Brett Lee is going home

[Richard]

Originally posted by marc71178
An accurate bowler without variety means the batsman knows exactly where the ball will pitch.

If he knows that, then it makes battibg a lot easier.

Just like knowing the ball will be a perferctly pitched away-swinger doesn't make it any easier to play, knowing the ball is likely to pitch on an area that will make it hit the top of middle doesn't make it any easier to hit it away.
There are lines and lengths that, quite simply, no batsman is good enough to score off without big risk. If you bowl that, and the batsman can't change the length (by using his feet) then you're not going to be expensive, unless the batsman's very, very fortunate and that doesn't happen very often.

 

[Mister Wright]

Take a check on McGrath's ER in recent years (average is not what I'm talking about - but even if you get rid of the Namibia game it's still not changed in recent years).

I was talking about wicket taking. Of course his ER is low, it should be as he bowls four feet outside off stump these days.

 

[Craig]

Take a check on McGrath's ER in recent years (average is not what I'm talking about - but even if you get rid of the Namibia game it's still not changed in recent years).

Wow. That's quite an achievement.

How many years are you going back Richard?

 

[Richard]

I was talking about wicket taking. Of course his ER is low, it should be as he bowls four feet outside off stump these days.

If he bowls out there he'll get hit for runs by decent batsmen.
Somehow I can't help feeling he's probably still pretty adept at bowling the line of the stumps.
I wasn't talking about wicket-taking, so why do you bring it into the equation. I was saying McGrath is one of quite a few bowlers who have very good economy-rates who doesn't need variety to get it.

 

[Craig]

You could put Shaun Pollock in that case Richard?

 

[Richard]

I did.

 

[Mister Wright]

If he bowls out there he'll get hit for runs by decent batsmen.
Somehow I can't help feeling he's probably still pretty adept at bowling the line of the stumps.
I wasn't talking about wicket-taking, so why do you bring it into the equation. I was saying McGrath is one of quite a few bowlers who have very good economy-rates who doesn't need variety to get it.

Yes, but I was talking about wicket taking ability, you were the one who turned it into an ER issue.

 

[Richard]

I brought-up the topic! (Well, no, marc did - he said good line and length made batting easier in ODIs because you know where the ball's going to pitch. Craig then pointed-out that that's not true because McGrath, amongst plenty others, hasn't lost anything in the way of economy in the last few years)
You were the one who started talking about wicket-taking. And even if McGrath had been taking less wickets in ODIs in recent years (which he hasn't) it wouldn't matter because he's still doing the most important thing - keeping it tight.

 

[marc71178]

But keeping it tight is not the be-all and end-all though.

Wicket-taking is important in ODI's, a case shown by Karthik yesterday.

2-72 from 10 overs, but without him picking up those 2 wickets when he did, India would've lost.

By you reckoning, if he'd taken say 0-60 in 10 he'd have done a better job.

 

[Richard]

Chances are they'd have won by 12 more runs. :P

 

[marc71178]

You reckon?

The way those 2 were batting, wickets were critical.

 

[Richard]

If the bowlers had let them carry on scoring like that, then they'd have lost.
If they'd tied them down, they'd have got out anyway, or else just lost by the margin they did or greater.

 

[marc71178]

If the bowlers had let them carry on scoring like that, then they'd have lost.
If they'd tied them down, they'd have got out anyway, or else just lost by the margin they did or greater.

What about the man actually just getting them out, as he did?

That turned the game India's way.

 

[Richard]

You don't need to get them out if you can restrict them.
If you can't restrict them, it's an option you might want to try.
But economy is the better option IMO.

 

[marc71178]

2 batsman going along at 6 an over will not be restricted.

Wickets are the only option.

 

[Richard]

It is never impossible to restrict a batsman. No matter how good or how fast they've been scoring recently.

 

[marc71178]

It is never impossible to restrict a batsman. No matter how good or how fast they've been scoring recently.

Oh really?

I 100% doubt that that is true if batsmen are in form and scoring quickly.

 

[Richard]

Doubt it if you want, I don't.
You really think there are batsmen who can score off any ball (realistic to the laws of the one-day game) pitched anywhere?
Because I don't.

 

[Craig]

Looking at the wicket - Neil could have scored runs on it :O :P - and the speed off the out field, where if you beat the field it means four, restricting a batsman or two would be very very hard even if your name is Vaas or Ntini.

 

[age_master]

Doubt it if you want, I don't.
You really think there are batsmen who can score off any ball (realistic to the laws of the one-day game) pitched anywhere?
Because I don't.

have you ever seen Ryan Campbell bat?