PWC Ratings Updated

[Swervy]

From what I seem to have seen some players (Harmison, McGrath for example) haven't lost very many points for poor performances.

McGrath in his 2 matches since his comeback vs Sri lanka took 10-171..hardly poor..also 2/79 in 34 overs in a high scoring test in the last game is pretty good going

And Harmisons 4/44 would have helped him a bit in the last test..he has dropped 2 places though...what do you want..for him to drop out of the top 20 (no need to answer that)

 

[Swervy]

bad news for Richard here..Harmison has 2 for 15 now

 

[marc71178]

From what I seem to have seen some players (Harmison, McGrath for example) haven't lost very many points for poor performances.

From 880 to 823 in 3 matches - that is a fair drop.

 

[Richard]

McGrath in his 2 matches since his comeback vs Sri lanka took 10-171..hardly poor..also 2/79 in 34 overs in a high scoring test in the last game is pretty good going

And Harmisons 4/44 would have helped him a bit in the last test..he has dropped 2 places though...what do you want..for him to drop out of the top 20 (no need to answer that)

I was referring more to the winter of 2001\02, where McGrath had a sum total of one good Test-match out of 9.

 

[Richard]

bad news for Richard here..Harmison has 2 for 15 now

9 for... something.
Make that.

 

[Richard]

From 880 to 823 in 3 matches - that is a fair drop.

Such a big one that he's managed to take the number-one spot with one good match following three bad ones.

 

[marc71178]

2 and a half bad ones, and at least half of one of those games he was hardly bowled to preserve him as the wicket wasn't condusive.

His second innings Old Trafford lead into the Oval nicely.

 

[Richard]

In that the typical Harmison-saviour cut-to-third-man started it all, and a barrage of poor strokes followed?

 

[Swervy]

In that the typical Harmison-saviour cut-to-third-man started it all, and a barrage of poor strokes followed?

a wicket is a wicket.

I tell you if batsmen didnt make all these mistakes, the game would die a death..we would be so bored of seeing scores of 950 for 2 dec etc.so whatif he got a wicket through the batsman cutting the ball to 3rd man...suggests a bit of extra bounce generated by the bowler may have been the batsmans undoing

 

[Richard]

No, it suggests a poor stroke of a similar kind precipitated a catalogue of wickets for a bowler whose recent figures had been very, very poor indeed. On about 3 occasions.
I am perfectly aware that if batsmen didn't make mistakes the game would be rather boring in this day and age, but the same can be said of bowlers. Every ball would be a dot-ball.
The fact is, it is getting a little irksome that the same thing has happened, as I say, two or three times now.

 

[marc71178]

So Harmison picking up loads is still all because of one lucky wicket then?

 

[Richard]

Oh, no, they haven't all been cuts to third-man - but the tirade of Test-wickets from the third-last innings started with one, and his 1st ODI wicket of the summer came from the same shot.

 

[marc71178]

1 out of how many though?

 

[Richard]

The first one - that's all that matters.

 

[marc71178]

Why?

I thought each ball was individual and has no bearing on any other ball.

Why is suddenly the first wicket the most important?

 

[Richard]

Because it started a tirade.
Surely it's obvious that the start, with a poor ball, caused at least some of what followed?

 

[marc71178]

Not if the batsmen are good

 

[Richard]

Whether the batsmen are good is totally irrelevant, what matters is whether the batting is good - there is a very important difference.
Similar to the way Twenty20 is not a batsman's competition - it is a batting competition. If you think about that, you'll realise how true it is.