bring back alex tudor!!!

[tooextracool]

No, I'm not.
And if you really think any of the Australian batsmen who faced Price in that game didn't have trouble with him you're deluding yourself.

and i never said anything of the sort, all ive said is that katich didnt have any problems against him. interestingly enough mr 'poor player of spin bowling' just went on to score another 80 against kumble and harbhajan yesterday. and dont even think about saying that he looked out of sorts against them this time too.

So you really reckon bowlers can't suffer from poor temperament, then?.

no, i cant see a spin bowler bowling consistently worse than what he has been doing in domestic cricket.

Except with Smith he very, very rarely makes the mistake of missing that type of ball.

he does occasionally make that mistake, something hes lucky enough that the bowl does too much and sometimes hes out plumb in front. and with the wickets offering as much movement as they are today its completely understandable why that weakness hasnt been explored often enough either.

Stephen Waugh, meanwhile, got out so irregularly that no one bowler could possibly be said to have troubled him with the short-ball.
So that's not a very good comparison.
And, I might add, let's try not to get the Smith thingy into this one, too.

its a good enough example, both players are good enough to play around the weakness(or at least smith appears to be). so just because one of them got out to it twice it doesnt make the bowler deserve the wicket any more.

 

[Richard]

how was it not easy to fend off?all he had to do was play at it!! and if someone cant predict when the outswinger is coming then someone cant precit when the yorker is coming either.

Yes, and he couldn't possibly have expected to need to play at it! If he'd played the line it turned-out he needed to play and it hadn't moved at all, he'd have edged it!
No, of course you can't predict when the Yorker is coming - but you can pick it up just about the split-second the bowler has released it, and do something about playing it. The inswinger happens rather later - you can't adjust to something if it swings late enough. You just have to assume it won't swing and you can't do much if it does.

 

[Richard]

and i never said anything of the sort, all ive said is that katich didnt have any problems against him. interestingly enough mr 'poor player of spin bowling' just went on to score another 80 against kumble and harbhajan yesterday. and dont even think about saying that he looked out of sorts against them this time too.

I won't - I didn't see a ball.
And I never predicted Katich would fail, I've been very careful not to, and I think I can now fairly safely say that he's become a pretty good player of spin. So there we go - discussion closed.

no, i cant see a spin bowler bowling consistently worse than what he has been doing in domestic cricket.

Well I can - Salisbury, for one example. Derek Pringle, for another. There will be others.

he does occasionally make that mistake, something hes lucky enough that the bowl does too much and sometimes hes out plumb in front. and with the wickets offering as much movement as they are today its completely understandable why that weakness hasnt been explored often enough either.

So maybe when he plays on seaming pitches (however rarely) he'll be found-out - we can but wait and see.

its a good enough example, both players are good enough to play around the weakness(or at least smith appears to be). so just because one of them got out to it twice it doesnt make the bowler deserve the wicket any more.

It does - because he has exploited the weakness where others have not. Anyway, this is discussed elsewhere.
What matters is that Smith playing around a weakness and occasionally getting out to it is hardly comparable to Katich not playing around a weakness.
It is far too much of a coincidence that he had exactly the same problems in two matches 3 years apart, and that he was at that time playing for a state renowned for producing very few players capable against spin.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, and he couldn't possibly have expected to need to play at it! If he'd played the line it turned-out he needed to play and it hadn't moved at all, he'd have edged it!

no he probably wouldnt have if he had played it with soft hands. regardless anybody would be expecting an away swinger after the bowler bowls 3 in swingers and only a fool would let the ball go like he did.

No, of course you can't predict when the Yorker is coming - but you can pick it up just about the split-second the bowler has released it, and do something about playing it. The inswinger happens rather later - you can't adjust to something if it swings late enough. You just have to assume it won't swing and you can't do much if it does.

how can you pick up a yorker the split second the bowler has released it? and bicknell certainly wasnt swinging anything late enough, all rudolph had to do was put his bat down which would if he had played with soft hands have kept the ball down, even if he had edged it.

 

[tooextracool]

I won't - I didn't see a ball.
And I never predicted Katich would fail, I've been very careful not to, and I think I can now fairly safely say that he's become a pretty good player of spin. So there we go - discussion closed.

yet it was something fairly evident to anyone who had watched his previous 2 innings in similar conditions....

Well I can - Salisbury, for one example. Derek Pringle, for another. There will be others.

salisbury bowled exactly the same way he bowls in domestic cricket...as probably did derek pringle. but because of the poor quality of domestic cricket they ended up being slightly more successful.

So maybe when he plays on seaming pitches (however rarely) he'll be found-out - we can but wait and see.

he might, but i think hes a good enough batsman to work around his weakness on most occasions.

It does - because he has exploited the weakness where others have not. Anyway, this is discussed elsewhere.
What matters is that Smith playing around a weakness and occasionally getting out to it is hardly comparable to Katich not playing around a weakness.
It is far too much of a coincidence that he had exactly the same problems in two matches 3 years apart, and that he was at that time playing for a state renowned for producing very few players capable against spin.

its not a coincidence at all, its simply a vain attempt of yours to cling on to something that doesnt make any sense. 2 instances 3 years apart simply makes your situation worse, because it could quite clearly be that he was out of form,or just had 2 bad days. i wouldnt be surprised if he succeeded against spinners in the period between those 3 years either, of course you wouldnt look at that period because it doesnt suit your argument.