Which is the most important dismissal in cricket?

[_Ed_]

Indeed, look at someone like Michael Campbell for an example of that.

 

[Top_Cat]

Richard - still failing to understand basic sports pyschology.

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

Exactly. You just have to look at the myriad of players whose confidence has been dented by an event to see the effect it can have on a career. If confidence means nothing, you may as well just pick players who are 25 and younger because physical skills just diminish after that.

 

[bagapath]

Exactly. You just have to look at the myriad of players whose confidence has been dented by an event to see the effect it can have on a career. If confidence means nothing, you may as well just pick players who are 25 and younger because physical skills just diminish after that.

monica seles is the best example.. someone who was on the way to becoming one of the best of all time became a lesser player after the stabbing.. even the time she took to go back on court was reflective of the dent the attack had created in her psyche..

 

[SJS]

The last Australian wicket to fall in the tied test of 1961 (one could claim the entire over or the entire match) marked a turning point in the game.

England and Australia under very dull and defensive captains had led the world in one of the worst phases (from the spectator's point of view) in the game and its popularity was at a low ebb and then came Benaud with his refreshing new and positive approach, alongwith Worrell and the first Test of the series resulted in this magificient game culminating to a nerve-tingling climax that even a fiction writer would not have dared to conjure.

But its the fact that it finally ended in a last ball tie is what made this amazing game so miraculously unbelievable and completely 'turned on' the cricketing public. The series continued to produce great cricket and the spectators thronged back to the grounds and cricket was back as a premier spectator sport.

 

[Perm]

Somewhat surprised nobody's mentioned this.

Still amazes me everytime I see it, such a magnificent delivery. Not quite as good as Wasim Akram's ball to dismiss Rahul Dravid in 1999, but a special piece of cricket nonetheless.

 

[sanga1337]

monica seles is the best example.. someone who was on the way to becoming one of the best of all time became a lesser player after the stabbing.. even the time she took to go back on court was reflective of the dent the attack had created in her psyche..

Contractor would be another one

 

[Richard]

Still amazes me everytime I see it, such a magnificent delivery. Not quite as good as Wasim Akram's ball to dismiss Rahul Dravid in 1991, but a special piece of cricket nonetheless.

I wouldn't imagine Wasim was bowling at Dravid in 1991, given Dravid was still 5 years from playing for India.

 

[Richard]

richard... you dont have to bluff so hard...

I'm not.

it is just a chat forum... there are no prizes for not blinking for too long...

I'm aware of that. I just don't go saying things that are wrong and then saying "oh yeah that was wrong". If things were wrong I wouldn't say them.

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..

No they're not. Hick patently required everything to be in place for him to succeed. Everyone who knew him well spoke of this. His temperament was fragile. If he felt wanted and comfortable, then things could click for him and he could be an excellent player. But he didn't, and this happened pretty much perminantly from 1996 onwards, then he was awful. He was not someone who lacked confidence all career and could not ever get it.

And really, if you're going to tell me that Imran wasn't head and shoulders above other Pakistani bowlers '85/86-'88/89, Kapil all Indians in the same period and Hadlee all Kiwis pretty much all career, I don't know what you were watching. Likewise if you're going to tell me England '86-'89 or Australia '84-'88/89 had a single decent bowler, because they didn't. BTW - read properly. I did not say "in the 1980s", I said "in the second half of the 1980s".

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

Nonsense.

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..

It's "hijacked". And no, I haven't - threads aren't there for hijacking.

 

[Richard]

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.

How on Earth is "gaining confidence" akin to "gaining mental strength"? The whole point is that mental strength is something which means you're, if you like, perminantly confident. Your fear of failure is very low.

Hick was mentally weak - always. But when looked after well, he could play exceptionally.

 

[Richard]

Exactly. You just have to look at the myriad of players whose confidence has been dented by an event to see the effect it can have on a career. If confidence means nothing, you may as well just pick players who are 25 and younger because physical skills just diminish after that.

This is simply madness. Where on Earth have I said "confidence means nothing"?

 

[Manee]

I wouldn't imagine Wasim was bowling at Dravid in 1991, given Dravid was still 5 years from playing for India.

Is this it?

 

[Perm]

I wouldn't imagine Wasim was bowling at Dravid in 1991, given Dravid was still 5 years from playing for India.

Haha, whoops. I meant 1999. Will edit now to avoid confusion, thanks.

 

[Jamee999]

It didn't, though. It cost England a World Cup victory, but that's it.

Australia's Test revivial didn't start for another 2 years, and had zero to do with the victory in the 1987 World Cup.

Butterflies...

 

[Richard]

Aye, you'll not get a bigger believer in the butterfly-hurricane theorem than me. But I don't think its effect is particularly collossal in this case.

Else, amazingly enough, I'd have said so by now.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Australia's Test revivial didn't start for another 2 years, and had zero to do with the victory in the 1987 World Cup.

Wrong again, never mind. Anyone interested should read Cricket Webs own interview with David Boon.

 

[Richard]

Wrong again, never mind.

Yeah, of course, Australia's Test performances in 1987/88 and 1988/89 were superlative, weren't they?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yeah, of course, Australia's Test performances in 1987/88 and 1988/89 were superlative, weren't they?

Well you say

Australia's Test revivial didn't start for another 2 years, and had zero to do with the victory in the 1987 World Cup.

....and David Boon says

The 1987 World Cup victory was certainly a turning point. It gave us confidence and helped the rebuilding of Australian cricket.

So people can choose to believe someone who regularly posts utter nonsense or someone who was involved at the time in the closest possible way.
Tough choice.

 

[Richard]

Boon undoubtedly felt better about matters for the victory. Whatever he says, though, Australia's Test performances didn't look-up until the 1989 Ashes. And nothing will change this.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

.........and nothing will change the fact that you're totally wrong to say the World Cup had zero impact on their revival - just because they lost narrowly in Pakistan and were beaten at home by the still very powerful West Indies. You're also still wrong about David Boon turning the corner as a Test batsman quite a while before the World Cup. You really should heed what bagapath says about bluffing........although the fact that you don't actually makes it all funnier.

 

[Richard]

No, I'm not wrong about Boon turning the corner in 1985/86, because that's what he did. If I was bluffing, I'd be sitting here thinking "I'm bluffing". But I'm not. So I'm not.