Here's an idea for Englands ODI squad!!

[tooextracool]

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

a lot more actually....

 

[tooextracool]

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.

no he was never too wide, only too short.

 

[tooextracool]

It happens far more than you seem to realise.

no it happens far less often then you seem to realise....

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".

no its the same thing except that with a death-threat you end up being a lot more nervous and under a lot more pressure.

 

[tooextracool]

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

no your eye can afford to be ordinary if you can make up for it in other skills.....

 

[tooextracool]

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

yes but a ball like that would 99 times out of a 100 have been played and missed at, therefore any batsman that got an edge on that must be considered unlucky. and its amazing how you completely ignored the fact that he was the top scorer from either side in that innings.

Which is why Nico Boje got 8 cheap wickets...

2 things
1) ive said time and time again that just because a finger spinner takes wickets on a surface it doesnt automatically mean that it is a turner
2) we've seen several other bowlers do it on non-spinner friendly wickets and on those occasions you have put it down to poor shots etc.

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

and there we go again, wherever convenient you say that it was poor batting was what got bowlers wickets yet when boje gets 8 wickets you dont do the same.

No surprise there....

so it adds to the list that refutes the case then?

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

no its not, if someone scored 40 when the entire team scored 100 you cant say that he failed

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

oh no,even if you look at it your way 6 successes and 9 failures on seamer friendly wickets suggests that hes definetly not a FTB......you dont just magically play well so often on seamer friendly wickets.

 

[tooextracool]

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..

yet 2 isolated incidents from 2 different seasons dont prove a thing, i wouldnt be surprised if he succeeded against other spinners in the same season.

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

you've expained your statements by twisting them around some more....

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.

and in my experience short bowling has got wickets just about as often while cutters havent been half as effective on flat wickets.

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.

yes they have bowled well enough its just that they havent been fortunate enough. indeed on another day the same 30 plays and misses might have got many more wickets....

 

[tooextracool]

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.

no mcgrath and ambrose have been extremely similar in the kind of wickets that they take, indeed if mcgrath doesnt deserve the wickets hes taken neither does ambrose.

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

yes and ambrose always had a fantastic ER, because he was deadly accurate.

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

its almost always, not always, id say that its 8/10 times that it is the case, therefore you cant use something like that to prove me wrong.

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

and by your counts hes been wayward on several occasions.

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.

no he has, except that anything that vaas does whether it be a ball on leg stump ends up being lauded for some reason or the other..

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..

and because batsman only play poor strokes when you can penetrate and create pressure.....

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

nowhere near as accurate as someone like flintoff was in the last series...i dont remember him trying to bounce lara out at the start of his innings and i dont remember him pitching the ball up every now and again either.

No, just for the last 3 years.

so now its just 3 years then? and based on those 3 years you say that mcgrath and pollock dont deserve their wickets throughout their careers?

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?.

and did those other options work as successfully as flintoffs?? laras average against all the teams suggest that it didnt....

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..

no there were several edges etc that went over the fielders and over the slips.

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.

if it was too short at times then it obviously wasnt good ball after good ball then was it??do you not understand what bowling ball after ball in the right areas means?
makhaya ntini is a master of bowling absolute rubbish short stuff on flat wickets and this was no exception....

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

err its called 'luck'?

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.

no that is frustration using economy rates, something that you completely denied ever happened with quality batsmen. and it usually doesnt given that both harmison and giles didnt cause significant problems to the respective sides.

 

[Richard]

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.

Nothing is impossible.

 

[Richard]

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

Rather an ignorant definition of "ignorance", there.

 

[Richard]

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

Which provides no problem whatsoever to anyone.

 

[Richard]

a lot more actually....

Yes, of course - in your perception.
Not so in mine.

 

[Richard]

no he was never too wide, only too short.

As demonstrated by Gayle repeatedly thrashing him through the covers at the start of most innings.

 

[Richard]

no it happens far less often then you seem to realise....

Going round in circles here...

no its the same thing except that with a death-threat you end up being a lot more nervous and under a lot more pressure.

Incomparably so, in fact.

 

[Richard]

no your eye can afford to be ordinary if you can make up for it in other skills.....

It can afford to be ordinary but it cannot afford to be below a certain standard.
If it is, you will be beaten for pace all the time by a really quick bowler.

 

[Richard]

yes but a ball like that would 99 times out of a 100 have been played and missed at, therefore any batsman that got an edge on that must be considered unlucky. and its amazing how you completely ignored the fact that he was the top scorer from either side in that innings.

It's not amazing - I didn't ignore it - but nonetheless the match produced a not-outstanding total from him.
And for crying-out-loud - any batsman who gets out to a RUD must be considered unlucky - but they're all part of bowler-friendly pitches! Bad luck is part of bowler-friendly pitches. It still contributes to a pattern of failing on them - anyone must be expected to do less well on bowler-friendly pitches than batsman-friendly ones - but if there's a significant difference, someone can be said to be a flat-track bully.

ive said time and time again that just because a finger spinner takes wickets on a surface it doesnt automatically mean that it is a turner

And the two reports I read on this match both described the surface as a turner, which Nicky Boje took advantage of. So I didn't just assume actually - but I don't think too many people would really consider Boje that good a bowler on non-turners.

we've seen several other bowlers do it on non-spinner friendly wickets and on those occasions you have put it down to poor shots etc.

Because that's what the case has been.

and there we go again, wherever convenient you say that it was poor batting was what got bowlers wickets yet when boje gets 8 wickets you dont do the same.

No, I actually saw the pitch and most of the wickets in this case - it was poor batting and high-class swing bowling (neither of which have any reflection on the pitch). No turn, no seam.

so it adds to the list that refutes the case then?

No, you think it does - I think it does not.

no its not, if someone scored 40 when the entire team scored 100 you cant say that he failed

You can - and he did.

oh no,even if you look at it your way 6 successes and 9 failures on seamer friendly wickets suggests that hes definetly not a FTB......you dont just magically play well so often on seamer friendly wickets.

No, you don't - you just play well on an odd occasion.

 

[Richard]

yet 2 isolated incidents from 2 different seasons dont prove a thing, i wouldnt be surprised if he succeeded against other spinners in the same season.

He might possibly have done - nonetheless, it's just a tiny bit of a coincidence that someone can have 2 of those isolated incidents, 3 years apart, where something of a very similar nature happens. It's even more of a coincidence that the relative player was a Western Australian - batsmen who've always been notorius for weakness against spin because of not facing very much of it.

you've expained your statements by twisting them around some more....

No, you've said I have.
There have been many, many occasions where you have stated "you've said this" and I have shown that you are incorrect. So, in your perception, I have twisted what I've said. Except that I've never said what you want me to have twisted.

and in my experience short bowling has got wickets just about as often while cutters havent been half as effective on flat wickets.

Then we've reached another dead-end... that will resurface next time we get someone discussing the merits of bowling.

yes they have bowled well enough its just that they havent been fortunate enough. indeed on another day the same 30 plays and misses might have got many more wickets....

They might - and if they have, well bowled.
If they haven't - try again.
Otherwise, all you'll get yourself is the reputation of an unlucky bowler - like Collymore and Flintoff (until last winter, when he became a lucky bowler).

 

[Richard]

no mcgrath and ambrose have been extremely similar in the kind of wickets that they take, indeed if mcgrath doesnt deserve the wickets hes taken neither does ambrose.

If you say so...

yes and ambrose always had a fantastic ER, because he was deadly accurate.

Indeed.
Well, or rather, like any rule, there was the odd exception, but any time Ambrose was expensive it was an anomaly.

its almost always, not always, id say that its 8/10 times that it is the case, therefore you cant use something like that to prove me wrong.

I'd say it's about 19\20.

and by your counts hes been wayward on several occasions.

Yes, he has - he's been accurate far more often, though.

no he has, except that anything that vaas does whether it be a ball on leg stump ends up being lauded for some reason or the other..

Rubbish, I've never praised him for bowling poorly.

and because batsman only play poor strokes when you can penetrate and create pressure.....

If batsmen play poor strokes you don't need to bowl penetratively!

nowhere near as accurate as someone like flintoff was in the last series...i dont remember him trying to bounce lara out at the start of his innings and i dont remember him pitching the ball up every now and again either.

If you say so - nonetheless, his figures were far better than they normally are. And it still doesn't change the fact that, in Lara's 13-year career, there are bound to be more than a few occasions where people have tried that.

so now its just 3 years then? and based on those 3 years you say that mcgrath and pollock dont deserve their wickets throughout their careers?

No, I don't - I've always said I can only guess at the rest of their careers before 2000\01-2001.

 

[Richard]

and did those other options work as successfully as flintoffs?? laras average against all the teams suggest that it didnt....

Lara's failed in other series, believe me - especially between 1994\95 and 2001\02.
Just because he's done well at times against everyone doesn't disguise the fact that even the best are outdone at times.
One such occasion was in 2000 (England). Another in 2000\01 (Australia).

no there were several edges etc that went over the fielders and over the slips.

Yes, there were, I just said that. There weren't, however, any chances.

if it was too short at times then it obviously wasnt good ball after good ball then was it??do you not understand what bowling ball after ball in the right areas means?
makhaya ntini is a master of bowling absolute rubbish short stuff on flat wickets and this was no exception....

It wasn't just Ntini, it was all the bowlers - and yes, shortish balls can be good balls, as long as they're on the right line. All the bowlers bowled plenty of good-line balls, and Gayle thrashed many of them through the covers.

err its called 'luck'?

Yes, it is - nonetheless, it results in a fast scoring-rate without wickets falling, which is no use to the fielding side and a lot of use to the batting side.

no that is frustration using economy rates, something that you completely denied ever happened with quality batsmen. and it usually doesnt given that both harmison and giles didnt cause significant problems to the respective sides.

I've not once said it never happens - I have, however, said it doesn't happen very often to quality batsmen, and when it does it doesn't result in wickets falling anywhere near as often as some seem to think.

 

[tooextracool]

Nothing is impossible.

and id take an opinion of someone who is 99% right....of course the fact that several other experts happened to agree with him on the fact that the motera wicket was dead makes totally impossible for all of them to be wrong.

 

[tooextracool]

Rather an ignorant definition of "ignorance", there.

once again showing your ignorance.....