Is McGrath finished?

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

My initial response told you that every time I've seen Flintoff bowl and people have said he's bowled well, and I'm talking about Tests here guys, he's bowled tidily but never actually threatened. So I can't see how that's even related, let alone adequate. But since your tired I'll let you off

Your post (after several blahs) ended with the line

"You cannot base an average of everything but 50 purely on a lack of luck."

to which I responded

"And you can't base an average of 21podd on a career-long glut of luck. Hence my point."

Hence you fed me perfectly to press home my point. Think nothing of it though.

 

[wrong hander]

The world has not seen the last of glen mcgrath. he is undoubtedly the worlds best pacer that has played the game. This injury is just a setback in what will be the finest career the world has ever seen. The bone spurs in his foot will heal in time for the zimbabwe tour and he will be back to his firey best.

 

[wrong hander]

The world has not seen the last of glen mcgrath. he is undoubtedly the worst best pacer that has played the game. this injury is just a setback in what will be the finest career the world has ever seen. the bone spurs in his foot will heal in time for the zimbabwe tour and he will be back to his firey best.

 

[Eclipse]

lol Richard allready has over 2500 posts!!! that almost double how many I have and I have been her 3 or 4 times longer.

 

[Craig]

So McGrath has been so incredibly lucky over the course of his career that he's taken over 400 wickets at 21podd per?

Yet it's impossible that those such as Flintoff, Banks etc. have bowled very well and yet been unlucky not to get wickets, albeit across a shorter space of time...

I'm interested how much of Flintoff you have seen in Tests lately, or have you seen him bowl in Tests?

 

[Richard]

2888 posts by you and surely this has to be the most ludicrous. Stiff competition though.
If they were not good deliveries what were they? Average, bad or mediocre?

If you want to find-out, got and get some videos and look at every single one of his Test-wickets.
Personally I can't be bothered with that. I've just taken the most recent sample and analysed that.
And believe me, not one of them is as ludicrous as your attempts to turn validity into invalidity by using extrovert sarcasm.

 

[Richard]

So what is it then - the pressure he builds up on the batsman causing the false shot to be played?

Nope, maybe the pressure builds-up in the batsman's mind - unnecesarily - causing a false stroke to be played, but the bowler certainly doesn't build it up.
Because in Test-cricket scoring slowly doesn't matter as long as you're scoring.

 

[Richard]

So McGrath has been so incredibly lucky over the course of his career that he's taken over 400 wickets at 21podd per?

Yet it's impossible that those such as Flintoff, Banks etc. have bowled very well and yet been unlucky not to get wickets, albeit across a shorter space of time...

As I have been at pains to point-out, I really cannot comment on McGrath prior to 2000\01 because I saw little and analysed nothing.
However, in the period from then onwards, McGrath has principally bowled on wickets even in bounce and offering no seam-movement.
If he has taken those wickets with poor strokes rather than good bowling, tell me, how does he deserve any credit as if he'd bowled a good delivery?
Yes, it is impossible that Flintoff and Banks have bowled very well and not got wickets - because Banks is a fingerspinner and doesn't turn the ball on most wickets. Hence, he can't bowl good wicket-taking deliveries. Flintoff, as discussed a million times, is exactly the same - people perceive that he has bowled well, but he has not - because bowling accurately does not in itself denote bowling well in the First-Class game. Because "pressure" is in the mind of the batsman, and if he doesn't yield to the supposed build-up, he won't play a poor stroke and gift the bowler a wicket he hasn't earned.

 

[Richard]

glen mcgrath. he is undoubtedly the worst best pacer that has played the game. this injury is just a setback in what will be the finest career the world has ever seen.

 

[Swervy]

Nope, maybe the pressure builds-up in the batsman's mind - unnecesarily - causing a false stroke to be played, but the bowler certainly doesn't build it up.
Because in Test-cricket scoring slowly doesn't matter as long as you're scoring.

of course the bowler contributes to the pressure.....yes the pressure is built up in the mind of the batsman, but batsmen are human,and many are impatient, Mcgrath and any other type of 'tight' bowler plays on this human weakness.Quite often in situations like that it will be the loose ball that gets the batsman out, but it is the build up to that that really has taken the wicket.

Run rates in tests are now a lot higher, and a huge part of that is thanks to the style of play the Aussies have introduced.other teams have seen the success Australia have had by scoring at 4 an over in tests and are trying it themselves. Scoring 200 runs for the loss of 3 wickets is not considered as good a day for a team compared to a day where they have scored 350 for 5 say.

batting until lunch on the third day whilst racking up 450 will proably not win you the game,so teams force the issue by being more attacking. Players like Mcgrath are perfect for bowling againt that 'quicker scoring' tactic, because batsmaen get frustrated that the game isnt moving along.

 

[Rik]

Your post (after several blahs) ended with the line

"You cannot base an average of everything but 50 purely on a lack of luck."

to which I responded

"And you can't base an average of 21podd on a career-long glut of luck. Hence my point."

Hence you fed me perfectly to press home my point. Think nothing of it though.

Not when you are talking about Flintoff who doesn't create enough chances to get his average much lower, and McGrath who can...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I'm interested how much of Flintoff you have seen in Tests lately, or have you seen him bowl in Tests?

I never claimed to have seen Flintoff bowl. Read over my comment and you'll see that that is not the point of it.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Not when you are talking about Flintoff who doesn't create enough chances to get his average much lower, and McGrath who can...

Exactly. McGrath does create chances. That's my point.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Yes, it is impossible that Flintoff and Banks have bowled very well and not got wickets - because Banks is a fingerspinner and doesn't turn the ball on most wickets. Hence, he can't bowl good deliveries.

Well Banks bowled good enough deliveries to have 5 or 6 catches dropped off him against the Aussies and 4 in one Test. He's had a host of catches put down off his bowling which reflects poorly in his figures.

 

[Richard]

So these catches were really off fizzing off-breaks that took the inside-edge onto pad and were dropped at short-leg, or boomeranging leg-breaks (to the left-hander, obviously) that took the edge and were put down at slip?
I thought you told me Caribbean pitches don't tend to offer sufficient turn for fingerspinners to produce such deliveries?
A dropped catch off a Long-Hop that was pulled to mid-wicket is not unlucky for the bowler, it's poetic justice. Nor is a skyer from a top-edged slogged-sweep that's missed at deep-square-leg.

 

[Rik]

Exactly. McGrath does create chances. That's my point.

Yes, but Flintoff can't, so there's no point in comparing him to McGrath...

 

[Richard]

of course the bowler contributes to the pressure.....yes the pressure is built up in the mind of the batsman, but batsmen are human,and many are impatient, Mcgrath and any other type of 'tight' bowler plays on this human weakness.Quite often in situations like that it will be the loose ball that gets the batsman out, but it is the build up to that that really has taken the wicket.

Often this is quoted and so often it's proven untrue. Mostly, if a good batsman has been kept quiet for a spell and receives a Long-Hop or Half-Volley, he will greatfully smash it to the fence. OK, you get batsmen who will have a quiet spell and try to overhit a fullish, wideish delivery and nick it, but you will also get far more who will sensibly ease it through the covers, just like they would if they'd been going along at their preferred rate for the last half-hour.

Run rates in tests are now a lot higher, and a huge part of that is thanks to the style of play the Aussies have introduced.other teams have seen the success Australia have had by scoring at 4 an over in tests and are trying it themselves. Scoring 200 runs for the loss of 3 wickets is not considered as good a day for a team compared to a day where they have scored 350 for 5 say.

batting until lunch on the third day whilst racking up 450 will proably not win you the game,so teams force the issue by being more attacking. Players like Mcgrath are perfect for bowling againt that 'quicker scoring' tactic, because batsmaen get frustrated that the game isnt moving along.

And if you can't do that because someone like McGrath is bowling accurately, you have to think about it - and rethink your strategy. You have to decide - "right, slow runs are better than no runs. If we can't win, we've got to try not to lose".
The lack of ability of the batsman to do this is no credit to McGrath or anyone else.

 

[Rik]

I never claimed to have seen Flintoff bowl. Read over my comment and you'll see that that is not the point of it.

Your not missing much

Except in OD of course

 

[Swervy]

,so ofte

Often this is quoted and so often it's proven untrue. Mostly, if a good batsman has been kept quiet for a spell and receives a Long-Hop or Half-Volley, he will greatfully smash it to the fence. OK, you get batsmen who will have a quiet spell and try to overhit a fullish, wideish delivery and nick it, but you will also get far more who will sensibly ease it through the covers, just like they would if they'd been going along at their preferred rate for the last half-hour.

And if you can't do that because someone like McGrath is bowling accurately, you have to think about it - and rethink your strategy. You have to decide - "right, slow runs are better than no runs. If we can't win, we've got to try not to lose".
The lack of ability of the batsman to do this is no credit to McGrath or anyone else.

richard , I take it you play the game. I dont know whether you are a batsman or not...but if you are, you should be aware of the pressure that a bowler can put you under with highly accurate bowling,

'Often quoted,so often proven untrue'...quoted by who...probably people who have actually played in the middle in test matches.

I think the original thing was about McGrath not really deserving a lot of the wickets he gets...well I personally think he has deserved maybe 95% of the wickets he has got...doesnt really mean every one of those wicket taking balls was a gem, but he deserved them none the less..the remaining 5%, well every player has his share of luck, I dont think McGrath has been any more lucky than other high wicket takers around the world.

You are right about rethinking your batting strategy vs a player like McGrath.....however the players arent robots that can be programed todo what they are meant to..they are human, and many suffer from the weaknesses every other human possesses, ie impatience, the urge of self gratification (by scoring runs) for short term gain without looking at long term affects...some players are more patient than others, but eventually tight bowling will win in the end

 

[Richard]

Me? I'm a bowler. Principally, anyway.
And of course you can put pressure on batsmen by bowling accurately - in the limited-overs games that all of us club cricketers play every weekend and Wednesday. Same, in fact, in any limited-overs game where the scoring-rate actually matters.
Quoted by all sorts of people, proven untrue by people who have played the Test (and indeed domestic First-Class) game - and faced spells of accurate bowling, and got a Long-Hop, and smashed it to the fence...
... and outweighed those few who were poor enough to get one and whack it in the air to a fielder.
Eventually tight bowling will win in the end ... well, from the point of view that poor strokes will always be played in the end, if you bowl 30 overs the chances are you'll have two or three played resulting in chances in that time. If you only concede 50 runs in those overs, then you'll end-up with good figures.
Yes.
But if the poor strokes aren't played against you, you won't get any wickets.
Personally I think McGrath will have deserved most of the wickets he's got when bowling on green seamers. I don't think he'll have deserved many when he's bowling on other stuff.