What makes a good bowler?

[marc71178]

For crying out loud, stop going back to this stupid notion of deserving wickets - the number of wickets that these bowlers have means they must be doing something right.

McGrath is one of the all time greats.

 

[Richard]

No, it doesn't neccesarily.
A ball deserves a wicket and a ball doesn't deserve a wicket - no-one disputes that - and if a bowler doesn't take wickets with wicket-taking balls he's not, in my view, a good bowler. That is not right, or wrong, it's my opinion and some people agree. We are in a minority (on here at least, and I imagine in the cricketing World) but we exist and as far as I'm concerned even if not a single person I knew agreed with me I'd still be right in my opinion - because there's no point having an opinion unless you believe it's right.
Now stop disputing and just agree to disagree, because I'm not going to stop "going back" to it and I highly doubt you are either.

 

[luckyeddie]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Neil Pickup]

I'd still be right in my opinion - because there's no point having an opinion unless you believe it's right.

Isn't freedom of speech rubbish?

This is the same argument that the BNP/Nazis use, isn't it?

Nevertheless, the most successful counter-strategy remains - not banning - but public ridicule...

 

[Richard]

Isn't freedom of speech rubbish?

This is the same argument that the BNP/Nazis use, isn't it?

Nevertheless, the most successful counter-strategy remains - not banning - but public ridicule...

Quite how this is connected I'm not sure.

 

[luckyeddie]

Re 'freedom of speech' - I watched Prime Minister's Question Time today and one of my heroes, Dennis Skinner (The Beast of Bolsover) came up with a beauty.

The previous insipid question was some drone about crime figures, then Dennis said "With respect to the crime figures, is the PM concerned regarding the rise in backstabbing, especially from the opposite benches?"

 

[Richard]

8D
Mr. Skinner is something of a legend.

 

[Top_Cat]

I just had a long post which proved my point in response to Richard's baiting but it got eaten and I lost it so I'm not going to post it again. I guess someone is trying to teach me the virtues of not rising to take the bait.

Richard, you're wrong on this one. I can prove you're wrong but if you won't listen, there's little point. Objectively, just because one holds an opinion and believes they are right in their own mind, does not mean that is the case. To accept this as an argument would mean we'd have to accept the premiss that all opinions are equal which is patently not the case because, in this case, the antecedent most certainly does NOT affirm the consequent.

You could argue the colour of the sky is yellow and, if all opinions were equal and your argument that your opinion is right because you believe it's right were true, well I'd have no way of arguing against you, regardless of the actual TRUTH of the matter. If what you said is true, skepticism (in its purest sense, not agnosticism as many people mix it up with) would be gospel and no-one would be able to know anything.

I've already shown (and would be able to prove if I was able to show you my video footage) my argument with regards to Gillespie and McGrath's ability to bowl good deliveries, to move the ball etc. and how your assertion that they don't is factually incorrect. All you've done is reaffirm your argument. The fact that you keep rephrasing your argument might fool some but not me. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the merit in the arguments of some means you probably shouldn't be surprised if people either don't bother to argue with you anymore or do things like this:

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Now either you give some ground like the lack of strength in your arguments suggests you should do or you can continue along your current path and responses like the sarcastic ones you've seen will become commonplace.

 

[luckyeddie]

Totally agree with TC here. It's a bit like the 'Creationist v Evolutionist' argument.

No amount of 'proof' from the Evolution side will ever convince a Creationist that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, the universe more than three times that or that our (mankind's) common ancestry is more likely to be an antedeluvian starfish as opposed to a 'perfect' man and woman created in the image of a deity.

Similarly, no debunking of C14 dating techniques or other creationist arguments is going to sway me from my beliefs.

Both sides stick their fingers in their ears and shout 'lalalalalalalalalala' so they cannot hear the other side - but it doesn't matter if they hear anyway because their beliefs are entrenched by FAITH.

 

[Craig]

For crying out loud, stop going back to this stupid notion of deserving wickets - the number of wickets that these bowlers have means they must be doing something right.

McGrath is one of the all time greats.

Correct me if I am wrong - but didnt you once say when you and Rik were arguing over Saggers (you didnt rate him Rike does) and I asked you a question on how do you rate bowlers and you said that you judge them wickets, how they get them etc. so does that contridict your comments?

If you play McGrath back and across and you are able to play a few shots to him, you have almost beaten him really. He strives on batsmen losing patience and those who play off the front foot to balls they shouldnt. Just look at how New Zealand played him when they toured in 2001.

 

[Top_Cat]

If you play McGrath back and across and you are able to play a few shots to him, you have almost beaten him really. He strives on batsmen losing patience and those who play off the front foot to balls they shouldnt. Just look at how New Zealand played him when they toured in 2001.

What works in one series won't neccessarily work in others. Maybe McGrath did slip into that line of thought for that series and well done to the Kiwis for finding out a way to not get out to him. But other teams have tried it and they haven't been able emulate the Kiwi success because McGrath is able to adjust his tactics too. You don't become as successful as McGrath by sticking rigidly to a tactic which may have worked in the past but doesn't anymore.

 

[godofcricket]

Yet the Aussie side keeping on winning and they both keep taking wickets. Funny that. But of course, they don't pose any threat. Yes, it's the batsmen getting themselves out.

Seems you mis-understood me. I was trying to compare the threat of wasim/waqar in early 90's to Mcgrath/Gillespie pair.......theres no comparison. i have never heard Mcgrath/gillespie pair called as a deadly pair. they are 2 good bowlers and can't figure out how u can name gillespie with legends....it doesn't suit him at the moment.

 

[Richard]

I just had a long post which proved my point in response to Richard's baiting but it got eaten and I lost it so I'm not going to post it again. I guess someone is trying to teach me the virtues of not rising to take the bait.

Richard, you're wrong on this one. I can prove you're wrong but if you won't listen, there's little point. Objectively, just because one holds an opinion and believes they are right in their own mind, does not mean that is the case. To accept this as an argument would mean we'd have to accept the premiss that all opinions are equal which is patently not the case because, in this case, the antecedent most certainly does NOT affirm the consequent.

You could argue the colour of the sky is yellow and, if all opinions were equal and your argument that your opinion is right because you believe it's right were true, well I'd have no way of arguing against you, regardless of the actual TRUTH of the matter. If what you said is true, skepticism (in its purest sense, not agnosticism as many people mix it up with) would be gospel and no-one would be able to know anything.

I've already shown (and would be able to prove if I was able to show you my video footage) my argument with regards to Gillespie and McGrath's ability to bowl good deliveries, to move the ball etc. and how your assertion that they don't is factually incorrect. All you've done is reaffirm your argument. The fact that you keep rephrasing your argument might fool some but not me. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the merit in the arguments of some means you probably shouldn't be surprised if people either don't bother to argue with you anymore or do things like this:

(zzzzz)

Now either you give some ground like the lack of strength in your arguments suggests you should do or you can continue along your current path and responses like the sarcastic ones you've seen will become commonplace.

Whether deliberately or through mistake (I suspect the latter) you've taken this rather the wrong way.
I never said "I am right because I believe I'm right", the point I was trying to make is there is no objective definition of "suceed" or "fail" in cricket (as you recently pointed-out in my thread about stats). The Harmison argument exemplifies this perfectly. One (Rik) arguing that two sides that barely deserve the name "Tests" against their international FC matches don't really say much about someone's Test credentials - someone else (marc) arguing that because someone's not done quite as badly as the rest they should be let-off the hook and not criticised.
Weight of opinion is, quite simply, the only definition of "right" and "wrong"; I've said this many times, if not on here. I've had enough arguments on the WC English Cricket Forum with an Oscar fellow who refuses to accept that he is in the minority and basically argues exactly like you are accusing me of arguing.
I was not in any way trying to bait or patronise you with the McGrath\Gillespie stuff; I will be amazed if I've seen a quarter of what you've seen of their bowling, and I was quite serious that I will take your likely-superior word until I have tried to look at what you suggest I have not seen.
However, with the "deserve wickets" argument there is no "proof" either way, except majority opinion. I have every right to believe in the merit of wickets the way I wish. I do not say others "are wrong" to argue that a few play-and-misses means a Long-Hop hit to cover is deserved; I simply say I do not agree.
If you ask me, normal circumstances see bad balls not taking wickets, regardless of what has preceded. It takes quite something to prove otherwise because, as you've said, big sequences of DVD\video-footage aren't easy to transfer via forums. Eddie quite rightly states that more wickets than not come exclusively through batting error with the bowler doing little in that ball to merit the wicket, but if you ask me in normal circumstances bad balls still don't take wickets far, far more often than they do.
That is my view of the matter and until I see something to suggest otherwise to me I will continue to believe it and will continue to attempt to convince others of the merit of the view. But I won't argue over and over again with the same person, because that's just a circular argument and as Mr. Pickup said recently, it wastes our bandwidth which helps no-one.

 

[Top_Cat]

Seems you mis-understood me. I was trying to compare the threat of wasim/waqar in early 90's to Mcgrath/Gillespie pair.......theres no comparison. i have never heard Mcgrath/gillespie pair called as a deadly pair. they are 2 good bowlers and can't figure out how u can name gillespie with legends....it doesn't suit him at the moment.

You're probably right on Gillespie (he's far from being considered a 'great') but on McGrath, his quality is indisputable. On his record alone, he'd make most sides in Test history but all you have to do is look at him bowl to see what a quality bowler he is.

And you don't have to convince me of the quality of the two W's; you're talking to one of the biggest Waqar fans of all time here.

never said "I am right because I believe I'm right",

as far as I'm concerned even if not a single person I knew agreed with me I'd still be right in my opinion - because there's no point having an opinion unless you believe it's right.

You may not have said it but in the statement above, you infer it. I mean, now we're getting into a Clinton-esque "Ah did not have ***ual relations with that woman" semantics argument here. Tell me, what's the material difference?

the point I was trying to make is there is no objective definition of "suceed" or "fail" in cricket (as you recently pointed-out in my thread about stats).

WHOA! Hang on, I never said that; I was pointing out that stats shouldn't be the SOLE judge of a cricketer and that objectively they don't prove anything that there needs to be context for them to constitute proof of anything. BIG difference there.

As for objective vs subjective, I feel like I'm watching an argument between Ayn Rand arguing with someone like Descartes.

Either way, there's no objective proof of ability as such but stats can certainly be considered objective proof of 'success'. 'Deserved' success is something which is more on the subjective side, though there is objective criteria to be applied to judge how much a bowler or batsman deserves their success. It's just that not everyone may agree on the criteria.

Just for the record, I'm not a Randian (her views on war and Israel are repugnant) but I certainly don't subscribe to the Descartian theory that we cannot know anything for sure either.

 

[Richard]

You may not have said it but in the statement, you infer it. I mean, now we're getting into a Clinton-esque "Ah did not have ***ual relations with that woman" semantics argument here. Tell me, what's the material difference?

Nothing, if you see it that way. I just hate the stupid comment often trotted-out "if something doesn't agree with your opinion, it must be wrong".
Maybe no-one made that exact comment, but it sure felt like it.

WHOA! Hang on, I never said that; I was pointing out that stats shouldn't be the SOLE judge of a cricketer and that objectively they don't prove anything that there needs to be context for them to constitute proof of anything. BIG difference there.

As for objective vs subjective, I feel like I'm watching an argument between Ayn Rand arguing with someone like Descartes.

Either way, there's no objective proof of ability as such but stats can certainly be considered objective proof of 'success'. 'Deserved' success is something which is more on the subjective side, though there is objective criteria to be applied to judge how much a bowler or batsman deserves their success. It's just that not everyone may agree on the criteria.

Just for the record, I'm not a Randian (her views on war and Israel are repugnant) but I certainly don't subscribe to the Descartian theory that we cannot know anything for sure either.

'Fraid to say I do. For all we know everything could be a figment of our imagination. I do go in for realism, though, and I don't try to deny what we all consider facts (eg murder is bad, cricket is good )
Your first and third paragraphs in this passage I am in total agreement with. Success and statistical proof of it are as objective as they come, and I probably misphrased my phrase:

the point I was trying to make is there is no objective definition of "suceed" or "fail" in cricket (as you recently pointed-out in my thread about stats)

What I should have said was there is no objective proof of deserved success.
Sometimes I think I agree with you a lot more than I seem to because I phrase things so poorly so often.

 

[PY]

As for objective vs subjective, I feel like I'm watching an argument between Ayn Rand arguing with someone like Descartes.

Just for the record, I'm not a Randian (her views on war and Israel are repugnant) but I certainly don't subscribe to the Descartian theory that we cannot know anything for sure either.

*ducks as another T_C post goes whistling over my head*

 

[Neil Pickup]

For all we know everything could be a figment of our imagination.

:rolleyes:

 

[luckyeddie]

I drink, therefore I am

 

[Richard]

Sorry if I'm wasting bandwidth with a pointless post, but that combination of the last two was absolutely hilarious.

 

[gibbsnsmith]

well, ive done it for the last 800 posts of mine..