small periods when they had Asif and Akhtar their bowling attack hasn't been that great.

I think in general most pitches are about the same. It is just the quality of bowlers that makes the difference.

 

[chaminda_00]

As much as I think Jehan Mubarak is a joke, it the runs that he scores away from Sri Lanka for Sri Lanka A that gives him a half decent average. He averages in the low 30s in Sri Lankan for Colombo CC. Yet from majority of away matches for Sri Lanka A he averages close to 40. If he played on more batter friendly tracks, unlike the Sri Lankan pitches he would have a lot better average.

Pretty much gives you a perfect example of how poor Sri Lankan pitches are.

Team Matches Inns Not Out Runs HS Ave 100 50 
Colombo Cricket Club 45 76 6 2163 169   30.90  4 13 
Sri Lanka A 37 67 7 2314 140   38.56  2 16

 

[Ikki]

Daymn*.

No, it's actually: Dayum.

 

[Manee]

No, it's actually: Dayum.

Actually, you might be right there; that seems slightly better, tbh.