Page 34 of 36 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 LastLast
Results 496 to 510 of 535

Thread: Here's an idea for Englands ODI squad!!

  1. #496
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool
    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.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  2. #497
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool
    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.

  3. #498
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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.
    Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
    Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
    Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!

  4. #499
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    "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.....


  5. #500
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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....

  6. #501
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Really? How many?
    About 1\8th at the absolute most, I'd be willing to wager.
    a lot more actually....

  7. #502
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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.

  8. #503
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    It happens far more than you seem to realise.
    no it happens far less often then you seem to realise....


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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.

  9. #504
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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.....

  10. #505
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    No surprise there....
    so it adds to the list that refutes the case then?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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.

  11. #506
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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....


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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....

  12. #507
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Yes, they do - must have made a mistake with the figures, too..
    and by your counts hes been wayward on several occasions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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..

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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....

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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....


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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.

  13. #508
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool
    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.

  14. #509
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool
    actually with someone of your ignorance, id always like to double check.....
    Rather an ignorant definition of "ignorance", there.

  15. #510
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool
    because you need to actually watch cricket to see that....
    Which provides no problem whatsoever to anyone.

Page 34 of 36 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Vic Bushrangers 04/05 Squad
    By Hoggy in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 28-06-2004, 12:22 AM
  2. England squad named
    By Craig in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 24-02-2004, 12:11 PM
  3. Aussie 30 man Prelim World Cup Squad annouced
    By Blewy in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 04-12-2002, 03:56 PM
  4. Player Movements.
    By Graham in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 14-09-2002, 05:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •