Will Tait break Akhtars world record?

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

I'd be interested to look at his shield average.

I'm sure SJS has posted in the past that Bradman's career FC average owes a lot to his exploits in England.

Sure does, if you mean it's been detrimental. Sheffield Shield average of 110.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Sure does, if you mean it's been detrimental. Sheffield Shield average of 110.

Bloomin' 'eck

[aussie]

Originally Posted by archie mac

As far as I know and I can look it up if you like

It was the not playing a shot rule that was the problem, as they were playing under the current law regards to ball pitching outside off stump but striking them in line.

So what happened to those "two pals of mine" was that as soon as the ball landed outside off stump the batsman just kicked it away with their bats high in the air, which is why they changed the rule to not offering a shot soon after Sort of how batsman played Warne when he was getting a lot of turn

Would be easier to explain if we were face to face

Ohhhh yes sir sir, i get the difference. Always good to being educated by the CW veterans

[aussie]

Originally Posted by marc71178

Mate seriously don't try and argue - the flaws have been pointed out time and time again. Over time you'll learn to allow him his little foibles as it's a complete waste of time trying to debate them with him.

And you should stop trolling Richard's FCA theory if you dont agree with it, especially when he has clearly never said anything like this what poster GuyFromLancs said.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Debris

If you look at any game in which both Lee and Aktar played, Lee was always quicker. Maybe Aktar was put off by the opposition. Not sure about Tait being faster again though.

Not true at all - Shoaib outpaced Lee plenty often enough, as well as of course proving himself miles better, which is far more important. Most significant example of course came in the Test at SSC in 2002/03.

Personally I think Tait could easily prove capable of bowling quicker max balls than either Shoaib or BLee, but in terms of Shoaib vs. Lee Shoaib comes-out trumps on just about every count.

Except of course fitness record.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

TBH, I don't agree. I have seen batters very late on the ball or miss by miles to guys the speedgun says they shouldn't. Reckon Curtly's seam movement gave him an extra 10Km/h visually, for example.

That's why the naked eye - of batsman as well as spectator - isn't a reliable gauge of speed of delivery.

Other factors to add to the "why was he late on that when it was only 86mph?" include: the batsman doesn't always pick the ball up as early as he'd normally expect to (some grounds you have to ask what the point is in the sightscreen at all, so little use is it); some bowlers lose way more speed off the pitch than others; a bowler with an awkward action (a la Courtney Walsh or Colin Croft) will as-a-rule be much more difficult to sight than a bowler with the perfect natural action like Andy Roberts or Michael Holding; a batsman always has more time to play a short one than a full one because the most loss of speed occurs on pitching.

Basically I always have to laugh when a commentator says "well that ball was clearly more than 86mph because of the way the batsman reacted". Nope, don't work like that. The scientific instrument is infinitely less likely to have erred than the human eye. But so many human brains don't fully understand what it is their eye is seeing.

Akhtar's quick ball to Knight he played with relatively little fuss and he went for 8 an over that day.

Just FTR, Shoaib's opening spell in that match was a damn good one, as well as being unbelievably quick. It was later that he - and in fact the rest of the Pakistan attack - went to pot.

In 2001 there was an Australia vs Pakistan game where Shoaib broke the record for fastest recorded delivery at Gilchrist (97.6mph or something) which was a wide one that Gilchrist whacked through point in characteristic style. The next one was about 96mph and he was late on it, bowled, even though it didn't noticeably swing so much as one degree.

Top-class batsmen almost never get beaten for pace but someone like Gilchrist, with his high backlift, was a prime candidate. Pretty sure I once saw Shoaib smash his stumps when it seemed he'd got the bat about halfway down too. TBF though, that was a big inswinger which no batsman in history would've had a realistic hope in hell of playing. But I reckon some would've got closer than Gilchrist did.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Migara

Well, Murali and Warne on those, would be a nightmare. Kumble would be far worse than a nightmare, because he pitches everything within stumps.

That's true, but it's their misfortune they never got to bowl on them. Verity got advantages Kumble did not, so thus while Verity might not have been much if at all better than Kumble he was certainly an incrdibly difficult bowler to face a damn sight more often than Kumble was.

Ditto a great many other bowlers on either side of the uncovered-wickets divide. Underwood, whose career spanned it, is proof enough of that; averaged about 16 in the days of fully uncovered decks and about 30 after they begun to be covered.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by The_roc

How so?

Batsmen can analyse their own technique and improve it same way bowlers can. Batsmen can analyse a bowler's strengths and weaknesses the same way bowlers can analyse a batsman's.

The technological study of bowling and batting certainly helps offer the chance for batsmen and bowlers to get better, but it certainly doesn't offer one the chance to improve more than the other.

[L Trumper]

Originally Posted by Richard

Top-class batsmen almost never get beaten for pace but someone like Gilchrist, with his high backlift, was a prime candidate. Pretty sure I once saw Shoaib smash his stumps when it seemed he'd got the bat about halfway down too. TBF though, that was a big inswinger which no batsman in history would've had a realistic hope in hell of playing. But I reckon some would've got closer than Gilchrist did.

I think thats the same spell where he got ricky and two waughs in three balls. Waugh brothers don't have a clue either.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by GuyFromLancs

FCA also falls short in deciding the kind of chance. Is brushing the fielders fingers at deep extra-cover the same as giving 1st slip a sitter that he drops on his foot?

If you want to discuss this it's probably best we do so privately-ish, save both of us from Marc's imbecilic input.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by L Trumper

I think thats the same spell where he got ricky and two waughs in three balls. Waugh brothers don't have a clue either.

Well TBF they were both past it by then and didn't have a clue against plenty besides (remember Mark Waugh getting out to a Nathan Astle delivery that was as innocuous a delivery from as nobody a bowler as you could wish to see) but yeah, that spell was all the explanation anyone needs of how, when the best bowlers get it right, it doesn't matter how good the batsmen are - he can simply be too hot to handle.

You couldn't wish to see a better spell than that. If you dig deep enough you'll find the odd few as good (McGrath on the opening afternoon at Lord's in 2005 for instance) but not many, and certainly none better.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Sure does, if you mean it's been detrimental. Sheffield Shield average of 110.

Bradman appears to have a stumping for South Australia. Anyone know the story behind that?

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by Goughy

Bradman appears to have a stumping for South Australia. Anyone know the story behind that?

Haha, wow, had no idea. Reckon some of the crustier members would know. Might ask around.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Goughy

Bradman appears to have a stumping for South Australia. Anyone know the story behind that?

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Haha, wow, had no idea. Reckon some of the crustier members would know. Might ask around.

That was easy enough to find out. God bless the internet

"15 January 1938: South Australia played a Sheffield Shield match v New South Wales in Sydney. Because South Australia's regular wicket-keeper had a broken finger Bradman kept wickets, stumping one & taking 3 catches"

http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archiv.../16/16490.html

Bill O'Reilly the man stumped

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Sure does, if you mean it's been detrimental. Sheffield Shield average of 110.

Got a link for that?

Not that I don't believe you, I've either misinterpreted or not properly remembered what was posted.