Richard

[Craig]

1, what do you view as a wicket taking ball? And with what ball is a wicket deserved?

2, Is a batsman edges a ball and it was one of those catches were the fielder catches the ball just before it hits the ground and is given not out, and is on7, but goes on to 278 without giving another chance, is it deserved?

 

[Richard]

1, impossible to define without variability. Clearly, a perfectly pitched away-swinger which draws a stroke and catches the edge to 'keeper\slips is, but so is an in-swinging Yorker.
A delivery which does not move sideways at all can never be one, really. One that keeps low can be realistically unplayable, but something doesn't have to have been realistically unplayable to have been good bowling.
Keeping low doesn't relate to the bowler; it relates to the pitch. No good bowling can cause uneven bounce (changes in action and pace can cause the ball to stay lower \ bounce higher than expected, though, but you don't often see that resulting in a wicket).
Fortunately it seems those clear catches which are given not-out may be a thing of the past, but if you get one, then clearly the 271 is a very good knock but nonetheless would not have happened but for something which did not relate to the batsman's ability.

 

[Craig]

To me IMO, if you bowl to a batsman's weakness/or strength and get a wicke t it is deserved if you were bowling to a plan. However, not whe you bowl negatively.

 

[Mr. P]

:O :O :!(

Anything can be a wicket taking ball!!! (And a deserved one too)

The best example is a bowler like Brett Lee who can get the batsman on the back foot for a couple of balls, the produce a terribly wide half volley and get a nick/snick, whatever.

Why? Because he's bowled with a plan and the batsman, not moving his feet, couldn't play the ball correctly.

A good short ball can take wickets.

A bowler who forces the batsman to play a risky shot because he has been restricted deserves a wicket.

If you think about it, anything can be a deserved wicket taking ball

 

[Craig]

That's the classic way of getting a batsman out.

Bowl short at him if he cant handle, pitch one and trap him when his feet aint moving.

 

[Mr. P]

That's the classic way of getting a batsman out.

Bowl short at him if he cant handle, pitch one and trap him when his feet aint moving.

just trying to give Richard a good example mate.

 

[Richard]

:O :O :!(

Anything can be a wicket taking ball!!! (And a deserved one too)

The best example is a bowler like Brett Lee who can get the batsman on the back foot for a couple of balls, the produce a terribly wide half volley and get a nick/snick, whatever.

Why? Because he's bowled with a plan and the batsman, not moving his feet, couldn't play the ball correctly.

A good short ball can take wickets.

A bowler who forces the batsman to play a risky shot because he has been restricted deserves a wicket.

If you think about it, anything can be a deserved wicket taking ball

Half-Volleys almost never take wickets.
The ball that normally takes a wicket is a Carrot Ball - one just short of a Half-Volley.
Only poor batsmen worry about the matters of the last ball and scoring-pace in First-Class cricket. In First-Class cricket, you cannot "force" a batsman to play a risky shot because he's not scoring fast - because good batsmen don't worry about scoring pace in FC cricket.
Even in the one-day game, you can't force a batsman to play a poor stroke, you can just make it more likely. Anyway, a wicket doesn't matter in that instance because you've already got something better - economy.

 

[marc71178]

Only poor batsmen worry about the matters of the last ball and scoring-pace in First-Class cricket.

Yet so many players who are universally regarded as anything but poor, have been dismissed through being tied down...

Or is this another of your theories that is complete bunkum?

 

[Richard]

Any evidence that some good batsmen are regularly dismissed because they can't score at the pace they want to?

 

[hourn]

Any evidence that some good batsmen are regularly dismissed because they can't score at the pace they want to?

gilly today?? very rash shot after being tied down for a pretty short time......

Anyway, a wicket doesn't matter in that instance because you've already got something better - economy.

i have two issues with that comment:
1) you said earlier that scoring pace doesn't matter. implying keeping your wicket does. so why now is economy a better thing the bowler than wickets??
2) and if i had a bowler in my team with that attitude they'd never bowl. i'd rather see them have 5/80 of 12 overs than 0/10 of 12.

 

[marc71178]

Any evidence that some good batsmen are regularly dismissed because they can't score at the pace they want to?

It has happened in the past, and will happen again - but don't let the facts ruin your theory.

 

[Rik]

Or is this another of your theories that is complete bunkum?

Wow, who would have thought of that? Marc having a go at Richard! In this thread! Really I'd never have guessed...

 

[Rik]

It has happened in the past, and will happen again - but don't let the facts ruin your theory.

Or the lack of point in this post ruining your fun.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Wow, who would have thought of that? Marc having a go at Richard! In this thread! Really I'd never have guessed...

Wow, who would have thought of that? Rik having a go at Marc! In this thread! Really I'd never have guessed...

 

[Rik]

Wow, who would have thought of that? Rik having a go at Marc! In this thread! Really I'd never have guessed...

Not having a go at him. If you want to categorise my post it was a post bringing Marc's constant baseless tirades against Richard to other people's attention. It did not even include one single insult. I think, if you read it properly, you would find it fails to meet any of the requirements in order for a post to be classed as "having a go at someone."

So again...one...two...three...

 

[Neil Pickup]

Criticising someone for their actions looks distinctly like having a go to me.

 

[Rik]

Criticising someone for their actions looks distinctly like having a go to me.

In a perfectly world I wouldn't have to come into this forum and read post upon post directed at one member posted by another member, without any reason other than the latter's insane need to constantly argue and the almost perverse pleasure that member seems to glean from the experiance. If there was a reason for the post, like everything the former posted made no sense what so ever, then I would understand it, but instead I have to read page upon page of constant baseless drivel. Believe me there are much worse things that form of head-wall-bang Chinese water torture could drive me to than just pointing out that often it's just the product of one person's lack of imagination and the ceaseless desire to dominate and feel powerful and important.

 

[PY]

If you want to categorise my post it was a post bringing Marc's constant baseless tirades against Richard to other people's attention.

I'd say they weren't baseless.

No offence Richard, but 90% or more people disagree with what he says. His views do seem a tad strange but as long as nothing gets personal (which it hasn't) then what's the problem?

Find it slightly ironic you are having a go at Marc for disagreeing with someone.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Good to see I'm not imagining things.

 

[Rik]

I'd say they weren't baseless.

No offence Richard, but 98% or more people disagree with what he says. His views do seem a tad strange but as long as nothing gets personal (which it hasn't) then what's the problem?

His views are a little odd at times, I will agree with that, but no one is under any obligation to agree with them. We all have our faults . But a lot of the time I do see a logic behind them. Maybe it's because I tend to think along a different tangent to most other people, I just seem to be able to take off the blinkers most people tend to use when reading a post by Richard and see the logic behind it. Even if I don't agree with some of the things he says I have to say they are very logical.

Find it slightly ironic you are having a go at Marc for disagreeing with somone.

An entire year of baseless posts and arguements added with lack of imagination and an inability to accept that, just maybe, you can be wrong sometimes can drive even the meek to the end of their teather.