God I hope not!V Reddy said:
And because he's bowled well in 6 out of the previous 7 matches and very poorly in the two most recent ones - yes - it's the least recent ones that matter!tooextracool said:
I know perfectly well it's accuracy + penetration, but you seem not to. You and one or two others cling fiercely to the theorem than accuracy=pressure=poor-stroke, when it's totally untrue in First-Class-cricket where the scoring-rate doesn't matter.
A decent ball doesn't need a poor stroke to take a wicket; it might need a slightly faulty stroke, but only a poor ball needs a poor stroke to take a wicket and no matter how many times you've beaten the bat, no-one will ever deserve a Long-Hop slapped straight to cover!
No, it doesn't, but if me and him agree on something it's far more likely that we're right than you!
yes which is why those match reports and commentators happen to agree with me instead of you.....Richard said:
as marc said if the wickets continue to remain as flat as they have been i dont see any reason why he should be denounced for not taking enough wickets.....Richard said:
where have i ever said anything like that? my point has always been that someone who is accurate without penetration is far more likely to get wickets than someone whos lacks both. and ealham most definetly does not bowl in the 80s....Richard said:
and how many times do i have to say it.....if you dont beat the bat its highly unlikely that you will take wickets with decent balls. the number of good balls that you bowl in between the poor or ordinary balls is what eventually gets you wickets.....the fact is that vaas barely ever look like taking wickets in that series while both perera and buddhika did meant that they were more likely to get wickets off poor balls than vaas was.Richard said:
and in the same way when ravi shastri and me agreed on the fact that the motera wicket in that 2nd test against england was dead, we are far more likely to be right than you.....Richard said:
Yes, and of course all the scorebooks and footage of matches agree with you that Ealham never bowled at the death and hardly ever bowled in the first 15 overs; or that conditions at Lord's in 2002 were utilised by the Sri Lankan bowlers to dismiss English batsmen; or several other things that you have stated happened differently to how they did!tooextracool said:
The wickets have in fact been less flat than they were in the New Zealand series, and more quickly becoming uneven.tooextracool said:
Well yet again that shows how closely you watch! Ealham has always got the odd ball up to 81-2mph, still does nowadays too, and his average is 78-9.
Yes, and that doesn't say anything about their ability - getting wickets with poor deliveries (which stopped, dramatically, after that Lord's first-innings) never does.
No, not so.
yes of course everyone else that watched the match happened to be incompetent except you....the fact that ravi shastri(who knows much more about cricket than you will ever know) and me agreed that the motera wicket was dead flat would mean something and the fact that a cricinfo reporter and i happened to agree that trescothicks wicket was due to the slope rather than a poor shot would say something as well. yes zoysa was woeful in that series but just because he bowled a decent ball to get a wicket in that series and just because you dont like him it doesnt mean that he didnt deserve that wicket!Richard said:
yes of course the headingly wicket was so flat that some people thought it was a minefield.....i'll give you that harmison didnt bowl well at lords, but he bowled brilliantly at headingly and again at trent bridge.Richard said:
rubbish ealham's average speed was around 75-76 and how many times do i have to say it....just because he bowled 1 or 2 balls at 80 mph it doesnt make him an 80 mph bowler!!Richard said:
no but if someone bowls the right line and length he can get good players out but it doesnt not guarantee that he will.Richard said:
do you not read?i said the number of good balls that you bowl in between the decent or poor balls determines how many wickets you get with those poor balls. the fact is that chaminda vaas bowled only decent deliveries on that tour while both fernando and perera bowled several good balls in that first test match!Richard said:
this is total garbage.....it seems that you are only trying to assist your argument by making up things that didnt happen and then accusing an expert of not watching the game closely. ive watched that series enough times and i can assure you that the motera wicket was dead. its obvious that i have won this argument.Richard said:
Well here's another example of how much you know, and how much assumptions can get you into trouble.tooextracool said:
Bowling well at Headingley wasn't that much of an achievement, because the wicket was so seamer-friendly. Not that he bowled many wicket-taking balls. And the wickets at Trent Bridge and Lord's v New Zealand stayed flat and even far longer than those for these last two have.tooextracool said:
I'm afraid, just like the cases of when Ealham bowled, you clearly haven't watched closely enough. Ealham rarely bowls a ball below 75 and most of the time he is around 77-8, his speed is even more consistent than his accuracy. And he also bowls more than 1 or 2 balls over 80; usually about 9 or 10 in a 9 or 10 over spell.
So that's why they went for 4.36 and 3.77-an-over in the innings respectively, then? That is spraying the ball all over the place, believe me. Their wickets came mainly from tail-end jabs, top-edged pulls and weaknesses against slower-balls - not through penetrative bowling.
Yes, and equally if someone sprays the ball all over the place he can get good players out.
No, Fernando bowled 2 good balls, to Flintoff and Cork, which both could still have left.
Yes, of course, it's obvious - because you say you have.
well, 29-7-81-5.... almost there Richard.. may be he'll have 9-0-7-7 in the second and a century in this innings ...Richard said:Last I looked his ER was still over 3.5 and the average still in the 40s.
It just needs something like 27-x-61-7, that'd go nicely.
Followed-up, ideally, by 9-0-17-5.
(x = insert number 1-10)
so seamer friendly that both sides scored more than 350 in their first innings?Richard said:
and how many times do i have to say it? he bowled several good balls that might have been wicket taking if the players were good enough to edge it....Richard said:
and yet he bowled brilliantly at trent bridge.....Richard said:
have i said that he did bowl under 75 mph? i said he bowls 75-76 and you seemed to have lowered his speed from 78-79 to 77-78.whatever way you look at it it does not make him an 80 mph bowler.....Richard said:
so what?when hoggard took his 5fer in the 2nd test he went at 4 runs an over but does that mean he was wayward? i never claimed that they were accurate, but they were far from wayward and they did bowl several good balls in those conditions which ended up being edged or miscued for fourRichard said:
no he cannot....because if you bowl 4 four balls in an over the batsmans hardly going to try to smash everyone of them out of the park. but if you bowl 1 four ball every 2 overs the batsman will desperately try to score off you and in the attempt might play a poor shot.Richard said:
no it depends on the build up to the ball that eventually takes a wicket that counts.....Richard said:
well then you didnt watch much of that first test match then......Richard said:
no its not just obvious because i said it but its obvious because ravi shastri and virtually every other commentator agreed with me on that one. if it was such a turner then england wouldnt have come anywhere as close as 407 in the first innings i can assure you....Richard said:
why does that not surprise me considering how highly you rate vaas?Richard said:
the chances of the cricinfo reporter being wrong is about 10% and the fact that i happen to share the same opinion as the reporter makes the chances of the both of us being wrong very minute indeed.Richard said:
well the way you are heading you wont get anywhere near him.....Richard said:
how can it possibly be a fact when noone agrees with you....the motera wicket was dead,im certain about it and the only turn that was on offer was 'slow turn' which doesnt make any bowler lethal.Richard said:
