Which is the most important dismissal in cricket?

[Lillian Thomson]

I'm well aware Boon started his career poorly, but he'd already turned the corner as a Test player before the 1987/88 Cup. Quite a while before in fact.

Not true at all. He had an appalling series against England in 1986/87 where he was always on the verge of being dropped. Apart from one century he barely reached double figures and was dropped for Final Test. There was no more Test cricket until after the 1987 World Cup. He was probably averaging no more than low to mid 30's at that time in his career.

 

[bagapath]

Eh? Where did I deny it? I simply said that it's not as important as class. Boon was easily better than the likes of Wellham, and McDermott, Reid and Hughes were easily better than the likes of Gilbert, Davis and O'Donnell. Let's remind ourselves that O'Donnell himself was an incredibly important part in the 1987/88 victory, but did it turn him into a good Test bowler? No, because he was useless in that format, he didn't have the skill.

I'm well aware Boon started his career poorly, but he'd already turned the corner as a Test player before the 1987/88 Cup. Quite a while before in fact.

Let's also remind ourselves that it wasn't until 1990/91 that McDermott became the truly excellent bowler he was for the first half of the 1990s. Long after the WC triumph.

While the likes of Boon, McDermott and others might not have been as good as they were had Gatting executed that reverse-sweep better, I cannot believe players as good as they would not have come through eventually. Class is difficult to keep down forever.

I dont agree with you richard. but I wont argue anymore. you are welcome to stand by your opinion. but I will always believe, at the highest level, even a technically mediocre player with self belief performs better than a good player with a weak spine.

example:

ravi shastri > greame hick

 

[wpdavid]

Did any body mentioned

Gatting getting out reverse sweeping in the 87 world cup final

Last post on page 1.

And then discussed for the remainder of the thread

 

[Richard]

Yeah by just trying to keep him out plus, the last two Tests in 94/95 were in Adelaide and Perth - hardly spinning paradises, especially in those days. Plus, it's a lot easier when you're already either well behind or have lost the series. It's when the series is alive, that's when it counts and in 'live' Tests, they were pretty circumspect in their play of Warne to say the least.

Yes, I know all of that. In spite all of this, though, Australia had already established their stranglehold over England 2 series before Warne was involved, and Alderman did indeed bowl better and more effectively in 1989 than Warne in either 1993 or 1994/95. Only by 2005 (when, yes, England attacked too much and failed to learn the lessons of defence paying-off later in the 1993 and 1994/95 series') did Warne match Alderman's performance. Even then it ended-up in a losing cause (little to do with the calibre of either's performance, of course, and far more to do with the relative strength of other plays on both sides in the two series').

As for the WI being denied by rain in 1995, I gather you didn't watch the match? Because it was on a dicey deck, the WI were chasing about 250 (the Aussies only declared because of the rain otherwise, with Steve Waugh at the crease and in the form of his life, would likely have set 300+) which was always going to be beyond them after the Aussie batting effort in their second dig and Lara was out; the rain saved them in that match.

Can't say I agree with that from what I've read (no, never watched a ball from it), but I'll have another look.

 

[Richard]

Not true at all. He had an appalling series against England in 1986/87 where he was always on the verge of being dropped. Apart from one century he barely reached double figures and was dropped for Final Test. There was no more Test cricket until after the 1987 World Cup. He was probably averaging no more than low to mid 30's at that time in his career.

Boon arrived as a Test batsman in the summer of 1985/86 (probably the most wretched in Australian cricket history), despite being promoted to open midway though. He'd had a poor introduction against West Indies in 1984/85 and continued to do poorly against England in 1985, as well as the poor 1986/87 series. But in between he played 9 Tests against other teams and averaged 45.

It wasn't like he'd never done anything of note in Test cricket before 1987/88, or even close.

 

[Richard]

I dont agree with you richard. but I wont argue anymore. you are welcome to stand by your opinion. but I will always believe, at the highest level, even a technically mediocre player with self belief performs better than a good player with a weak spine.

example:

ravi shastri > greame hick

It totally depends on how easily your technical flaws are exploited. If bowlers can exploit your technical flaws, you've no chance no matter how good your self-belief is.

Equally, having a "weak spine" is a) poor form terminology and rather insulting and b) not a black-and-white case. Hick, for instance, despite being suspect of temperament (and earlier on in his career of technique too) was a high-class Test batsman between 1992/93 and 1995/96, because his temperamental flaws weren't terminal.

You see all sorts of batsmen who have a good mindset but simply don't possess the skill. And no, technique is not the only skill required for batsmen - good shot-selection is even more important. Too many people mistake good shot-selection for mental strength.

 

[bagapath]

Equally, having a "weak spine" is a) poor form terminology and rather insulting and b) not a black-and-white case. Hick, for instance, despite being suspect of temperament (and earlier on in his career of technique too) was a high-class Test batsman between 1992/93 and 1995/96, because his temperamental flaws weren't terminal.

thanks so much for pointing it out. england reaching the 1992 world cup final could have helped his confidence.

 

[Richard]

I doubt it TBH. No-one I've ever read talk about Hick and his mentality (and there are a good few) have ever suggested the possibility.

 

[bagapath]

LOL. good to see you play it with soft hands. well, i dont believe it either. but cant let go of an opprtunity to catch you with your hand in the cookie jar.

actually my suggestion is ridiculous but only as much as calling him a high class test batsman even for that period in which he scored 4 centuries and averaged above 40. hick's test career was one of the most disappointing for such a highly successful first class cricketer. he never had the ticker. you cant say he couldnt bat at all. he had the ability. 120 odd first class centuries is no easy task. but he was a nobody in the test arena. he simply never had the spine for high caliber test cricket.

dont make the mistake of calling him a "high class" test cricketer just to bend my argument. no bowling team ever lost sleep over handling him in tests. ever.

steve waugh and, more certainly, ravi shastri had much limited strokes compared to him. so did allan border. one of them had a much more successful stint on the international stage than hick. i dont have to tell you about the greatness of the other two. the only difference between this bunch and the hicks of this world is - confidence.

 

[bagapath]

Too many people mistake good shot-selection for mental strength.

Yeah? Thank goodness I have never met any such idiot in my life. How can one mistake shot selection for mental strength? What next? People mistaking abdomen guards for condoms?

 

[Richard]

Have heard people underestimate what was Stephen Waugh's shot-selection, thinking it his mental strength (both were qualities he possessed in abundance BTW) many times.

For instance.

 

[Richard]

actually my suggestion is ridiculous but only as much as calling him a high class test batsman even for that period in which he scored 4 centuries and averaged above 40. hick's test career was one of the most disappointing for such a highly successful first class cricketer. he never had the ticker. you cant say he couldnt bat at all. he had the ability. 120 odd first class centuries is no easy task. but he was a nobody in the test arena. he simply never had the spine for high caliber test cricket.

dont make the mistake of calling him a "high class" cricketer just to bend my argument. no bowling team ever lost sleep over handling him in tests. ever.

I doubt that. I'm also rather surprised anyone could think themselves certain of it. Yes, much of Hick's Test career was indeed exceptionally disappointing, but none of that changes the fact that between 1992/93 and 1995/96 he was, yes indeed, excellent. Right out of the top drawer. Exactly what people had thought he could be.

Daftest thing is, he did have the "ticker" (whatever that means). Had Hick not had a good mindset he'd never have been able to have any success, however relatively short-term. You can't go from being mentally weak to mentally strong. Hick did have the mental strength, but he needed the right circumstances to bring this out of him. For a fairly brief time, he got this. But later on, he did not.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Boon arrived as a Test batsman in the summer of 1985/86 (probably the most wretched in Australian cricket history), despite being promoted to open midway though. He'd had a poor introduction against West Indies in 1984/85 and continued to do poorly against England in 1985, as well as the poor 1986/87 series. But in between he played 9 Tests against other teams and averaged 45.

It wasn't like he'd never done anything of note in Test cricket before 1987/88, or even close.

What a surprise. Instead of accepting that you're completely 100% wrong to say Boon had turned the corner as a Test batsman "quite a while" before the 1987 World Cup we get this nonsense about a golden period of 9 Test Matches, which was mainly against a one man Indian attack.

 

[Richard]

No indeed, I've no reason to accept I was wrong. I've learned nothing new since making the original statement.

Boon turned the corner as a Test batsman in 1985/86, which was quite a while before the 1987/88 season. Yes, most of the runs were against one-man attacks (which incidentally comprised pretty much every Test team bar West Indies in the second half of the 1980s - some even less than that) but they were runs, and he scored plenty of them and clearly established his credentials at Test level. It wasn't a "golden period", and amazingly enough I never claimed it was, but it was him showing that he was up to the task at Test level.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

No indeed, I've no reason to accept I was wrong. I've learned nothing new since making the original statement.

Boon turned the corner as a Test batsman in 1985/86, which was quite a while before the 1987/88 season. Yes, most of the runs were against one-man attacks (which incidentally comprised pretty much every Test team bar West Indies in the second half of the 1980s - some even less than that) but they were runs, and he scored plenty of them and clearly established his credentials at Test level. It wasn't a "golden period", and amazingly enough I never claimed it was, but it was him showing that he was up to the task at Test level.

That is an even lamer defence of a wrong (and totally idiotic) statement than I expected, not even worthy of a

 

[Richard]

Got one though, as most of your comments generally include.

 

[Zinzan]

Ah, confidence and self-belief. None any use if you're not class players.

.

Stand right there please Richard ..

 

[bagapath]

No indeed, I've no reason to accept I was wrong. I've learned nothing new since making the original statement.

richard... you dont have to bluff so hard... it is just a chat forum... there are no prizes for not blinking for too long... your last few posts about about hick having "right circumstances to succeed" and every team barring west indies being "one man attack" in the 80s are beyond ridiculous..

and people mistaking shot selection for mental strength!!!!!!!!!! it is the most idiotic statement i have ever heard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by making one provocative statement about confidence and self belief having no role in the success of a cricketer you have high jacked the thread.. now all your time is spent on defending yourself, since you cant defend your points..

 

[bagapath]

You can't go from being mentally weak to mentally strong.

yes. you can. in simple english it is called gaining in confidence; the opposite of which is - yes, you guessed it right - losing it. and this phenomenon happens in either direction all the time to everyone alive. and this has a bearing on success or failure in whatever they do.


can we all get back to the topic please?

 

[Perm]

You can't go from being mentally weak to mentally strong.

Richard - still failing to understand basic sports pyschology.

It's called confidence son, and it helps massively with professional sport.