Yes, of course - in your perception.Originally Posted by tooextracool
Not so in mine.
Yes, of course - in your perception.Originally Posted by tooextracool
Not so in mine.
Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourthcricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006
(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
As demonstrated by Gayle repeatedly thrashing him through the covers at the start of most innings.Originally Posted by tooextracool
Going round in circles here...Originally Posted by tooextracool
Incomparably so, in fact.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.
It can afford to be ordinary but it cannot afford to be below a certain standard.Originally Posted by tooextracool
If it is, you will be beaten for pace all the time by a really quick bowler.
It's not amazing - I didn't ignore it - but nonetheless the match produced a not-outstanding total from him.Originally Posted by tooextracool
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.
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.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
Because that's what the case has been.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.
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.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, you think it does - I think it does not.so it adds to the list that refutes the case then?
You can - and he did.no its not, if someone scored 40 when the entire team scored 100 you cant say that he failed
No, you don't - you just play well on an odd occasion.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.
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.Originally Posted by tooextracool
No, you've said I have.you've expained your statements by twisting them around some more....
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.
Then we've reached another dead-end... that will resurface next time we get someone discussing the merits of bowling.and in my experience short bowling has got wickets just about as often while cutters havent been half as effective on flat wickets.
They might - and if they have, well bowled.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....
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).
If you say so...Originally Posted by tooextracool
Indeed.yes and ambrose always had a fantastic ER, because he was deadly accurate.
Well, or rather, like any rule, there was the odd exception, but any time Ambrose was expensive it was an anomaly.
I'd say it's about 19\20.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, he has - he's been accurate far more often, though.and by your counts hes been wayward on several occasions.
Rubbish, I've never praised him for bowling poorly.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..
If batsmen play poor strokes you don't need to bowl penetratively!and because batsman only play poor strokes when you can penetrate and create pressure.....
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.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, I don't - I've always said I can only guess at the rest of their careers before 2000\01-2001.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?
Lara's failed in other series, believe me - especially between 1994\95 and 2001\02.Originally Posted by tooextracool
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).
Yes, there were, I just said that. There weren't, however, any chances.no there were several edges etc that went over the fielders and over the slips.
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.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....
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.err its called 'luck'?
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.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.
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.Originally Posted by Richard
Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!
once again showing your ignorance.....Originally Posted by Richard
well it clearly does to you,AFAIC anyone who has watched sufficient cricket would know that im right.Originally Posted by Richard
nope because no one has that bad eyes, once you get your eye in, i dont care who you are, if you apply yourself, you wont have too many problems surviving at the crease.Originally Posted by Richard
he was the top scorer on a deadly pitch, and he survived everything that any batsman possibly could. he cant be blamed for getting out to a ball like that and therefore it cant be considered a failure. its just as bad as getting run out, possibly worse because even a run out requires some amount of a mistake from a batsman, an RUD doesnt.Originally Posted by Richard
seriously the 40 odd on that wicket should be taken as a success,because he accomplished something that no won else could.
and these 2 reports are? and just because boje took wickets on a wicket it doesnt automatically make it a turner. there could be 2 explanations for that, the batsmen either batted poorly, which by all accounts they did, and/or boje actually bowled well.Originally Posted by Richard
and it could be the same here too.....Originally Posted by Richard
precisely there was no turn.....Originally Posted by Richard
so despite scoring a 50 when the pitch was at its worse and no one else got higher than 28, his performances in the test must be considered a failure....you really do get dumberOriginally Posted by Richard
no you cant because you can only do as well as the pitch allows you to do on it.....do you even know the definition of failure? its when you dont assist the team in any significant way, scoring 2/5th of the runs that your team makes is not a failure.Originally Posted by Richard
and even 6 out of 15 is not the odd occasion(despite the fact that hes actually succeeded far more often)....succeeding 40% of the time on seamer friendly wickets is an extremely good effort whatever way you look at it....definetly not what i would call 'the odd occasion'. give it up richard, even you know you have lost it.Originally Posted by Richard
yes having an off day twice in 3 years is an amazing coincidence isnt it?Originally Posted by Richard
go ahead twisting them around even further....Originally Posted by Richard
yes and if all it takes is the same performance to take wickets sometimes then why should a player be criticised when sometimes his wickets come from non wicket taking balls?Originally Posted by Richard
and that adds another 400 lucky wickets.....Originally Posted by Richard
and whatever way you look at it, you cant assume that bowling accurately = good ER.Originally Posted by Richard
not often enough to be considered a quality bowler.....and the average reflects that. if he was indeed as accurate as ambrose etc he would also be just about as 'lucky'Originally Posted by Richard
no youve called him unlucky on those occasions...Originally Posted by Richard
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)