Here's an idea for Englands ODI squad!!

[tooextracool]

Yes, which is why he got smashed all over the park for much of the first 3 West Indies Tests.

yes because for most of it he bowled a shade too short, but that doesnt take away the fact that hes been extremely accurate for most of this summer.

 

[tooextracool]

Err, sort of not looking comfortable when the ball was moving off the pitch at 50mph or so.
A bit like Alec Stewart, for instance.
Look at the matches I've referred to.
He actually made a score in one of them - he batted long enough (dropped twice off Brown) to look very, very unconvincing indeed.
If you don't want to believe me, fine, but why on Earth would I want to make-up the notion of a player who I rate very highly indeed having a weakness that he didn't in fact have?

in other words you dont even know what his weakness was but because he didnt score much you say that he cant play spin?perhaps it might be a case of not being in form??

And I've explained why I haven't stated both sides of the argument there..

no you;ve just twisted your own statements around even further....

No, not if they used cutters or turn...

which shows how 1-dimensional your thinking is, despite the fact that short bowling has got wickets just about as often as conventional swing or seam you refuse to admit that the bowler deserves the wicket....
and no i still dont believe that cutters are effective on flat pitches.....

Yes, but that doesn't make it good bowling.

yes it does because he could quite easily have got a wicket a few balls earlier, the fact that he didnt bowl a bad ball suggests that he deserved the wicket eventually. and this is what happens extremely often in the game that everyone else bar you watches......

 

[tooextracool]

No, it's because he could move the ball in all conditions.

rubbish, ambrose was just about as capable of swinging and seaming the ball as mcgrath is.....stop making up crap just because you liked him more than you like mcgrath, ive seen plenty of ambrose wickets that came of poor shots rather than good balls, maybe i should say that he was lucky too then?

And no-one, even the great Curtley, could bowl every ball in the same spot, otherwise he'd never have gone for any runs except off edges.

okay so he didnt bowl every ball on the same spot but he could on his day bowl 9/10 balls on the same spot. and no just because you bowl accurately it doesnt mean that you cant score off him on flat wickets....

Yes, though, he was accurate like that which has rarely been seen, and he's very very tall too so he had a large margin-for-error.
Unlike someone like Chaminda Vaas or Mark Ealham who are every bit as accurate but have a much smaller margin-for-error.
Chaminda Vaas has had very few spells - in Test-cricket, at least - where he's been "absolutely" wayward - only twice in something like 20 Test-series has he gone for more than 3.24-an-over.

will you ever stop with the b/s? how many times do i have to tell you that accuracy and ER dont go hand in hand in test matches??
and if you are going to use stats at least use them right instead of making them up, vaas has had 7 series where he has gone for more than 3.24, of course a match by match analysis would prove a lot more given that his performances often vary every game.

No, he's not been as consistently accurate as Curtley or McGrath or Pollock, but there have been many spells where he's bowled extremely accurately, every bit as accurate as them,

which does not call for this statement.....
'Curtley Ambrose was every bit as accurate. So, believe it or not, is Chaminda Vaas.'

and not been gifted anywhere near as many poor strokes that they tend to be.

or rather his inablity to be able to penetrate on most occasions outside of the sub continent......

Quite often true, which is why he's such a terrible bowler.
But there have been spells in which he's bowled very accurately (and short), as there is for almost any bowler..

no hes never been pinpoint accurate has lee, and even if he did it was on a very rare occasion, and its quite conceivable that he wasnt bowling to lara and that he wasnt tring to bounce lara out in the way that flintoff did.

No, not at all - Hayden's weakness was exploited for all his early career, until the 2001\02 season and the New Zealand series, and the plethora of flat wickets.
Lara has played the same for, what, 13 years, something like that. It's impossible to conceive that in all that time no-one has ever managed to exploit a weakness.

and this coming from someone who claims that mcgrath and pollock can be lucky for all of their careers
its a combination of pace, accuracy and the short stuff, and as ive said earlier there have been very few bowlers capable of doing all of the 3. the ones that were just didnt try it....

You really think that?
Did you take much notice of Gayle's century against South Africa earlier this year?.

3 things
1) the bowling wasnt brilliant, most of the time they bowled too short,certainly wasnt anywhere near good ball after good ball.
2) there were plenty of edges and chances going through slip etc
3) it was on a flat wicket

Accurate bowling is no use to anyone unless it results in bowling economically.

it is if the batsman ends up getting runs through the slips or by taking risks....

In order to bowl economically....

no that is what you keep inferring for no apparent reason, economy often results from bowling things in the right places, but it doesnt mean that bowlers are striving for economy, you could bowl economically by bowling ball after ball wide of off stump too. bowling in the right places has the added advantage of frustrating the batsman....

 

[tooextracool]

Because my eye is nowhere near good enough.

as have several other batsman who relied heavily on concentration....

 

[tooextracool]

Headingley 2004: 53 on a seaming pitch; backs the case.

barely, given that he got an RUD in his 2nd innings and given that he was the top scorer from both sides in the 2nd innings on what was a dangerous pitch....hardly a failure IMO...

Basin Reserve 2003\04: turning pitch, 51 in match; backs the case.

rubbish, it was not a turner at all...

Basin Reserve 2003\04: flat pitch, no influence on case..

this is ridiculous, how is this a flat wicket? akhtar got 11 wickets in the match and butler got 6 in the first innings and you call this wicket flat? rubbish

Eden Park 2000\01: one of those Kiwi pitches that seams then crumbles, 60 in the match; backs the case, just.

how does this even come close to backing your case? he scored 59 when the pitch was at its worst, highest score after him was 28....it refutes the case if you ask me....

WPT Park 2002\03: seaming pitch, 41 in match, backs the case..

not a failure given when you look at the scoresm not a success either though

So we have 3 instances that refute the case well, one that might do (I really cannot even guess at the pitch) and two that just do. We have 8 instances that back the case well, and 1 that does just.
That's where I get my idea that Richardson is a flat-track bully, given my previous display of when Richardson has scored most of his good scores.

actually we have 6 occasions that refute the case using your methods-trent bridge,kandy, basin reserve vs ind, WPT park,wanderers and st georges park.
add to that the ones above that are so blatantly obvious ie basin reserve vs pak, headingly and eden park. so we've got 9 performances that refute the case.
kensington oval,gaddafi stadium,eden park vs eng,jade stadium vs eng, and queens sports club. so we have 5 conclusive performances that back the case.
so as we can see hes actually succeeded far more often than hes failed on non flat wickets, therefore you are wrong yet again.

 

[tooextracool]

Not if they're putting it out of their mind like they should be.
And I hardly think getting a death threat is a comparable - that is someone threatening to do about the worst possible thing. As supposed to having had a close shave in the past.

rubbish, again you seem to think that people are robots that they can just forget about the previous overs and focus on the next, it just doesnt happen that way believe me. and a death threat is definetly comparable because theres no way anyone can not be nervous if hes under pressure.......you can look at any example that creates pressure in real life, its the same thing.

 

[Richard]

quite a few actually, that is what makes harmison such a deadly bowler, his ability to get bounce of the most docile wickets....

Yes, of course - let's see some descriptions of those wickets, then.
And, of course, renowned not-very-good batsmen don't count.

 

[Richard]

nope someone who can get a close look at the wicket is likely to know more about the wicket than someone who doesnt....not that it really matters because most people can make out how a wicket plays by just watching, but experts who get to do both can never be wrong.

Can never be wrong - what a ridiculous ascertation!
Anyone can be wrong.
Whether you've done both or whether you've simply watched it play, you're every bit as unlikely to be wrong.

 

[Richard]

oh yes and a brilliant sarcastic comment too...."and i've said that??"

"Brilliant" or not, it should have been pretty obvious that I'd never think you were saying I'd said Brearley had got his leadership skills from me.

 

[Richard]

except that its not just that easy.....

Really?
Why is it so rarely seen, in cases of it being attempted, that batsmen hang back when they should be pushing forward, and lose their wicket as a result.

 

[Richard]

hes got several off them from awkward bounce and a few of them from angling the ball away from the left hander with a hint of seam movement....

Really? How many?
About 1\8th at the absolute most, I'd be willing to wager.

 

[Richard]

yes because for most of it he bowled a shade too short, but that doesnt take away the fact that hes been extremely accurate for most of this summer.

Far too short, often, and too wide, quite a bit.
In the New Zealand series he was pretty accurate for the most part, but he went round the park in all the West Indies Tests, even though he got a stack of wickets in the Fourth.

 

[Richard]

rubbish, again you seem to think that people are robots that they can just forget about the previous overs and focus on the next, it just doesnt happen that way believe me.

It happens far more than you seem to realise.

and a death threat is definetly comparable because theres no way anyone can not be nervous if hes under pressure.......you can look at any example that creates pressure in real life, its the same thing.

A death-threat is rather more than "being nervous and under pressure".
More "being terrified and being wholly understandibly totally unable to concentrate on anything else".

 

[Richard]

as have several other batsman who relied heavily on concentration....

Everyone relies on concentration - but equally your eye has to be of a certain standard before concentration comes into it.

 

[Richard]

barely, given that he got an RUD in his 2nd innings and given that he was the top scorer from both sides in the 2nd innings on what was a dangerous pitch....hardly a failure IMO...

Which is precisely the point.
RUDs are all part of bowler-friendly pitches.

rubbish, it was not a turner at all...

Which is why Nico Boje got 8 cheap wickets.

this is ridiculous, how is this a flat wicket? akhtar got 11 wickets in the match and butler got 6 in the first innings and you call this wicket flat? rubbish

Poor batting. In both cases. Added to high-class swing-bowling, mostly from Akhtar.
Don't think he did too well anyway.

how does this even come close to backing your case? he scored 59 when the pitch was at its worst, highest score after him was 28....it refutes the case if you ask me....

No surprise there...

not a failure given when you look at the scoresm not a success either though

A failure is a failure - mitigating circumstances or not, this is about looking at patterns.

actually we have 6 occasions that refute the case using your methods-trent bridge,kandy, basin reserve vs ind, WPT park,wanderers and st georges park.
add to that the ones above that are so blatantly obvious ie basin reserve vs pak, headingly and eden park. so we've got 9 performances that refute the case.
kensington oval,gaddafi stadium,eden park vs eng,jade stadium vs eng, and queens sports club. so we have 5 conclusive performances that back the case.
so as we can see hes actually succeeded far more often than hes failed on non flat wickets, therefore you are wrong yet again.

Or rather you think I'm wrong, I think I'm right yet again.

 

[Richard]

in other words you dont even know what his weakness was but because he didnt score much you say that he cant play spin?perhaps it might be a case of not being in form??

And looking at his averages for both seasons you'd say not.
"Weakness against spin" is not something that can have exact words put to it - simply looking uncomfortable, regularly playing down the wrong line, when the ball is turning - edging onto pad. Being discomfited by the turn is all anyone has to do to have a problem with spinners.

no you;ve just twisted your own statements around even further....

No, I've explained why I haven't, your only response is "you have".

which shows how 1-dimensional your thinking is, despite the fact that short bowling has got wickets just about as often as conventional swing or seam you refuse to admit that the bowler deserves the wicket....
and no i still dont believe that cutters are effective on flat pitches.....

They're more effective the drier the wicket, yes, but they can make the ball move enough on anything (even a seamer, though because you've got seam-movement, which is easier to bowl, it's unneccesary) enough to be dangerous if you hit the right areas.
In my experience short deliveries haven't got anywhere near as many wickets and movement (whether seam, swing, cut or turn) has. If yours is different you're going to have different attitudes and values.

yes it does because he could quite easily have got a wicket a few balls earlier, the fact that he didnt bowl a bad ball suggests that he deserved the wicket eventually. and this is what happens extremely often in the game that everyone else bar you watches......

Well if everyone wants to stick to their guns rather than watching properly that's their choice.
It's better to do what you say than bowl well then get a wicket with an out-and-out poor delivery, but still if someone gets 30 play-and-misses in a spell of 25 overs and takes 5 wickets, all with nothing deliveries, they haven't bowled especially well IMO.
Because you see far more instances of things happening to the like of Collymore.

 

[Richard]

rubbish, ambrose was just about as capable of swinging and seaming the ball as mcgrath is.....stop making up crap just because you liked him more than you like mcgrath, ive seen plenty of ambrose wickets that came of poor shots rather than good balls, maybe i should say that he was lucky too then?

Not if they came in the middle of spells where wickets were taken with good balls.
Look, lots of wickets (probably more than not) will come off poor balls for just about every bowler, ever.
The fact is, in the period 2001-2004 McGrath has played on an occasional seaming pitch and has bowled plenty of wicket-taking balls; he has played on lots and lots of non-seaming, consistent-in-bounce pitches, and has taken barely a single wicket with a wicket-taking ball. Yes, I've seen most of the wickets.
I know perfectly well that McGrath and Ambrose's ability with seam are similar (personally I'd say McGrath is a better swinger than Ambrose was), but the difference is Ambrose was a far better cutter of the ball.

okay so he didnt bowl every ball on the same spot but he could on his day bowl 9/10 balls on the same spot. and no just because you bowl accurately it doesnt mean that you cant score off him on flat wickets....

Mostly it does, though.
And I'd say it was significantly more than 9\10 - maybe 19\20.

will you ever stop with the b/s? how many times do i have to tell you that accuracy and ER dont go hand in hand in test matches??

Many as you want - you're not going to change the fact that inaccurate will almost always be more expensive than accurte.

and if you are going to use stats at least use them right instead of making them up, vaas has had 7 series where he has gone for more than 3.24, of course a match by match analysis would prove a lot more given that his performances often vary every game.

Yes, they do - must have made a mistake with the figures, too.

which does not call for this statement.....
'Curtley Ambrose was every bit as accurate. So, believe it or not, is Chaminda Vaas.'

All right, then "he's had spells where he's bowled every bit as accurately as Curtley and McGrath's best spells".
And he hasn't had nearly the amount of poor strokes played as McGrath typically has.

or rather his inablity to be able to penetrate on most occasions outside of the sub continent......

Who needs penetration when you get loads of poor strokes? If Chaminda had had as many poor strokes played to him as McGrath, he'd be considered every bit as good.

no hes never been pinpoint accurate has lee, and even if he did it was on a very rare occasion, and its quite conceivable that he wasnt bowling to lara and that he wasnt tring to bounce lara out in the way that flintoff did.

He looked like he was doing pretty well in the last series.

and this coming from someone who claims that mcgrath and pollock can be lucky for all of their careers

No, just for the last 3 years.

its a combination of pace, accuracy and the short stuff, and as ive said earlier there have been very few bowlers capable of doing all of the 3. the ones that were just didnt try it....

What a coincidence that is.
D'you think there might be a reason why they didn't try it? Because they had better options, maybe?

3 things
1) the bowling wasnt brilliant, most of the time they bowled too short,certainly wasnt anywhere near good ball after good ball.
2) there were plenty of edges and chances going through slip etc
3) it was on a flat wicket

Certainly it was a flat wicket - it almost never happens on seaming, turning or uneven wickets.
There were indeed a few edges - no chances, though. I'd have mentioned them if there were, and I'd not rate the innings anywhere near so highly. Edges happen in any innings.
The bowling very often consisted of good-line balls being thrashed through the covers, and middle-stump balls being forced down the ground. It was a bit short at times, but there was nothing wrong with the lines and certainly that sort of bowling would almost never be anywhere near that expensive normally.

it is if the batsman ends up getting runs through the slips or by taking risks....

Really? What use is that to the fielding side? It's only use if it's followed by an edge to hand.

no that is what you keep inferring for no apparent reason, economy often results from bowling things in the right places, but it doesnt mean that bowlers are striving for economy, you could bowl economically by bowling ball after ball wide of off stump too. bowling in the right places has the added advantage of frustrating the batsman....

Bowling where you've got no chance of hitting the ball is, believe me, far more frustrating than bowling at the top of off all the time!
Anyone who watched the Giles-Tendulkar innings can tell that! Or Harmison in Australia.

 

[tooextracool]

Can never be wrong - what a ridiculous ascertation!
Anyone can be wrong.
Whether you've done both or whether you've simply watched it play, you're every bit as unlikely to be wrong.

no you're not, if you've watched the game on tv its highyl unlikely that you can be wrong about a pitch right there, but its impossible for an expert whos done both to be wrong.

 

[tooextracool]

"Brilliant" or not, it should have been pretty obvious that I'd never think you were saying I'd said Brearley had got his leadership skills from me.

actually with someone of your ignorance, id always like to double check.....

 

[tooextracool]

Really?
Why is it so rarely seen, in cases of it being attempted, that batsmen hang back when they should be pushing forward, and lose their wicket as a result.

because you need to actually watch cricket to see that....