Bond - finished off for good?

[Tom Halsey]

Whatever the number of wickets, relative, none of it matters unless the wickets were taken with good deliveries.
Somehow I doubt they were, and if you say they were, sorry, I'm not going to automatically believe that.

Fine, but IMO saying that none of the wickets were taken with good deliveries is IMO ludicrous.

 

[Richard]

How d'you know? Did you watch them all?

 

[Richard]

The whole point of encouraging pace and bounce in our pitches is to try and produce more bowlers who can work with that type of wicket and not rely on sideways movement. We want bowlers that can bowl cutting deliveries without assistance.

Having a "strength" of being good on green seamers isn't desirable, and NZC have acknowledged that by trying to change the playing conditions. As it is these days, we're seeing more and more flat tracks around the world, it only makes sense to try and develop bowlers that can take wickets on them.

Well if you want bowlers who can do well on all surfaces it doesn't matter if they're quick or slow, all that matters is that they don't move off the seam or offer much turn.
Sad thing is, England and New Zealand are supposed to be countries where seam (and swing, but no-one, whoever they are, can stop good swing-bowlers swinging the ball ) dominate. It is a loss to the diversity of cricket if they stop producing proper English\Kiwi wickets. Same way it is if India and Sri Lanka stop preparing mostly dustbowls.

 

[Richard]

here are is a quote from the cricinfo match report....
"Having negotiated a testing spell from Shane Bond, New Zealand's most penetrative bowler Tillakaratne and Jayawardene settled down and were rarely troubled in the evening"

bond was the best fast bowler in the match....in fact the ball that he got jayasuriya bowled with was an excellent yorker.

Wow, one good ball all series... what an achievement.

 

[tooextracool]

Wow, one good ball all series... what an achievement.

if you had watched that series you would have seen that he bowled plenty of good balls, particularly in that spell just after lunch on the same day. its stupid how you can just write off his performances without even watching him bowl, especially considering he was by far the best fast bowler in the match and definetly better than vaas.

 

[Richard]

Yes, because Vaas was having an off-match and to be better than him on one of those occasions isn't much of an achievement.
I would have watched the series if I'd had the chance, sadly no TV channel I can access showed it.
And how many times do I have to tell you that a good ball that doesn't take a wicket doesn't mean a bad ball then deserves one?

 

[Tom Halsey]

How d'you know? Did you watch them all?

Yes.

 

[Nate]

Yes.

tooooooooooooooold!!

 

[lord_of_darkness]

^ what.,.?

 

[Nate]

richard didnt think halsey had watched em all, but halsey has.
in aussie-speak we (i) would say that rich was told.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, because Vaas was having an off-match and to be better than him on one of those occasions isn't much of an achievement.

thats not the point....the point is that he bowled well on a placid wicket....

And how many times do I have to tell you that a good ball that doesn't take a wicket doesn't mean a bad ball then deserves one?

how many times do i have to tell you that the number of good balls in between the bad balls are actually responsible for the number of wickets that you get!

 

[lord_of_darkness]

Wow, one good ball all series... what an achievement.

thats one out of many mate..

 

[Richard]

Yes.

So what was good about all the deliveries?

 

[Richard]

thats not the point....the point is that he bowled well on a placid wicket....

Which has what to do with bowling better than Chaminda...?
Just because he out-bowled Chaminda when he was having a poor game doesn't automatically mean anything.

how many times do i have to tell you that the number of good balls in between the bad balls are actually responsible for the number of wickets that you get!

As many as you like - doesn't change the fact it's not true, same as the number of times you say things didn't happen which did doesn't change the fact that they did!

 

[Richard]

richard didnt think halsey had watched em all, but halsey has.

No, I never said I thought he hadn't, I just asked whether he had.

 

[tooextracool]

Which has what to do with bowling better than Chaminda...?
Just because he out-bowled Chaminda when he was having a poor game doesn't automatically mean anything.

no the point is that you seemed to deny that bond ever bowled well outside of the seaming conditions and poor batting lineups,when he quite clearly hasnt,and that too without watching that series....

As many as you like - doesn't change the fact it's not true, same as the number of times you say things didn't happen which did doesn't change the fact that they did!

it is true if you would only be able to take another persons viewpoint instead of sticking to what you believe is true when its quite clearly false and has been shown on several occasions on the cricket field

 

[Will Scarlet]

Richard is too full of Harmison to notice any other pace bowler.

 

[FRAZ]

Harmison . Names very funny . Put an extra a in between some where and becomes some thing we dont wanna hear .

 

[Tim]

I thought Richard was more anti-Harmison than pro?

 

[Craig]

Correct Tim.